Clarion Housing Association Limited (202208917)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208917

Clarion Housing Association Limited

30 March 2023

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 wet room repairs, and the associated amount of compensation offered.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The landlord is aware that the resident has vulnerabilities, such as being both elderly and disabled. The resident was represented by her local councillor during this process.
3. On the evening of 15 July 2021, the resident reported a leak had occurred from her wet-room into her neighbour’s property. The landlord attended the next morning and isolated the leak. It repaired the leak issue the same day, and identified follow on works that needed to be completed, including fitting a new shower tray, relocating or making accessible the heating pipework and renewing the flooring.
4. On 28 July 2021, the resident’s councillor made a complaint on her behalf. It stated that although a new shower tray and drainage pump had been replaced within two weeks of the issue, the shower screen and non-slip floor had not been fitted. As a result, the resident was unable to use the shower amenity, as it was unsafe to do so due to her disability. The resident has also been required to continuously chase the landlord for an update. The councillor later added that the landlord had suggested a repair date of 7 September 2021, which would leave the resident without washing facilities for two months in total.
5. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord attended the property on 3 August 2021. It identified what remained of the works raised in July 2021, which consisted of fitting the shower screen, repairing holes left from moving the pipework and renewing the floor. It arranged to fit the shower screen on 18 August 2021, and kept the same appointment for 7 September 2021 to renew the floor.
6. The landlord sent its response on 20 August 2021. It stated that the resident had full use of the wet-room, after it had installed the shower screen on 18 August 2021, despite the renewal of the non-slip floor being outstanding. It acknowledged that the repairs were slightly delayed, and stated this was due to a backlog of work. It offered the resident a total of £178 compensation, in recognition of the delay, its lack of communication and inconvenience.
7. The resident’s councillor escalated her complaint on 17 September 2021. It stated that the resident was dissatisfied that the landlord had attended on 7 September 2021, but had just measured the floor and not renewed it. A new appointment had been booked for 20 October 2021, but the resident was unhappy that she would continue to be without a shower facility. After intervention from the councilor, the landlord moved the repair date to 8 October 2021.
8. The landlord’s final response was dated 26 October 2021. It did not acknowledge the further delay to the resident’s repair, or the subsequent loss of her shower amenity. It detailed the work it had done to the resident’s tiling and pipework, and acknowledged that in renewing the flooring, the bathroom door had subsequently stuck and needed to be repaired. It offered the resident £15 in recognition of this inconvenience.
9. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, the councillor has stated that the resident remains unhappy with the delays to her repairs and that the landlord failed to respond to the main part of her complaint in its final response, and she is dissatisfied with the amount of compensation offered.

Assessment

10. Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is obliged to keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling house for the supply of sanitation. This obligation is confirmed on the landlord’s website, which states that it is responsible for showers and water pipes. Additionally, the website also states that it responsible for repairing wall tiles, flooring and fixing damage caused by its repairs.
11. According to the landlord’s repairs policy, an emergency repair can be classified as one that presents an immediate danger to the resident, the public or the property or would jeopardise the health, safety or security of the resident. Any emergency repair should be attended within 24 hours. Routine repairs should be attended within 28 days of the repair being reported.
12. The landlord’s vulnerable resident’s policy states that it will work in consideration of vulnerable residents’ needs, abilities and circumstances in the delivery of its services. It also recognises that vulnerable residents may find it more difficult to cope if something goes wrong in their home and they need a repair. When a resident contacts the landlord to request a repair, it will confirm if there are any disabilities or support needs which should be taken into account. This should be recorded, so that the service can be delivered appropriately, aligned to the needs of the household.
13. According to the landlord’s above policies, the landlord needed to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities and how it could alter its service to better provide for her.  It is not clear from the evidence when the first repairs took place to the resident’s wet-room. However, the resident has stated that the shower tray and drainage pump had been fitted, along with the concrete floor within two weeks of the leak occurring on 15 July 2021. After the landlord subsequently fitted the shower door on 18 August 2021, it told the resident that the wet-room was functional, if not totally repaired. This was not appropriate, as the landlord failed to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities, and any health and safety concerns of her using an unenclosed shower, without the non-slip floor. This is a failing, and could have represented a serious health risk for the resident.
14. Due to the resident’s particular circumstances, the wet-room could not have been deemed functional on 18 August 2021. The resident was therefore without her shower amenity from 15 July 2021, until the floor was laid on 8 October 2021. This is nearly three months without the appropriate means to properly shower, and is well outside of the landlord’s repair timeframe of 28 days. In a standard case, a delay is not always deemed a failing, if the landlord acted proactively to find a solution to the problem, updated the resident, and (where appropriate) considered interim solutions. In situations where the repair revolves around access to an amenity for a vulnerable person, the landlord would also be expected to consider if it would be appropriate/possible to expedite the repairs.
15. The landlord did bring several of the resident’s repair appointments forward, however this was done at the request of the resident’s local councillor, who was required to intervene on numerous occasions. It did not consider undertaking the repairs any faster than its normal timeframe, and when delayed, it did not fully recognise how long the resident was without a shower, or consider the impact this would have on her. The landlord also failed to keep the resident updated on her repairs, and did not consider any interim solutions. Overall the handling of the resident’s repairs to her wet-room were not appropriate and amount to a failing in the circumstances.
16. According to this Service’s complaint handing code, the landlord is required to use its complaint responses to identify where it has gone wrong, acknowledge any mistakes and to try and put these right. However, the landlord’s initial complaint response on 20 August 2021 was inappropriate, as it failed to address the resident’s concerns that she continued to be unable to use her wet-room, due to the lack of a non-slip floor. Although it recognised that there had been a delay in its repairs, it did not consider the correct length of time the resident had been without her facilities. It concluded that the wet-room was functional, despite it posing a health risk to the resident. The landlord’s final response dated 26 October 2021 was also inappropriate, as it did not address the substance of the resident’s escalation, which regarded the loss of her amenity during the delay to her repairs. The landlord addressed smaller issues with the repairs, rather than assessing its handling of the repair as whole. It also neglected to consider the impact the delays had on the resident. This is a failing.
17. The landlord’s initial offer of £178 compensation in August 2021 was proportionate to the inconvenience suffered at that time of the delay to repairs. However, there was an additional failure of the landlord to fully comprehend the impact of those delays on the resident. Subsequently, there were further delays to the resident’s repairs, which meant that the amount offered was no longer in proportion to the inconvenience suffered by the resident.

Determination (decision)

18. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of wet room repairs, and the associated amount of compensation offered.

Orders

19. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a further £250, in addition to the £178 compensation offered previously, totaling £428. The landlord must send evidence of its compliance with this order to this Service, within the same four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

20. The landlord should review the lessons learnt from this case, in particular how its repairs process takes into account the requirements of its vulnerable resident’s policy and what staff training might be necessary to ensure that this policy is embedded throughout its repairs process.