Luton Borough Council (202210084)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210084

Luton Borough Council

18 March 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs, in particular:
1. The shower room.
2. The Doors.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord in a 4 bedroom house, and her tenancy began in May 1996. At the time of the resident’s complaint the house contained a bathroom upstairs, and a shower room with a toilet, on the ground floor.
The landlord told this Service it did not have any recorded vulnerabilities for the resident, or members of her household. However, the evidence indicates that the resident advised the landlord a member of her household had a “bowel disorder”, and needed use of the shower room for “hygiene reasons”.

Summary of events

The resident contacted the landlord in June 2021 to raise a repair to the shower room. The landlord inspected on 15 June 2021, and the notes from the inspection state:
1. The resident wanted it to upgrade the shower room, as it had done with the upstairs bathroom.
2. The toilet and basin were “loose”.
3. The tiles in the shower were “falling off” the walls.
4. The floor needed “renewing”.
The landlord sent an internal email on 16 June 2021 asking whether it was prepared to “upgrade” the bathroom. The outcome of the inspection or follow up email is unclear.
The landlord sent a further internal email chasing an answer about the shower room in December 2021. An email from 24 January 2022 said that all residents (whose properties were of the same design) were told the landlord would not renew the downstairs shower rooms, and they would be removed. It commented that “most” residents had used them as storage rooms and the original installation was not of good quality. It had removed all the other shower rooms now, except the resident’s. An internal response on the same day said that if a property were empty the landlord could remove the shower rooms as it saw fit. But, if the property was occupied the shower room should be “maintained in good working order”.
It does not appear the landlord progressed with any repairs to the shower room at the time. It is unclear how/when the landlord communicated its position about the shower room to the resident.
The resident contacted the landlord on 16 February 2022 to make a complaint, and said:
1. The shower room had been in a “very bad” state for a “long time”.
2. The landlord had inspected the shower room, taken photos, and she had not heard anything since.
3. She was told by an officer for the landlord that he would “arrange for a report to be written” stating the works could not be done. She could then appeal its decision.
4. The resident asked the landlord to repair the shower room and pay her compensation for the “grief” the situation had caused.
The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 1 March 2022, and said:
1. It had a small number of properties with downstairs shower rooms.
2. In “most cases” they were being used as storage rooms, so it had removed the showers and fittings.
3. There were 2 exceptions to this, the resident’s property being one.
4. The resident “was aware” it was not going to do any “refurbishment” work on the shower room, and only repairs would be done.
5. The photos the resident had supplied only showed “minimal” issues.
6. The resident’s property had a “fully refurbished” bathroom on the first floor, which met the household’s “bathing needs”.
7. As the resident had fitted the hand wash basin and toilet seat herself, she was responsible for their repair and maintenance.
8. It had arranged an inspection of the resident’s property to find a mutually agreeable solution.
9. All compensation requests were dealt with by its insurance team, and she should contact the team directly. It gave the postage and email addresses of the insurance team.
The landlord inspected the resident’s property on 7 March 2022, and wrote to the resident on 10 March 2022 outlining its position in relation to repairs at her property. Its letter said:
1. She had fitted 4 “non standard” doors, and a door was missing from the living room. The “non standard” doors were either in “poor condition” or did not meet the “required standard”. As such it would need to replace the doors, and would recharge her £190 per door.
2. It would repair the “wobbly toilet” in the shower room.
3. It advised the basin was “non standard” (it is unclear whether it was prepared to repair it).
4. It would remove the downstairs shower, make good the walls, and do an initial ‘mist coat’.
5. It would send a quote to the resident for the works identified as her responsibility to repair. If the works went ahead, she would be recharged. If she instructed her own contractor, it would inspect afterwards to ensure the works met the required standard.
The records indicate that the repairs did not go ahead at the time. The landlord sent the resident another letter on 21 April 2022, outlining its position in relation to the repairs, as set out above.
The resident contacted the landlord on 13 May 2022 and asked her complaint to be considered at stage 2, and said:
1. She was unhappy with the “manner” in which its recent inspection was carried out. She felt it was “fault finding mission” to find reasons not to refurbish the shower room.
2. She was unhappy with the “high prices” that had been quoted for repairs it said she was responsible for.
3. The recent letter it sent “contradict[ed]” what was discussed at the inspection.
4. She was unhappy that she would need to pay for the door replacements, because the repair of the doors was the landlord’s responsibility.
5. She had removed the living room door because it had become damaged over time. She had replaced the other doors because the landlord was “unwilling” to do so.
6. The use of the shower room was needed for a member of the household that had a “bowel disorder”. The use of the second toilet and shower were needed for “hygiene reasons”.
7. She asked the landlord to progress with the repairs to the shower room.
The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 11 June 2022, and said:
1. It had concluded that the resident’s “dissatisfaction” was not “justified”.
2. Its stage 1 complaint response was “fair and reasonable”.
3. The works it said it would recharge her for were down to the resident’s “neglect” of the property.
4. It would carry out all of the recharge, and non recharge, repairs set out in its letter, if the resident was agreeable. It asked her to give her agreement so it could book the works in.
5. It outlined the section of her tenancy agreement that gave it the right to charge her for repairs needed, due to “neglect” or “carelessness”.
The landlord fitted a new basin in the shower room on 20 September 2022.
The resident contacted this Service on 22 June 2023 and asked us to investigate her complaint, and said:
1. The landlord had not yet repaired the doors.
2. She wanted the landlord to complete repairs to the shower from the shower room, as she needed 2 bathrooms due to a household member having a “disability”.
The landlord emailed this Service on 6 March 2024 and said:
1. It had been unable to complete the toilet repair, as the resident had not given it permission to do works in the shower room.
2. It was still its intention to remove the shower from the room.
3. It had attended to unblock the toilet since, and its contractor had not reported it loose.
4. Its position in relation to the doors remained, that it would replace them and recharge the resident. The resident had not yet given permission for this to go ahead.

Assessment and findings

Relevant obligations, policies, and procedures

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, and keep in repair and proper working order the installations for the supply of water and sanitation.
Landlords are required to consider the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not specify any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential health hazards. Damp and mould are potential hazards that fall within the scope of HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS. Where potential hazards are identified, improvement works are typically the starting point and additional monitoring is expected.
The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for maintaining bathroom fixtures such as basins, showers, and toilets. The tenancy agreement states the resident is responsible for minor repairs, such as toilet seats. The resident is not permitted to make alterations or improvements without the landlord’s permission, and is responsible for maintaining any alterations or improvements. The agreement also states that the resident must pay for repairs if they are needed due to “neglect” or misuse of the items in need of repair.
The landlord’s repairs handbook says it will complete “urgent” repairs within 5 working days, and “routine” repairs within 28 calendar days.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that it operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. Stage 1 complaint responses will be sent within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaint responses will be sent within 20 working days. The policy states that in “some cases” compensation will be offered to recognise “time and trouble” taken to resolve an issue.

Repairs to downstairs shower room

The landlord’s internal emails from January 2022 indicate that it was unclear on its own position about whether it was prepared to complete repairs to the shower room. This was inappropriate. In accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, as well as the resident’s tenancy agreement, the landlord was responsible for keeping the shower room in good working order.
It is noted that an officer for the landlord did advise that it needed to keep the shower room in working order, and it could dispose of the shower room if/when the property became void. However, this Service has seen no evidence that it sought to progress with the repair around that time, which was a failing in its handling of the matter. The landlord’s comment that “most” residents had just used the rooms as storage was also inappropriate. This indicates the landlord failed to consider the individual circumstances of the resident, and her desire to have the room repaired.
It is reasonable to conclude that the landlord did not formally communicate its position about the repair to the shower room to the resident, at that time. This Service has seen no evidence that it did, and the resident’s evident confusion and frustration about the issue, when she made her complaint in February 2022, supports this conclusion. The lack of communication about its position was a further failing in its handling of the matter that caused the resident an inconvenience. The landlord did not attend to a repair she had raised, or explain why it was not prepared to do so, this was unreasonable.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, of March 2022, was inappropriate in relation to the shower room repair. The landlord stated that it was not prepared to refurbish the shower room, only to repair it. This in itself was not unreasonable, and in line with its repair responsibilities. However, its stage 1 complaint response failed to acknowledge that it had been on notice about the repair since January 2022, and had not yet sought to complete any repairs to the shower room.
The landlord’s comment that the repairs needed were “minimal” was unsympathetic and dismissive of the resident’s concerns. The complaint response indicated that it had relied on photos the resident had provided, instead of its own assessment from its visit in January 2022. The notes from January 2022 indicate there were tiles falling off the wall, and the toilet was “loose”, both of which are potential hazards. Therefore, to describe the repairs as “minimal” lacked empathy for the resident’s circumstances and the conditions she, and indeed its own operatives, had described.
That the landlord agreed to complete a further inspection of the property to identify what repairs it needed to complete was appropriate. However, its follow up letters in March and April 2022 were unreasonable. The landlord stated that it planned to remove the shower room, but gave no explanation. Given the shower room was part of the resident’s property under her tenancy agreement, to seek to remove it without her explicit consent, or any appropriate consultation, was unreasonable and evidently caused distress.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was silent on her concerns that its inspection was a “fault finding mission”, this was inappropriate. The landlord’s position had evidently changed between issuing its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses. A fact the resident was unhappy with. That it failed to address the shower room issue in any detail was inappropriate and a further failing in its handling of the matter. The resident experienced an inconvenience due to the landlord not formally setting out its position on something she was unhappy with, and on which its position had changed.
That the landlord was silent on the concerns the resident raised about her household members, and their vulnerabilities, is also concerning. The resident had clearly outlined the medical conditions which meant the shower room was essential for her. That the landlord did not address this was unreasonable, and indicates it failed to have due consideration for the individual circumstances of the resident, and her household.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on attitudes, respect and rights found that often landlord’s fail to act on vulnerabilities because they were “not recorded on the system”. The facts indicate that this was the case with the resident. Despite her telling it her household was vulnerable, and the shower room assisted in meeting their needs, it failed to have due consideration or tailor its service accordingly.
Under the Equality Act 2010, the landlord has a duty to minimise the disadvantages suffered connected to a person’s protected characteristics. The evidence available indicates that the landlord did not have due regard for whether the resident’s household member had a disability, as defined by the Equality Act. That it decided it wanted to remove the shower room without further exploration of this issue is of particular concern. Considering the landlord’s failings in this regard, an appropriate series of orders are made below.
The landlord did not attend to repair the wash basin until September 2022, 9 months after it was put on notice about the issue. It is noted that it was unclear whether it needed to recharge the resident for this repair. However, given the potential hazard described it would have been appropriate to be more proactive in attending to the repair. This was a further failing in its handling of the matter, which caused an inconvenience as the resident had a potentially hazardous basin in her property.
The landlord’s repair log is silent on the toilet repair, which is a further failing in its handling of the matter, and its record keeping. The landlord told this Service, on 6 March 2024, that the resident had not given consent for the repair to go ahead. It noted it had not updated its records to reflect this. While we do not seek to dispute the landlord’s claim, it is unclear how it can be sure the resident refused the repair if it does not have accurate records about the issue. As such, and an appropriate order is set out below.
That the landlord sought to remove the resident’s shower room, without appropriate consultation about her use of it, was unreasonable. The detriment this caused is increased, due to the described vulnerability of her household. The landlord delayed in progressing the repair, or setting out its position to the resident. Its position between the stage 1 and 2 complaint responses changed, without an appropriate explanation. The landlord’s handling of the matter caused the resident distress and inconvenience, as she had raised a repair only to have the landlord decide it wanted to remove the shower room. As such, this Service has made a finding of maladministration, and a series of appropriate orders are set out below.

Replacement Doors

The issue of the replacement doors was came to light when the landlord inspected the resident’s property in March 2022. The landlord identified that 5 doors needing replacing as 1 was missing and the other 4 were either damaged or poorly fitted. The landlord indicated that, as the resident had either removed or replaced the doors herself, she was responsible to repair/replace them or pay for the cost of doing so. The resident did not dispute that she replaced/ removed the doors. As such, the landlord reasonably applied the conditions set out in the resident’s tenancy agreement.
As part of her stage 2 escalation request, the resident raised a concern that she had replaced/removed the doors because they were damaged. She cited that she had done so herself, as the landlord was “unwilling” to replace them. The landlord supplied a repairs history for this investigation. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord was put on notice about the doors and their condition. While we do not seek to dispute the resident’s comments, there is no evidence to support her conclusion that the landlord was “unwilling” to replace the doors. There is also no indication it was aware they needed replacing until its inspection of March 2022.
The resident expressed a concern, when bringing her complaint to this Service, that the door repairs/replacement had not gone ahead. It is noted that we have seen no evidence to indicate that the resident agreed for the repair to go ahead. The resident did not dispute that she had replaced/removed the doors. The landlord was therefore entitled to recharge her for the repair/replacement. There is no evidence to support the resident’s claim it was “unwilling” to repair them. The landlord’s handling of the replacement doors was reasonable in the circumstances of the case.

Complaint handling

The comment in the landlord’s stage 1 complaint about compensation were inaccurate. The landlord’s complaint policy states that it can offer compensation when it finds failings in its service. It is noted that the landlord did not accept any failings in its response. However, that it misrepresented its position on compensation more generally was inappropriate, and a shortcoming in its complaint handling.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was silent in relation to the door repairs, which was inappropriate. Its tone in relation to the condition of the resident’s property was also inappropriate. Rather than address the individual concerns the resident had raised in her stage 2 escalation request, it simply cited that the repairs it planned to recharge her for were due to her “neglect” of the property. The lack of detail, or explanation, about the concerns she had raise about the doors was unreasonable, and dismissive of her concerns.
The letter from March 2022 cited that the reason it planned to recharge her for the doors was because the resident had either removed, or replaced them. To then cite the resident’s “neglect”, in its complaint response, as the reason contradicted its earlier position. While its overall position was reasonable, and in line with the obligations set out in the tenancy agreement, its explanation lacked clarity.
The resident had expressed a concern that its inspection was about “fault finding” and blaming her for the repairs. Its complaint response did little to try and rebuild trust. A more sensitive approach, given the concerns raised by the resident, would have been appropriate. Due to the lack of clarity in its communication about the matter, an appropriate order is set out below.
The tone of the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response lacked empathy for the resident’s concerns and the reasons she had made a complaint. That the landlord stated her dissatisfaction was not “justified”, was inappropriate. This is particularly concerning given the resident had raised a concern about the “manner” of its inspection, and that it was “fault finding”. The tone of its stage 2 complaint response did little to seek to rebuild trust with the resident. To state her feelings of dissatisfaction were “unjustified” lacked empathy for her feelings about the situation.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on attitudes, respect, and rights cited the tone of communication with residents was a major factor that impacted on the service the resident received. The report cited that when the tone of the landlord’s response “dismiss[ed] a resident’s lived experiences”, it resulted in the resident feeling they had received unfavourable treatment. The evidence indicates the tone of the landlord’s communication created such a situation. As such, an appropriate training order is set out below.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, as outlined in detail above, failed to address specific concerns the resident had raised in her escalation request. Instead, the landlord made sweeping statements about the repairs, without a proper explanation. This was a failure to abide by the complaint handling principles set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The Code states a landlord must “consider all information carefully”. That it did not address specific concerns raised by the resident caused an inconvenience, and was poor complaint handling.
The tone of the landlord’s complaint responses was dismissive of the resident’s lived experience. The stage 1 complaint addressed the repairs raised as “minimal” and its stage 2 complaint response said her concerns were not “justified”. This did little to rebuild trust, or alleviate her concerns that she was being blamed for the issues in the property. The stage 2 complaint response lacked detail about the substantive issues, which caused an inconvenience. The complaint responses indicate that the complaint investigations lacked transparency and a thorough assessment of its handling of the substantive issues. As such an appropriate learning order is set out below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the shower room.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the doors.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

That the landlord sought to remove the resident’s shower room, without appropriate consultation, or consideration of the circumstances the resident described. The detriment this caused is increased due the vulnerability of her household. The landlord delayed in progressing the repair, or setting out its position to the resident. Its position between the stage 1 and 2 complaint responses changed, without an appropriate explanation. The landlord’s handling of the matter caused the resident distress and inconvenience, as she had raised a repair, only to have the seek to remove the shower room.
The resident did not dispute that she had replaced/removed the doors. In line with the conditions of the tenancy agreement, the landlord was entitled to recharge her for their repair/replacement. There is no evidence to support the resident’s claim it was “unwilling” to repair the doors.
The tone of the landlord’s complaint responses was dismissive of the resident’s lived experience. The stage 1 complaint addressed the repairs raised as “minimal” and its stage 2 complaint response said her concerns were not “justified”. This did little to rebuild trust and her concerns that she was being blamed for the issues in the property. The stage 2 complaint response lacked detail about the substantive issues (doors), which caused an inconvenience. The complaint responses indicate that the complaint investigations lacked transparency, and a thorough assessment of its handling of the substantive issues.

Orders

Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the £775 in compensation, made up of:
  1. £450 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the shower room repairs.
  2. £325 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
3. Due to the lack of clarity in its complaint response, write to the resident setting out its latest position on the door repairs/replacement.
Within 8 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Considering the lack of regard of the vulnerabilities described, instruct an appropriately qualified occupational therapist (OT) to meet with the resident to assess the needs of her household, and their use of the shower room.
2. On receipt of the OT assessment, write to the resident and outline its position on whether it is prepared to repair the shower room, or replace it as necessary.
3. Considering the failings identified in this report, complete a review into its handling of the repairs, with a particular focus on:
  1. How the lack of clarity in its own position, and its poor communication, contributed to its poor handling of the matter.
  2. The lack of consideration of vulnerabilities, and the individual circumstances of her household.
  3. The findings and recommendations made in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on attitudes, respect, and rights.
4. Conduct training with its complaint handling staff, with a particular focus on:
  1. The importance of a meaningful complaint investigation that seeks to learn from outcomes.
  2. Ensuring complaint responses give due consideration to the resident’s individual circumstances, the concerns raised, and their lived experience.
  3. Ensuring complaint responses address all concerns raised as part of the complaint.
  4. The findings and recommendations made in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on attitudes, respect, and rights.