The Guinness Partnership Limited (202300341)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300341

The Guinness Partnership Limited

25 April 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:
1. handling of the resident’s request for a bathroom adaptation, including its requirement for her to sign paperwork in relation to funding of the adaptation;
2. response to the resident’s reports of holes in the bathroom following an asbestos survey.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord which commenced in 2005. The property is a 2-bedroom first-floor flat in a low-rise block. The resident is elderly and has a number of vulnerabilities and health conditions known to the landlord, including memory loss and impaired vision and mobility.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that it will deliver an effective repairs service which responds to the needs of its customers and offers them choices, with the aim of completing repairs first time. Where it is not possible to complete a repair on the first visit, the landlord will communicate this clearly to the customer. If it has completed a repair that has resulted in damage to the existing décor, it will make good that area and decorate it. The policy divides responsive repairs into 2 categories: emergency repairs, which are carried out or made safe within 24 hours, and routine repairs, which are carried out within 28 calendar days.
The landlord’s asbestos policy states that it has a duty of care to mitigate any risks associated with asbestos to its customers, as far as reasonably practicable. The landlord will adopt the relevant approved code of practice, guidance and standard. It also has an asbestos management plan that sets out how it manages and controls the risks from asbestos containing materials. Prior to commencing work, it will conduct management, refurbishment or demolition surveys to locate and record the extent of any such materials. Surveys will be carried out by approved and competent contractors. The landlord will also undertake a risk assessment based on the material risk score and priority risk score. Where a survey has been carried out, it will inform customers of the presence of any asbestos found within their property. It will not remove asbestos unless leaving it in situ presents a risk.
The landlord’s planned programme maintenance procedure sets out its approach to planned maintenance and projects. Planned maintenance refers to substantial works carried out over a longer timeframe, and cyclical repair or upgrade of components of a property or scheme.
The landlord’s aids and adaptations policy states that it will pay for and install minor aids and adaptations costing less than £1,500, subject to funding availability. It further states that tenants will need to apply for grant funding (eg a disabled facilities grant, or DFG) to cover the cost of major aids and adaptations, unless they are able to self-fund. DFG funding is means tested. The landlord will offer assistance in making the funding application and will work with the local authority to help achieve the best solution. When considering requests for major adaptations it will also take into account any assessment made by a professional such as an occupational therapist (OT).
The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. It will acknowledge complaints within 2 working days and respond within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. If it is unable to respond within these timeframes, it will explain this to the complainant. Stage 2 complaints are reviewed by an independent member of staff who has not previously considered the complaint. The landlord’s complaints policy lists a number of circumstances in which it will not consider a complaint, including “a complaint that has previously been considered and no substantive new information is provided”.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will offer compensation for service failure, ie where something has gone wrong and it is at fault. Its offer of compensation will be based on the detriment caused to the individual by its failure. It will take into account any quantifiable loss or damage, and any distress or inconvenience caused. Awards range from “up to £250” to £700 and over, depending on the length of time an issue took to resolve and the level of impact. Any compensation offered will be accompanied by an apology and an explanation as to how the service failure occurred.

Summary of events

On 7 March 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to make a complaint. This related to the fact that her neighbours had recently received bathroom upgrades, but she had not. The landlord made a record of her call but referred the matter to its asset compliance team rather than its complaints team. It therefore did not log a formal complaint.
The landlord’s asset compliance team contacted the resident to confirm the nature of the bathroom issue on 9 March 2022. She repeated her request to make a complaint. She said she felt discriminated against because she was required to undergo an OT assessment in order to receive a bathroom upgrade, whereas her neighbours were not. She referred to a letter she had recently received from the landlord’s planned works team regarding bathroom upgrades. She also said she felt her original complaint had been refused on 7 March 2022.
The landlord logged a complaint the same day (9 March 2022) and discussed this internally on 11 March 2022. It then issued its stage 1 response on 15 March 2022, stating:
1. It was sorry the resident had been made to feel that she was being discriminated against.
2. It had spoken to its asset compliance team, which confirmed that the information she had been given about OT assessments was correct. In order for her requested shower adaptation to be considered, she would need to be assessed by an OT. This was the same process for any customer who requested this type of adaptation.
3. The resident had advised that her neighbours had not had to follow this process. It was unable to discuss any of the neighbours’ details due to data protection, so could not investigate any requests they made. However, it assured the resident that her neighbours would have to follow the same process if they required the same adaptation.
4. It could see that the resident first raised the issue on 7 March 2022. This was logged by its customer service advisor, but passed to its asset compliance team instead of its complaints team because the response timeframe would be shorter. Its advisor was therefore trying to get her a response as soon as possible. Following its contact with her on 9 March 2022 to confirm what was needed, a complaint was raised.
5. It was important that it learned from its customers’ feedback and took steps to improve its service. It had therefore given feedback to its customer service team to ensure actions taken when speaking to customers were clearly explained, in order to avoid any confusion.
On 22 March 2022 the resident asked to speak to the landlord’s stage 1 responder about their response. The landlord passed on this request internally. The same day, the resident’s GP wrote to the landlord in relation to an adaptation to the resident’s bathroom. The landlord replied on 23 March 2022, advising that all its tenants had to go through the same process for adaptations. This involved obtaining an OT assessment through the local authority.
On 25 March 2022 the landlord called the resident at her request. She said she had spoken to her GP again and they had requested an OT assessment, but there was a long waiting list. She told the landlord that she struggled to have a bath as she found it difficult to climb in and out. She asked if there was anything that could be done about this. She also noted that she had an appointment on 30 March 2022 for an electrician to complete planned work, but she was not sure what this work was and asked for it to be pushed back until the bath issue had been addressed.
The landlord discussed the resident’s requests internally and noted that, while it could provide minor adaptations such as grab rails, major adaptations had to follow the OT assessment process. It had no control over the timeframe for this. It was unable to install wet rooms on its own initiative as it was not medically qualified to determine what was needed. It suggested that the resident could go back to her GP, who could stress the urgency of the situation to OT if needed.
The resident called the landlord again on 25 March 2022 and was “quite upset and worried”. The landlord explained how the OT process worked and confirmed that she understood this. It helped her to complete sections of an OT form that she had to return, and advised her to contact her GP to escalate the request due to the number of falls she was having. It also offered minor adaptations such as grab rails in the meantime, but the resident said she already had these as well as a stairlift.
The landlord had further contact with the resident on 4 May 2022. She said she already had a shower, but wanted something to help her get into the bath. She also said she had spoken to a neighbour who had received a shower tray as part of a bathroom upgrade initiative. The landlord explained that the resident’s building was not included in that year’s plan for bathroom upgrades. It said it was waiting to hear what date her building would be due, but if the resident could not wait, she could go through OT to have a wet room fitted in accordance with her needs. It also noted that its routine bathroom upgrades only included standard baths, not baths with doors.
Following its contact with the resident, the landlord contacted her GP and obtained details of an OT referral that had been made in April 2022. It also contacted the relevant department at the local authority to ask about next steps, and enquired internally why the resident’s bathroom was not due an upgrade when her neighbours’ bathrooms were.
On 17 May 2022 the resident informed the landlord that she had bought a mobility chair for her bath, so she no longer required a wet room.
On 9 June 2022 the local NHS trust wrote to the landlord regarding the resident’s request for an adaptation. It said that before the resident could be added to its waiting list for an OT assessment, it required provisional consent from the landlord for installation of a walk-in shower.
On 3 August 2022 a safeguarding concern was raised by an engineer who attended the resident’s property. In an internal email dated 4 August 2022, the landlord confirmed that an immediate personal hygiene issue had been addressed. It noted that the resident had a bath lift which dropped her into the water, so she was able to bathe but would like to use her shower. It further noted that the resident was waiting for an OT assessment. Her GP had sent 3 OT referrals but she had received no update. The landlord spoke to the resident and established that she had a walker and walking stick, did not require a perch for standing and cooking, and she agreed for it to contact the OT service about her preference for a bath with a door.
The OT service replied to the landlord on 5 August 2022 and confirmed that the resident was added to its waiting list on 13 April 2022. However, its current waiting time was between 6 and 12 months. The resident informed the resident of this the same day. She was grateful that she had been put on the list and said she would wait to be called. The landlord asked the resident to get in touch if there was anything else she needed, and she said she would.
On 24 August 2022 the landlord provided written permission to the local authority for installation of a level access shower in the resident’s property. The paperwork stated that work could only begin after the landlord had provided details of an asbestos survey, to be carried out following receipt of the plans for the adapted bathroom.
Following an interval of nearly 6 months, the resident contacted the landlord on 14 February 2023 to say that a company had contacted her about a wet room installation. She said the company had asked her to sign a document in order to receive a means tested bathroom upgrade from the local authority. The member of staff who spoke to the resident on the phone said she was “worried sick and very upset”. She said the company were due to visit her at 10am the following day and she was concerned they would “bully her into signing something”. An internal email by the landlord asked for someone to return the resident’s call urgently.
In response, the landlord consulted its system and confirmed that work had been planned for a floor level shower. This was in conjunction with the local authority, so it believed the company that had visited the resident was legitimate. However, it did not return her call.
On 16 February 2023 the resident again requested a callback to discuss a major adaptation. The landlord did not return her call. Its records showed 4 missed callback requests in relation to this.
On or around the same date (16 February 2023), the landlord arranged an asbestos survey for the resident’s property. This was carried out by a contractor on 21 February 2023. Also on 21 February 2023, the landlord sent a letter to the resident in relation to the adapted bathroom.
On 23 February 2023, a note by the landlord stated that the resident called it and “kept asking questions I would have no way of answering” such as why her neighbours had new bathrooms and she did not. She also said she was refusing to sign the release form for an adapted bathroom as she felt she should not be means tested. She believed that her neighbours received new bathrooms without this requirement. The landlord explained that such matters were considered on an individual basis, and without knowing the neighbours’ circumstances it could not comment. The resident said she did not understand why the OT service was not covered by the landlord. It advised that this was because it was not a healthcare provider. The landlord’s note stated that the resident seemed confused by the process. She said she was spending lots of money on aids and adaptations and was in financial difficulty, but did not require its help. She insisted that she would not be means tested for medical adaptations, and said she wanted to make a complaint against a member of staff.
On 8 March 2023 the local authority contacted the landlord. It said the resident had called the local authority as she was unhappy with the recent asbestos survey. She said that following the survey, the contractor had left her bathroom “in a mess” with holes in the walls and floor. She asked for a manager to call her back to discuss and resolve this issue.
The landlord contacted the contractor the same day, and on 10 March 2023 the contractor asked for photos so that it could assess the extent of the damage. It noted that, as it had been asked to complete a refurbishment survey prior to installation of a level access shower, intrusive samples would have been taken. This was with the expectation that the whole bathroom would soon be replaced and made good. The landlord emailed internally to request some photos on 14 March 2023.
Also on 14 March 2023, the landlord received a report from the asbestos contractor following its survey. This stated that no urgent asbestos containing materials (ACMs) were found in the resident’s bathroom. Some other ACMs were found in the vertical insulation board boxing, which covered an area of 4m2. As the area had low levels of disturbance, this was assessed to be low risk. An action was recommended for the boxing to be remediated as part of the scope of the bathroom refurbishment. No asbestos was detected in the screed to the concrete floor beneath the vinyl floor covering.
The same day (14 March 2023), the resident called the landlord again in a distressed state. She once more expressed concern about the state her bathroom had been left in. The landlord apologised that the job had been marked as completed rather than requiring follow-on work. It booked a further appointment for 22 March 2023.
On 16 March 2023 the local authority visited the resident, and also took photos of the holes in her bathroom as requested by the landlord. An email from the local authority to the landlord stated that the resident remained confused about why the landlord had not carried out her wet room adaptation. She had again refused to sign a DFG application form until the landlord provided written consent that it approved the adaptation. The local authority explained that the process normally began with the tenant completing the forms, and the landlord would give consent once it had seen the proposed bathroom design. However, the resident insisted that she needed to see written consent from the landlord before the would sign the DFG form. The local authority asked the landlord whether it would agree to this request. In response, the landlord asked its customer liaison officer to speak to the resident and reassure her that it had already granted permission for the adaptation.
On 21 March 2023 the resident contacted the landlord, noting that she was supposed to receive a callback from its customer liaison officer the previous week but had not heard anything. She repeated her concerns about the funding of the wet room and the holes in her bathroom. She said she was worried she had been “left in a house full of asbestos” and that this would be affecting her health. She said she needed some support and a callback as soon as possible. A note by the landlord stated that it spoke to the resident the same day and advised that its adaptations team was working with the local authority to install her walk-in shower. It confirmed that the local authority would write to her to confirm the landlord had given consent for a wet room. A further note dated 21 March 2023 stated that a letter had been sent out.
On 22 March 2023 the resident contacted the asbestos contractor. The contractor told the landlord that she was “extremely distressed” on the phone and expressed suicidal thoughts. She was concerned about the findings of the asbestos survey and when the bathroom works were due to be carried out. The contractor explained why intrusive samples had been taken but declined to share a copy of its report. A note by the landlord dated 23 March 2023 said that it would carry out a joint visit with the local authority to discuss the works with the resident and reassure her regarding the asbestos. It contacted the local authority to arrange this on 24 March 2023, and the visit was provisionally booked for 30 March 2023.
On 27, 28 and 31 March 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and asbestos contractor by phone to express further concerns and request callbacks. On 27 March 2023 she told she landlord she was “very worried” about the wet room and the paperwork she was being asked to sign. On 28 March 2023 she repeated that she did not want a financial assessment to be carried out on her; the landlord advised that it was a standard procedure that should not affect her if she was “financially buoyant”. The resident insisted on rejecting a DFG but said she was open to moving to a property with a wet room. She restated this position when the landlord visited her to explain the DFG process on 31 March 2023. Also on this date, she told the asbestos contractor she was going to commit suicide due to the stress the matter was causing her. The landlord requested a welfare check on 4 April 2023.
On 5 April 2023 the resident wrote to the landlord to make a complaint, stating:
1. The previous year, the landlord had installed upgraded bathrooms and wet room adaptations in the other 13 flats on the site, free of charge.
2. In April 2022 her GP asked the landlord to assess her for a suitable wet room. The GP recommended a wet room adaptation and asked why the landlord was not providing one itself.
3. An officer who had previously been overseeing her adaptation had left their role.
4. Earlier in the year, the landlord had requested an asbestos survey. Following the survey, its customer liaison officer notified her that there was exposed asbestos in her bathroom which was potentially dangerous.
5. The asbestos contractor had knocked holes in her walls and had not repaired the damage they made. This situation was intolerable.
6. She was 77 years old, disabled, and could only walk with a stick or wheelchair. She had also recently had surgery to both eyes.
7. She was frightened for her health and safety, and wanted to know why she had been discriminated against. She asked the landlord to help her.
The landlord discussed the resident’s complaint internally on 5 and 6 April 2023, noting that she said she had not bathed for 16 months. On 6 April 2023 the asbestos contractor told the landlord it had received 2 further distressed calls from the resident, who said no one had been in touch. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response the same day (6 April 2023), stating:
1. It thanked her for taking the time to express her concerns about the adaptation of her bathroom. It was truly sorry to hear about the stress and inconvenience this had caused.
2. It summarised its correspondence with the resident regarding her request for a medical adaptation, and confirmed that its standard process was to require an OT referral in such situations. It would then work with the local authority to complete the necessary works.
3. With regard to other residents having their bathrooms replaced, all renewal works were carried out according to planned work programmes. Replacements of things like bathrooms were only considered at the end of their lifecycle. If any other residents had had major adaptations carried out to their bathrooms, they would have had to follow the same OT process.
4. It had explained to the resident on 4 May 2022 that her bathroom was not on the list for that year’s planned replacement, and so she would need an OT referral for the adaptation she required as it was based on her medical needs.
5. Although it had not found any failures with the advice given or the process followed in relation to the bathroom adaptation, it had identified several occasions when the resident contacted it for updates and it failed to call her back. It therefore found that her complaint was partially upheld.
6. It was sincerely sorry for the poor communication she had experienced, and offered £50 compensation to acknowledge this failure.
7. It asked the resident to let it know if she still did not wish to complete a DFG application, so that it could arrange repairs to make good her bathroom.
8. The resident could ask to escalate her complaint to stage 2 within 15 working days. If she did so, the complaint would be reviewed by an independent member of staff who would respond within 20 working days. She could also ask the Ombudsman for advice at any point.
On 19 April 2023, following contact from the resident, the Ombudsman asked the landlord to take action by either raising a new complaint, providing a copy of any complaint response previously issued, or explaining its decision if no complaint was being raised. The landlord logged a complaint the same day. It recorded this as being about a particular officer who had reportedly assured the resident the asbestos issues would be rectified. The complaint was also recorded to be about the landlord’s lack of contact and reassurance about the safety of the bathroom, and the fact that the issue had been ongoing for 16 months with no resolution.
After discussing the complaint internally, the landlord declined to investigate it on 21 April 2023. Its letter to the resident stated that:
1. It was sorry for any stress and inconvenience caused by the outstanding works to her bathroom.
2. It had not considered her complaint at stage 1 because the same complaint had previously been considered, and no substantive new information had been provided. It was unable to reinvestigate the issues.
3. It summarised relevant events and correspondence.
4. The resident had the option of escalating her original complaint to stage 2, where it would be reviewed by an independent member of staff. It asked her to let it know if this was how she wished to proceed.
The resident also called the landlord on 21 April 2023. It explained to her verbally that an appointment was booked for it to address the holes in her bathroom on 2 May 2023, although follow-on works may be required. In addition, it explained its decision not to investigate her recent complaint at stage 1 and documented that she understood this. It invited her to contact it if she had any questions or wanted to escalate her previous complaint.
On 27 April 2023 the resident contacted the landlord (and this Service) in some distress. During a phone conversation with the landlord, she referred to the Ombudsman’s letter of 19 April 2023. The landlord repeated its explanation of its position in relation to her complaint and the work it was going to complete on 2 May 2023. The resident said she felt the landlord should carry out the major adaptation of her bathroom at its own cost. The landlord documented that it found it difficult to understand what the resident wanted from the call. It asked her if she wanted to escalate her complaint, but as she did not specifically request this it did not do so. After the resident ended the call, it contacted her customer liaison officer in order to try to understand how she wanted to proceed. It also sought internal advice regarding support that may be available.
Following the appointment to address the holes in the resident’s bathroom on 2 and/or 3 May 2023, the resident contacted the landlord on 3 May 2023. She said she wanted to complain as the asbestos issues were not fully resolved during the appointment. The landlord checked its system and advised that a further repair had been raised to replace the bathroom flooring with polysafe flooring. The landlord’s records show that the resident was “challenging” and at times “rude” during the conversation. She also referred to her previous complaint and said she had not received the response letter. The landlord agreed to look into what happened with the repair on 2 May 2023 and to update the resident by the end of the week. Following the call, it again discussed the resident’s case internally and requested a home visit to explore further support.
On 3 May 2023 the resident also contacted this Service, which asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2. The landlord did so on 4 May 2023. Its record of the escalation included the original points of the complaint, together with the following additional points:
1. There was a government requirement and/or legislation introduced the previous year requiring all properties to be upgraded. The other flats in her block had had new wet rooms installed, but the resident’s flat had not. She was informed there was no funding left.
2. She had had an OT assessment for a medical adaptation, but she did not want to go down this route.
3. She had bought a mobility chair to help her get in and out of the bath, but the OT told her not to use it as it was not safe if she fell.
4. She insisted on rejecting the landlord’s offer of a DFG application. She felt she should not have to do this as other tenants did not have to do it.
5. She was bedbound, could not wash, and had been left with holes in her bathroom. She had not bathed for 16 months.
6. The outcomes she sought were for the landlord to take responsibility for her bathroom replacement, and for it to carry out the work itself.
Also on 4 May 2023, an internal email by the landlord noted that the resident had been confused during an appointment the previous day and had wanted the operative to remove the cistern in order to fill holes behind it. The landlord advised that it would not remove the cistern, as its asbestos contractor would not have removed it or tested for asbestos behind it. The email confirmed that all holes found were filled, a leak from the toilet repaired, and follow-on works raised to decorate the bathroom. It stated that the resident had referred to a 13-page asbestos report, but said her sight was poor following 2 cataract operations.
On 8 June 2023 the landlord attended the resident’s property, made good the damaged areas in her bathroom, and painted them white.
On 13 July 2023 the landlord called the resident to explain its stage 1 findings and reiterate its offer of compensation. The resident accepted the compensation and said she would prefer payment by cheque.
On 2 August 2023 the landlord called the resident again regarding her complaint, and apologised for its delay in doing so. The resident told it the decoration of her bathroom had not been completed as the paint looked like an undercoat. She said she would like her bathroom to be brought back to how it previously looked. She also referred to concerns about the quality of the repairs and the possibility of asbestos in the floor. She said she was paying neighbours to help her keep safe while washing and completing other household tasks. Following the call, the landlord noted that involvement by its customer support team may be appropriate. On 7 August 2023 it requested a post-inspection or second opinion in relation to the hole repair, and on 9 August 2023 it reviewed the asbestos report from March 2023 and confirmed that no asbestos was found in the floor.
The landlord then issued its stage 2 complaint response on 9 August 2023. This stated that:
1. It apologised for its delay in providing its final response.
2. It summarised the history of the bathroom adaptation request and the resident’s complaints. It identified that it failed to return 4 calls made by the resident between 17 February 2023 and 16 March 2023. It agreed that this was not good enough and it must do better.
3. As part of its review it had checked with its head of asset compliance, who confirmed that it did not have the funding for major adaptations such as the one required by the resident. This was why it worked with the local authority to access funding. It followed the same process nationally. The DFG funding was designed to help people who needed extra support to live comfortably in their homes.
4. As the resident remained unhappy with its decorator’s workmanship on 8 June 2023, it had arranged a further visit for 31 August 2023.
5. With regard to the resident’s concerns about her floor containing asbestos, it had checked the report and confirmed that no asbestos was detected.
6. It agreed that its handling of her complaint had been “extremely poor”. It did not acknowledge her complaint within its stated timescales at either stage, or respond within its stated timescale at stage 2. It also failed to keep her regularly updated on progress.
7. While there was a period of time during which its complaints team received a higher volume of complaints than expected, it should have ensured the resident was kept updated. It apologised for this.
8. It was confident that its stage 1 investigation was thorough and that information was sought from relevant colleagues in order to provide the correct information. The stage 1 response also acknowledged its poor communication and delayed callback responses. The complaint therefore remained partially upheld.
9. It was sincerely sorry for the overall experience the resident had received and the distress caused. To put this right, it offered a further £150 compensation. This was made up of:
  1. £100 for its delay in issuing its stage 2 response;
  2. £50 for its failure to provide regular updates on the complaint.
10. To improve its future service, it had increased resources within its complaints team to ensure it could acknowledge and respond to complaints within its stated timescales.

Post complaint

On 23 August 2023 the resident asked the landlord to contact her regarding the outcome of her stage 2 complaint. The call taker explained that the next step would be to refer her complaint to the Ombudsman. It then tried to call the resident back to discuss this further; the call was answered but dropped. The resident subsequently referred her complaint to this Service.
On 21 March 2024 the landlord again visited the resident to discuss the DFG funding and process with her.
On 18 April 2024 the resident informed this Service that she no longer wanted her bathroom to be adapted, but that she would like the landlord to repaint her bathroom “properly” (including the skirting boards).

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Under paragraph 42a of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member landlord’s complaints procedure. The current investigation relates to the resident’s complaint about her bathroom adaptation and an associated asbestos survey. More recent matters that the resident has brought to this Service’s attention, such as a pipe repair in August 2023 and a front door replacement, therefore fall outside the scope of this investigation. The resident may choose to make a further complaint to the landlord regarding such matters, which she may subsequently refer to this Service if she is dissatisfied with its final response.

Bathroom adaptation request and requirement to sign paperwork

The landlord has confirmed to this Service that, prior to the events of this investigation, its properties in a 10-unit block opposite the resident’s 4-unit block were part of a planned bathroom replacement scheme whereby it offered tenants either a replacement bath or a shower tray. This was not based on any medical assessment, and was simply a matter of the tenant’s preference. Landlords are generally permitted to manage their stock and resources as they see fit. In this case, there was no requirement for the landlord to offer bathroom upgrades to both blocks at the same time. However, it is appreciated that this may have inadvertently caused a perception of unfairness by the resident, who would not have had access to all relevant information about her neighbours’ circumstances.
By contrast, the resident’s request for an adapted bathroom in 2022 was based on her medical need and so followed a different process. The DFG process is a standard one used by housing associations nationally to fund major adaptations. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to follow this process, and it would not be expected to use its own funding to replace the resident’s bathroom. It would also have been inappropriate for the landlord to decide how the resident’s bathroom should be adapted when it was not medically qualified to do so. Having been made aware of the resident’s medical needs, the landlord acted correctly by commencing the OT assessment process through the local authority.
There is evidence within the documentation provided that the landlord took the resident’s needs and preferences into account by visiting her to explain processes on 31 March 2023, 3 April 2023 and 21 March 2024. It also offered relevant support (which the resident did not always accept) and exercised discretion by arranging for letters to be sent when she requested this. While communication with the resident could have been better in relation to the company that visited her – apparently unannounced – on 14 and 15 February 2023, this may have been outside the landlord’s control as the visit was arranged in conjunction with the local authority. The landlord does not dispute that it failed to fulfil at least 4 callback requests after the resident expressed her concern about the company’s visits, which was unacceptable and understandably compounded her distress. However, its prompt offer of £50 compensation is considered sufficient redress for this failure.
Relatedly, the landlord offered the resident an additional £150 compensation for its complaint handling failures. The Ombudsman agrees that some aspects of the landlord’s complaint handling were unsatisfactory, with no written acknowledgement of complaints or escalation requests, unclear communication, and a significantly delayed stage 2 response (issued 67 working days after the escalation request). However, both stage 1 responses were issued promptly, and all formal responses to the resident’s complaints were detailed and thorough. Therefore, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the redress offered was appropriate.
Had this Service investigated the landlord’s complaint handling separately, a finding of reasonable redress would have been made, and so it has been considered proportionate to address it as part of the substantive issue. An overall finding of reasonable redress has consequently been made in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s bathroom adaptation request, its requirement for the resident to sign paperwork in relation to funding of the adaptation, and its associated complaint handling. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord’s total offer of £200, together with its assurances regarding solution-focused improvements that it has made, constitute appropriate and proportionate action in the circumstances.

Reports of holes in the bathroom

An asbestos survey was conducted in the resident’s bathroom on 21 February 2023 in preparation for a bathroom replacement. This was in accordance with the landlord’s asbestos policy. It is understandable that holes were left following intrusive sample tests, as the asbestos contractor had reason to expect that the bathroom would be overhauled imminently. It would have been appropriate for the contractor to offer reassurance to the resident regarding the exposed holes during the survey appointment, if it did not do so. However, since she did not express concern to the landlord until 8 March 2023, there may have been no indication on the day of the survey that she was worried. The resident has not expressed any dissatisfaction with the conduct of the contractor, which later assisted her by liaising with the landlord after she contacted it by phone.
When the resident did raise concerns on 8 March 2023, the landlord immediately asked the contractor to investigate. This was a swift and proportionate response. The contractor requested photos of the holes on 10 March 2023 and the landlord arranged for these to be provided (via the local authority) by 16 March 2023. In view of the resident’s obvious distress, it may have been preferable for the landlord to visit itself within a shorter timeframe. The resident was evidently upset during a phone call to the landlord on 14 March 2023, and its advice to her on that date indicated an oversight in marking the relevant job as completed rather than requiring follow-on work. The landlord did not appear to offer adequate redress for this error or investigate why it had occurred. It is also unclear why, when an appointment was raised for 22 March 2023, the necessary work was not completed until 2 and/or 3 May 2023.
The work completed on 2 and/or 3 May 2023 took place 55 days after the resident said she was worried about the condition her bathroom had been left in. This fell outside the landlord’s maximum 28-day timeframe for a responsive repair, which was unsatisfactory. In view of the resident’s vulnerability and concern about the risk to her health from asbestos, a more prompt response or at least some reassurance regarding the risk would have been appropriate. However, it is noted that the landlord’s response to the resident’s contact was usually supportive and sympathetic, and that she sometimes remained concerned following contact as she did not clearly remember or understand what had been said. There was also some uncertainty at this time as to whether the bathroom replacement would go ahead, and (if it did) whether interim repairs to the holes were required.
The resident told the landlord on 3 May 2023 that she was unhappy with the work completed. The resulting decorative work did not take place until 8 June 2023, 36 days later. This delay was again excessive, particularly in view of the presumably straightforward nature of the work.
Finally, when the resident told the landlord she was still unhappy with the work completed on 2 August 2023, it was appropriate for it to request a post-inspection or second opinion on 7 August 2023. However, there is no evidence to indicate that this was completed. An independent opinion would have been particularly valuable in light of the earlier disagreement between the resident and the landlord’s operative regarding removal of the cistern. In response to the resident’s concerns about asbestos, the landlord checked the survey report and confirmed in its stage 2 response that there was no asbestos found in the bathroom floor. It was helpful for it to confirm this, but it could have done so sooner, as the resident’s concerns about asbestos were impacting her perception of safety within her home on a daily basis. It could also have gone further by outlining the ACMs found elsewhere and the contractor’s expert assessment of the risk. However, it is noted that information and explanations previously provided were not always fully understood or retained by the resident. The landlord could have considered ways that it could assist the resident in remembering key facts, such as providing large-print signs or stickers that she could display in areas of her bathroom.
With regard to the contractor’s survey report, the contractor rightly declined to share this with the resident as it was not in a position to do so. There is evidence that the landlord later shared the report, as the resident referred to having a copy of “a 13-page report” on 3 May 2023. This demonstrated openness and transparency. The landlord’s records on 4 May 2023 also state that a member of staff had previously gone through the report with the resident in detail. This showed an understanding of the resident’s particular needs and a genuine attempt to put her mind at ease with regard to the asbestos in her property.
An overall finding of service failure has been made in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of holes in her bathroom. This is because, while the landlord did some things well, it delayed in taking effective action to complete the necessary repairs and allay the resident’s concerns. This resulted in her worry about health impact being avoidably prolonged. It also did not offer sufficient redress for its apparent error in marking a job requiring follow-on work as completed. The mitigating factors of challenges faced by the landlord and the possibility of an imminent bathroom replacement have been taken into account in reaching this finding.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for a bathroom adaptation, including its requirement for her to sign paperwork in relation to funding of the adaptation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of holes in the bathroom following an asbestos survey.

Reasons

The landlord followed the appropriate process in relation to a medical adaptation of the resident’s bathroom. When the resident raised concerns about unfairness, it explained how her circumstances may differ from other tenants’ who had received planned non-medical bathroom upgrades. However, it missed 4 callbacks, failed to acknowledge her complaints, did not always keep her updated, and delayed in issuing its stage 2 complaint response. Its offer of £200 compensation constituted reasonable redress for these failures.
When the resident expressed concerns about the state of her bathroom following an asbestos survey, the landlord delayed for 8 weeks in completing initial repairs. It then delayed for further periods of 5 and 4 weeks when the resident said she was dissatisfied with the work carried out. While its response was appropriately sympathetic, it did not take sufficient steps to reassure her regarding health impacts in a way that she understood and could refer back to. This caused her distress and worry over an extended period.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. Apologise to the resident for its delays in repairing holes in her bathroom following the asbestos survey, and send her a bouquet of flowers.
2. Pay the resident £100 for its delayed repairs and other failures in relation to her concerns about asbestos.
3. Offer the resident a further opportunity to progress her request for an adapted bathroom by signing the relevant DFG paperwork. This should include signposting her to relevant support, such as Citizens Advice, Shelter and the local authority, regarding the funding process.
4. Provide evidence of compliance with the above to this Service.
If the resident does not wish to proceed with an adapted bathroom request at this time, the landlord is ordered to fully redecorate her bathroom (including the skirting boards) within 8 weeks of the date of this report. Before commencing work it should tell the resident what paint it intends to use, and if she wishes to purchase an alternative colour or brand at her own cost, it should not unreasonably decline to use this. The paint used should be suitable for a bathroom and the landlord should follow the manufacturer’s instructions regarding number of coats. Following the work it should carry out a post-inspection and confirm that the redecoration has been completed to the resident’s satisfaction.

Recommendations

It is recommended that, when the landlord apologises to the resident as ordered above, it also reiterates its apology for its communication and complaint handling failures.
It is recommended that, in addition to the £100 ordered above, the landlord pays the resident the £200 it offered in its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses (if it has not already done so). In paying compensation it should use the resident’s preferred payment method wherever possible.