Stoke-on-Trent City Council (202221758)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202221758

Stoke-on-Trent City Council

1 February 2024

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 a request to complete repairs in the resident’s bathroom.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant and has resided in the property since 4 June 2018. It is a three-bedroom property, where the resident lives with her partner and 2 dependent children. The resident has disclosed vulnerabilities to this Service and to the landlord.
3. On 6 September 2022, the resident reported that her bathroom wall was rotting which had led to the shower rail coming away from the wall. The repairs team advised that this work was “out of scope” as it believed the shower had been installed by the resident after she moved in, so on 14 September 2022 she made a complaint. She reported:
   1. The bathroom wall was rotten.
   2. It had previously been painted over and sealant applied but both were peeling off.
   3. The shower bracket was falling off the wall which meant it was unsafe to use.
   4. She had been diagnosed with epilepsy which caused petit mal seizures and vacant episodes. It was unsafe for her to use the bath, due to the risk of drowning if she had an episode. Her daughter had been experiencing similar seizures and was being assessed for the same condition.
   5. She was requesting that the wall be repaired and a shower be fitted securely.
   6. She had photographs of the shower on the day she moved in, which she felt proved that she had not arranged the installation.
4. On 27 September 2022, the landlord provided a stage 1 response via telephone call. It informed her that it had no record of a shower in the property, which is why the repair was out of scope. It said that she would not be charged for installing it, however, she should not use it, and it would not complete any repairs or alternations. The complaint was not upheld, and it told her to contact her housing officer so a disability assessment could be arranged.
5. The resident requested the complaint be escalated to stage 2 on 9 November 2022 and reiterated that she had not installed the shower and it was present at the time she moved in. She said she had provided photographic evidence to her housing officer, which was time stamped at the time she moved in. The Social Care Occupational Therapy Service (SCOTS) had told her it was an 8 week wait for a call and in the meantime, she had no safe bathing facilities.
6. In its stage 2 response dated 13 December 2022 the landlord informed the resident that:
   1. She would not be able to have the current shower repaired, replaced, or even moved by the landlord until the SCOTS had made their assessments and provided it with instruction.
   2. It “acknowledged her disappointment given the situation she and her daughter were in” but had to take advice and guidance regarding alterations and adaptations to existing fixtures, as this may have a detrimental impact on the household.
   3. The complaint was not upheld, however a referral had been made to SCOTS.
7. On 12 January 2023, SCOTS contacted the resident to arrange an assessment. The resident gave them a description of the current bathroom and informed them that she did not require a full wet room, she just needed repairs to the shower. They determined that they could not fix the shower and gave the advice to “strip wash” in the meantime.
8. The resident contacted the landlord on 13 January 2023 informing them again that she had provided photographic evidence that the shower was installed before she moved in. She requested photographs of the property from before her move in date and felt that the previous tenant should be liable. The landlord responded on 16 January 2023 to say that the voids team would not photograph the interior unless they felt a recharge was necessary, so no photos were saved for this property.
9. In July 2023, the resident paid for a new PVC splashback and shower tray trim, with associated adhesives totalling £123.57. This enabled the shower bracket to be refitted to make it safe for use. She felt that the family could no longer manage without shower facilities, and that it had been made clear the landlord would not repair it for her.
10. On 18 August 2023, the landlord’s adaptations department noted that no work had been completed, and that following its request to SCOTS for a wet room the resident was contacted and was on the waiting list for an assessment. In subsequent emails between the landlord and SCOTS it was acknowledged that there was a backlog of approximately 15 months. The SCOTS assessment was completed on 3 December 2023 and it was determined that no additional support was required as the resident had working facilities.
11. Following further discussions with the resident, the landlord contacted her on 11 September 2023 and informed her that it would:
    1. Turn the bath, fit new mixer taps, and a new thermostatic mixer shower on the internal wall.
    2. Install a new shower rail.
    3. Remove the PVC splashback from the bath and install new grey PVC panelled splashbacks to the bath and sink areas to prevent further damage to plasterwork.
    4. Fit new vinyl flooring due to the new bath being a different size and also install the same vinyl flooring in the separate toilet room to match the bathroom.
    5. Check that the existing extractor fan was working correctly as it was not fully functional and carry out any necessary repairs.
12. On 13 September 2023, the landlord informed the Ombudsman that there had been a “misunderstanding…. and conclusions were drawn that she required a wet room.” Following the meeting from 10 September 2023, the work was scheduled for 25-28 September 2023 and it would follow up with the resident on 1 October 2023. The landlord has confirmed to this Service that works were completed on 28 September 2023.
13. While the resident is satisfied that she now has working facilities, she remains dissatisfied with the handling of the request and the length of time taken.

Assessment and findings

14. The focus of this investigation is whether the landlord acted appropriately following a repair reported by the resident. We recognise that Social Care Occupational Therapy Service (SCOTS) were heavily involved with this case and the resident was unhappy with delays in their service. However paragraph 42j of the Scheme states that we cannot consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body. The actions of the SCOTS team would fall under the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, so will not be assessed in this report.
15. The record keeping by the landlord is not thorough. Repair records were provided to the Ombudsman but this did not explain the rationale for decisions. While a number of internal ‘complaint monitoring forms’ were provided to us, we have not been provided with a copy of the original complaint.
16. At the time of the complaint, the landlord’s process allowed for stage 1 responses to be provided over the phone. For this reason, there is no record of a letter or email to the resident with the stage 1 response. The landlord has confirmed to the Ombudsman that this policy has since been updated to align with the Complaint Handling Code and residents will now receive written responses at each complaint stage.
17. While this is a positive step, the Ombudsman notes that the landlord’s website and complaints policy contain outdated information regarding how and when a resident may approach us. A recommendation will be added to the end of this report for this to be corrected.
18. The notes relating to the stage 1 complaint call state that the resident was advised to contact her housing officer to arrange an assessment for her health conditions. There was no mention of the photographs the resident had offered as proof that she had not installed the shower. The landlord should have considered the evidence offered by the resident and taken that into consideration when making its decision, particularly given the fact that the landlord had no photographs of the property prior to the resident moving in.
19. The resident reiterated the fact that she had evidence to support her claim that she had not installed the shower throughout the complaints process. There is no record of this ever being requested during the complaints process. The resident sent her housing officer a photograph dated 31 May 2018 by email. The photograph was of a shower bracket above a bath with tiling and backsplash. This e-mail was acknowledged and the resident was told that it would be sent to the relevant department.
20. There are no notes to confirm that the photograph was sent to another department, and it is not referred to in any other notes provided by the landlord. When the photographs were referred to by the resident during the complaints process, it should have requested another copy and made an informed decision about who was responsible for the shower and bracket based on the content of the photograph, its knowledge of the address, previous records of property viewings and any voids. This decision should also have taken into consideration that the landlord did not have any photographs from the same period to compare against.
21. A tenancy audit was carried out by the landlord on 16 January 2019 and it was noted that there had been no adaptations or tenant improvements, despite the shower already being present based on the resident’s evidence. A further audit in 2022 also highlighted no adaptations or improvements. It is therefore unclear how the landlord drew the conclusion that the shower had been installed by the resident when its own paperwork did not record this.
22. The landlord’s void management policy states that inspections are carried out pre- and post-termination, however photographs are only taken if it feels a recharge may be required. The landlord has informed this Service that it “has a policy of cleansing its retained data, and has not retained any reports or surveys of the condition of the property from before the current tenant’s occupation”.
23. It is the landlord’s decision whether to take photographs of every void property or retain information for its records. However, it would be in the landlord’s interest to maintain accurate records of non-standard installations and previous tenant improvements to each of its properties. Doing so would ensure it is not required to adopt maintenance and servicing responsibilities for equipment it has not installed due to a failure in recordkeeping. A recommendation will be added to the end of this report.
24. It is understandable that the resident felt frustrated throughout this period, and that the landlord was not considering her evidence. She had also expressed concerns about her health and the health of her daughter as well as their safety if forced to use the bath.
25. The decision to make a SCOTS referral was reasonable, as the landlord had been made aware of new vulnerabilities in the household. This referral would inform it if any other adaptations or support would be required. However, this referral prevented a timely investigation into the issues. The landlord has since stated that it misunderstood the nature of the resident’s request and a SCOTS referral was required to approve wet room installation. However, the resident had clearly stated throughout the complaints process that she did not need a wet room and simply wanted the existing shower refitting.
26. The resident has informed this Service that, when the landlord completed the works in her bathroom, they removed the PVC panels that she had fitted and replaced them with identical panels. While there may have been an appropriate reason for this, it has not been communicated to the resident. She felt that she had wasted money as she paid for the panels following the landlord’s position that it would not complete repairs, and then they have been removed at a later date. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider a goodwill gesture or compensation as the resident had incurred financial cost because of its miscommunication.
27. The Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the request for repairs. It took a very confused approach throughout, and its reasons for not completing the repair were conflicting. The original reason for refusing the request was that the shower was not its responsibility. Later, it advised it misunderstood the request and believed the resident was asking for a wet room to be installed for her disability. It did not sufficiently investigate whether it was responsible for the shower in the property and did not consider the resident’s evidence.
28. It is positive that the landlord took accountability for this error, however it took approximately 1 year for this to be picked up on and resolved. There is no evidence that an apology was given to the resident, nor any compensation was offered following this. The landlord has provided no explanation for its change in decision and eventual agreement to complete repairs, despite this being requested by the Ombudsman. The decision was made 3 weeks after a request for evidence was made by the Ombudsman, and there was no evidence that its position was being reviewed before this date. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the intervention of the Ombudsman was a contributing factor in the landlord’s decision to repair the shower.
29. Crucially, the landlord failed to consider the effect that the lack of shower would have on the vulnerable occupants. While there were alternative bathing facilities in the property the resident felt that these were not appropriate or safe for her or her daughter given the unpredictable nature of their health condition. The advice to ‘strip wash’ may be appropriate in an emergency situation, it is not fair to expect this for a prolonged period of time, particularly for a child.  The resident eventually paid for repairs herself, however there was still a period of 10 months where the shower could not be used safely.

Determination

30. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a request to complete repairs in the resident’s bathroom.

Orders

31. The Ombudsman makes the following orders:
    1. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must arrange for a senior manager to apologise to the resident in writing for its failures as outlined in this report.
    2. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must pay compensation to the resident of £923.57 which is made up of:
       1. £500 for distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s request.
       2. £300 for time and trouble incurred by the resident in pursuing this matter.
       3. £123.57 to reimburse the resident for the money she paid to repair the shower prior to the new bathroom installation.
    3. The landlord should confirm compliance, with evidence, with the above orders to the Housing Ombudsman Service within 4 weeks of this report.

Recommendations

32. The landlord should amend the complaints procedure and the complaints section of its website to reflect the current process for residents approaching the Housing Ombudsman Service. Suggested wording can be found at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/landlords-info/telling-residents-about-our-service/
33. The landlord should review its voids procedure and consider:
    1. What evidence it requires to make a confident decision on repair responsibility for non-standard installations
    2. Where this evidence should be saved, and in what format
    3. How it communicates repair responsibilities for existing non-standard installations to new tenants in a property following a void.
34. The landlord should share the outcomes of this investigation with the local authority OT service (SCOTS) and should liaise with OT to ensure that there are effective liaison and communication arrangements in place between the two services. This should include jointly identifying any key learning points from this case and taking action to address these as appropriate
35. The landlord should notify the Ombudsman of its intentions regarding these recommendations within four weeks of this report.