Cheshire Peaks & Plains Housing Trust (202001629)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202001629

Cheshire Peaks & Plains Housing Trust

11 March 2021

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. concerns about the condition and suitability of her bathroom;
   2. associated formal complaints.

Jurisdiction

2. Following the end of the complaints procedure in July 2020, and after the bathroom suitability complaint came within the Ombudsman’s formal remit for investigation on 18 September 2020, the resident contacted this Service on 25 September 2020 to report a sewage leak in her bathroom. She was advised to report the issue to the landlord and to make a formal complaint if she was dissatisfied with its response.
3. The resident reported the sewage leak to the landlord in October 2020 and she submits that there was then a period when she was using temporary toilet and washing facilities as she did not have a functioning shower or flushing toilet. In November 2020 she was temporarily decanted to another property for four weeks whilst the landlord carried out the necessary repairs to the soil pipe.
4. The resident provided updates to the Ombudsman between September and December 2020, regarding the sewage leak and her temporary decant, but there is no evidence of a formal complaint having been made to the landlord in that regard. Whilst the leak occurred in the bathroom, the issues were otherwise distinct from those raised in the first complaint and could not be foreseen from the investigations into that complaint. As a result, they cannot be considered as a continuance of the original bathroom suitability complaint.
5. In the absence of a formal complaint being made specifically in relation to the sewage leak and the decant, the landlord has not yet had an opportunity to investigate and respond to those issues itself in the first instance. As a result, the Ombudsman is unable to investigate them at this time. This is in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme, which states that this Service will not investigate complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the sewage leak and temporary decant, she may wish to raise a new complaint in that regard, as advised by the Ombudsman on 25 September 2020. 

Background and summary of events

6. The resident has raised concerns about her bathroom with the landlord since 2016. In March 2019 the landlord visited and cleaned the bathroom and in May 2019 it assessed the bathroom and concluded that there were no faults which required repair or replacement.
7. On 22 May 2020 the resident raised a complaint about her bathing and toilet facilities, saying that an independent plumber had attended and advised that work was required to the bathroom. In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 2 June 2020, it confirmed that it had inspected the bathroom on several occasions and found no repair issues but had previously paid for a cleaner to attend. It advised that the complaint had reached the end of Stage 1 of its complaints policy and the decision would not be reviewed any further. However, she was advised of her right to pursue the complaint to Stage 2 of its complaints policy if she wished.
8. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the complaint response and noted that she still had ongoing issues with the suitability of her bathroom, which she felt should be replaced with a wet room. The landlord then inspected the property on 9 June 2020 and concluded that cleaning the bathroom would address the issues. It advised that it would arrange, and meet the costs of, the cleaning.
9. In the landlord’s Stage 2 response of 23 July 2020 it reiterated the findings of the June 2020 inspection and noted that the resident had declined the offer of a cleaner, although it confirmed that this remained available if she changed her mind. It advised that, without a supporting reference from an occupational therapist (OT) it would not replace the bathroom with a wet room, as previous assessments had identified the bathroom as suitable for her needs. It advised that it was open to the resident to arrange a fresh OT assessment herself and it would then consider this. The landlord confirmed that the resident had now reached the end of its complaints procedure.

Policies and procedures

10. The landlord operates a two stage complaints process. At Stage 1 the formal complaint investigation will result in a written response within 10–working days. Residents unhappy with the Stage 1 response can request an escalation to Stage 2 of the complaints process. Stage 2 consists of review by an independent manager. The Stage 2 complaint response should be provided within 15–working days. 
11. The landlord’s policy on adaptations states that, where an adaptation is classed as minor works and can be carried out without specialist advice (e.g. grab rails) then it will complete this work as an appointed reactive repair. Other adaptation requests will be referred to the OT Team.

Assessment and findings

The Condition of the Bathroom

12. In accordance with the terms of the tenancy agreement and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the structure of the property, including walls and windows, and also for installations for heating, water and sanitation. Therefore, it was necessary for the landlord to investigate the resident’s concerns about the condition and suitability of her bathroom and to take appropriate steps to resolve any issues it identified.
13. In doing so, the landlord attended the property, carried out several assessments, concluded that no substantive works were necessary, offered to provide and fund further cleaning services, and invited the resident to arrange a further OT assessment which it could then review. This demonstrated that the landlord took the complaint seriously, applied appropriate resources to investigate the matter, and offered practical solutions to improve the situation.
14. It is clear that the landlord and resident hold differing views on the need to replace the bathroom with a wet room and this Service appreciates that the resident has her reasons for making this request. However, having arranged for appropriate inspections to be undertaken, the landlord was entitled to rely on the professional opinion of its suitably qualified staff in responding to the request and the associated complaint.
15. The landlord’s repairing obligation was to carry out repairs to address faults and maintain the washing and bathing facilities. The landlord considers that the installation of a wet room would be an improvement or adaptation rather than a required repair falling within those obligations. It also concluded that the walk-in shower was suitable for the resident based on its understanding of her assessed needs and noted that previous assessments had confirmed this.
16. The landlord’s Adaptations Policy is clear that more significant changes which require specialist advice will be referred to the OT Team (see paragraph 11 above). Where an OT assessment had already been carried out and concluded that the requested adaptations were not necessary, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on this in refusing the resident’s request. However, it actively invited her to arrange a new OT assessment if she felt her situation or needs had changed. This advice was appropriate in the circumstances and given in line with the landlord’s policy.
17. In the absence of any evidence that the bathroom was in a state of disrepair at that time, or that any specific works were required to bring it up to standard, the landlord had met its obligations to the resident (as detailed at paragraph 12 above). She was still free to report any new repairs issues which arose in the bathroom, and the landlord would be obliged to respond in accordance with its policies and procedures, but no further action or compensation was necessary on the facts of this complaint.

Complaint handling

18. The Stage 1 complaint was submitted on 22 May 2020 and responded to on 2 June 2020, well within the landlord’s 10-working day timeframe (see paragraph 10 above). The Stage 2 complaint was submitted in early June 2020, but the landlord did not respond until 23 July 2020, four weeks outside of the landlord’s 15-working day target response time (see paragraph 10 above).
19. It is accepted that the resident may have found this distressing and frustrating, given the ongoing uncertainty around whether the bathroom would be replaced. However, the evidence demonstrates that: the landlord was in contact with her during this period; a further inspection was carried out; and the landlord had made an offer to improve the situation by arranging for a cleaner to attend. As a result, the resident was aware that the landlord was taking steps to review her complaint and it was maintaining contact with her.
20. Together with the fact that the Stage 2 response ultimately reiterated the findings of the Stage 1 response, albeit with the benefit of a further assessment, the one-month delay in the complaint response being issued cannot be said to have materially impacted upon the resident. As a result, there is insufficient evidence of a serious failure in service by the landlord which would warrant further action or a compensation payment.

Determination (decision)

21. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in relation to the resident’s:
    1. concerns about the condition and suitability of her bathroom;
    2. associated formal complaint.