The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Longhurst Group Limited (202221733)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202221733

Longhurst Group Limited

18 July 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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of interior, window frame, and electrical repairs at the resident’s property.
    2. The landlord’s handling of bath and accessibility adaptations at the resident’s property.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord of a flat with a single entrance door in a building with a communal entrance. She is a wheelchair user with multiple complex health issues and disabilities, including mobility, heart and neurological conditions, autism, and mental ill-health. The landlord is aware of and has recorded her medical conditions and vulnerabilities. The resident has difficulty opening her property’s entrance door and is unable to open her building’s communal entrance door due to her disabilities, which has confined her to the property.
  2. In August 2021, following previous adaptations to her property, the landlord noted the resident required accessibility adaptations as she was unable to leave her building without assistance due to her disabilities. It therefore confirmed the fire service were aware of her, she was on their list for assistance if there was a fire, and it agreed its fire risk assessment due in September 2021 would discuss this with her occupational therapists (OTs). The landlord, the local council, and the OTs then discussed adapting the resident’s property’s entrance door, and either the building’s communal entrance door or her bedroom window into secondary accessible entrance door from March 2022.
  3. In June 2022, water leaked into the resident’s property via the ceiling from an upstairs neighbour’s flat. The landlord stopped the leak, renewed an electrical socket water had dripped into, and checked and found her electrics to be safe within 24 hours. In July and August 2022, the resident and her OTs then chased it to adapt her shower into a bath for her disabilities they reported was agreed in December 2021, the accessibility of her property and building, and for a leak from her bathroom sink. They also requested the landlord address her rotten and mouldy window frames they reported in April 2022, her broken kitchen cupboard shelf, and damp on her ceiling, damaged flooring she purchased, and the safety of her electrics from the June 2022 leak.
  4. In November 2022, the landlord confirmed that the resident and her OTs agreed she would be unable to cope with moving from her property, when they also chased it twice for her bath adaptation. It responded by explaining it had chased its contractor for the adaptation, but they did not currently have a timescale for this, while it would be unable to adapt her building’s communal entrance door or bedroom window. This was because of a lack of space for the adapted doors and ramps, others being negatively impacted by these, and security concerns about easy street access from the side of the building if the window was replaced with patio doors.
  5. The landlord’s subsequent electrical inspection found the resident’s property’s electrics in good condition in April 2023, and its July 2023 damp and mould inspection found this would be addressed by the new windows it fitted at the same time. She repeated her need for accessibility adaptations to it during the latter inspection, and she later made a stage 1 complaint to it about the above issues via the Ombudsman in December 2023. The landlord’s January 2024 stage 1 response explained it fitted a bath with a lift in February 2023, had inspected the windows, bathroom sink, and kitchen cupboard shelf in January 2024 to raise repairs for these, had completed the above electrical safety checks, and had the above objections to the accessibility adaptations.
  6. The landlord apologised for delaying responding to the resident’s repairs and adaptations requests, stress and inconvenience, offering her £1,250 total compensation. Her subsequent January 2024 final stage complaint disputed its lack of repairs and accessibility adaptations, which its independent living service and her OTs confirmed were still needed in February 2024. The landlord’s April 2024 final stage response explained its repair delays were from absences and a lack of access. However, it repaired the bathroom sink in March 2024, would repair the kitchen cupboard shelf in April 2024, found no mould or issues with the new windows, referred the damp ceiling to contents insurance as decorative, and repeated its accessibility adaptation objections.
  7. The landlord apologised for missing repair appointments, its late complaint response, and the resident’s further stress and inconvenience, offering another £390 compensation. It then repaired her kitchen cupboard shelf in May 2024 after a lack of access. The resident complained to the Ombudsman she lacked accessibility and further bathroom adaptations and electrical sockets, could not sleep as her new windows vibrated and she could not open one, had unaddressed bathroom sink leak water penetration in a panel and wall, and held the landlord responsible for the damp ceiling and wall. She added that her mental ill-health was affected by not going outside without assistance, and her heart condition and panic attacks were worsened by stress, while the landlord described training staff to prioritise repairs for vulnerabilities and on a new complaints process.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has asked the Ombudsman whether the landlord’s lack of accessibility adaptations at her property and building discriminate against her disabilities contrary to legislation, which is very concerning. This investigation is nevertheless unable to determine whether there was unlawful discrimination in her case because we do not have the authority to do so in the way that a court might. This is in accordance with paragraph 42f of the Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints concerning matters where it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal, or procedure.
  2. The resident has also complained to the Ombudsman about being unable to sleep due to her new windows vibrating, being unable to open one, and having outstanding further bathroom adaptations and electrical sockets, which is of concern. However, these are also matters that this investigation cannot consider. This is because there is no evidence that a complaint from the resident about the landlord’s handling of these issues has exhausted its complaints procedure yet. This is in accordance with paragraph 42a of the Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints made prior to exhausting a landlord’s complaints procedure.

Interior, window frame, and electrical repairs

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement obliges the landlord to repair her property’s structure, including walls, window frames, ceilings, plasterwork, kitchen and bathroom fixtures and fittings, sinks, and her electrics, but not interior painting and decorating. She is responsible for repairing and maintaining anything she has fitted in the property. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy requires it make safe emergency repairs within 4 or 24 hours, complete urgent repairs within 7 calendar days, and complete routine repairs within 28 calendar days. The policy classifies substantial uncontainable leaks and checking electrics after water damage as emergency repairs, and kitchen units, containable leaks, and window frames as routine repairs.
  2. The repairs and maintenance policy makes the resident responsible for floor coverings not fitted by the landlord. It is obliged to consider all her health issues and disabilities, understand how her circumstances are affected by repairs, consider how her impaired mobility is impacted by its timescales, and consider if repair is having an extremely detrimental effect on her health, physical, or mental wellbeing.
  3. The landlord initially responded to the water leak that came through the resident’s ceiling from an upstairs neighbour’s flat on 28 June 2022 in line with her tenancy agreement and its repairs and maintenance policy. This is because it addressed this repair affecting her property’s structure, as required by the agreement, by repairing the leak at the neighbour’s flat within the policy’s 24-hour emergency timescale for substantial uncontainable leaks on 29 June 2022. The landlord also complied with the agreement and policy by renewing the resident’s electrical socket and checking and finding her electrics to be safe from water damage within this timescale by doing so on the same date.
  4. The resident and her OTs then chased the landlord for the above leak on 15 and 20 July 2022. They stated this was reported 2 days prior to being repaired, left her lounge and hall ceilings and a wall damp and smelly, damaged flooring she purchased, and had no safety checks of the electrics in the affected area, which is concerning. There was nevertheless no evidence provided of leak reports before 28 June 2022, when the landlord offered the upstairs neighbour a repair on the same day that they asked to be done on the next day instead. However, the evidence from its records of it checking and finding the resident’s electrics to be safe on the following day was supported by its 13 April 2023 electrical condition inspection finding these in good condition.
  5. With regard to the water damage to the resident’s ceilings, wall and flooring, the landlord’s surveyor’s 19 July 2023 damp and mould inspection did not find damp or a smell but marks from the leak it considered to be a decorative repair. It recorded that it therefore told her on 9 February 2024, and repeated in its 10 April 2024 final complaint response, that the above findings meant she was responsible for redecorating her ceilings and wall. The landlord added that the resident should contact her contents insurer if she wanted her flooring replaced due to the leak damage. While she held it responsible for the water damage, her tenancy agreement and its repairs and maintenance policy made her responsible for interior redecorating and repairing floor coverings she provided.
  6. It is nevertheless of concern that, after the resident expressed her electrical safety and leak damage concerns in July 2022, the landlord took approximately 9 and 12 months, respectively, to reassure her by arranging its April 2023 electrical condition and July 2023 damp and mould inspections. This was an unsuitably excessive unexplained delay, and there is no evidence that it updated her on these issues in the meantime, which was inappropriate. Moreover, as the resident held the landlord responsible for the damage to her flooring and decorations, it should have referred her to its liability insurance for this as well as her contents insurance. This is in line with its compensation procedure requiring it do so for such claims covered by its liability insurance.
  7. The resident’s OTs also reported her bathroom sink still leaked into a panel and wall on 20 July 2022, 3 to 4 months after reports of this. They added her rotten and mouldy window frames still needed repairs or replacement, as reported by the local council on 27 April 2022, and her kitchen cupboard shelf was broken. It is concerning the sink, panel and wall, and window frame repairs were still reported after previous reports to the landlord, as it had to repair these and the shelf in 28 calendar days under the resident’s tenancy agreement and its repairs and maintenance policy. It is therefore also of concern it only replaced her windows on 19 July 2023, repaired the sink and shelf on 11 March and 21 May 2024, and did not repair the panel and wall.
  8. However, no evidence was provided that the resident’s sink, panel and wall, window frame, and shelf repairs were reported before July 2022, so it is only reasonable to expect these works to have been completed within 28 calendar days of their reports by 17 August 2022. This nevertheless meant she experienced unacceptably long delays of approximately 11 months for windows to be replaced, 19 months for sink repairs, and 21 months for shelf repairs, as well as still outstanding panel and wall repairs after 23 months. This was very inappropriate, and there is no indication the landlord gave updates on these works, or considered prioritising them for any detriment to the resident’s health issues and disabilities, as suggested by its repairs and maintenance policy.
  9. The landlord’s complaint responses did subsequently explain that some periods of the above repair delays were outside of its control. This was when it rearranged the sink repair from 19 to 29 February and then to 11 March 2024 after illness and a lack of operatives, and the shelf repair from 26 February to 14 March and then 11 April and 21 May 2024 due to a lack of access, which the resident disputed. However, the landlord remained responsible for most of the repair delays that it did not give the resident with any reasons for, which was unsuitable. It also did not record taking any action for or address her panel and wall repairs, despite its 15 January 2024 stage 1 complaint response noting she complained about this, which was unreasonable.
  10. It was therefore suitable the landlord’s complaint responses apologised for not previously raising the above repairs, significantly delaying completing these, missing appointments, and the resident’s stress and inconvenience. This sought to follow the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle to put things right, as did its offer of £450 for repair delays, £40 for missed appointments, and £500 for her stress and inconvenience from this and her below disability adaptations. This range was recommended by its compensation procedure and our remedies guidance for failures that had a significant impact. The landlord also correctly recognised complaint handling delays with an apology, £150, and staff training on a new complaints process for timely responses and updates.
  11. Moreover, the landlord sought to follow the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle to learn from outcomes. It did so by subsequently explaining to us it had found it had failed in its communication with her, so it had added her to its vulnerabilities list, placed an alert on her account, and asked all customers for their preferred contact methods. The landlord additionally explained it recognised its excessive repair delays that it should have instead prioritised for the resident’s disabilities, so it had trained its repairs team and call handlers to ask about and take vulnerabilities into account for its contractors to view and prioritise these where necessary. These were appropriate practical steps to try and prevent future repair delays affecting vulnerable customers.
  12. The landlord’s above actions nevertheless did not resolve or remedy the now 23-month late bathroom panel and wall repairs the resident states remain outstanding since July 2022, which was very unreasonable. It has therefore been ordered below to pay her its previous offer, if it has not done so already plus £500 further compensation to recognise any distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble she experienced from this, in line with its compensation procedure’s and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance’s recommendations for failures that adversely affected the resident. The landlord has also been ordered to write to apologise to her for the additional failures identified by this investigation, accept responsibility for these, and acknowledge their impact on her.
  13. Moreover, the landlord has been ordered below to contact the resident to arrange for it to inspect and complete any necessary outstanding repairs to her bathroom panel and wall, as well as to provide her with details to enable her to claim damages to her flooring and decorations from its liability insurance. It has also been recommended to review its staff’s training needs in relation to its repairs and maintenance policy to ensure it provides timely repairs, progress updates, and reasons and alternative timescales for any delays in every relevant repairs case.

Bath and accessibility adaptations

  1. The landlord’s aids and adaptations policy requires it to work proactively with OTs, local councils, and contractors to complete major adaptations as soon as possible and within 28 calendar days of being ordered by it. All major adaptation requests require OTs’ assessments, or its independent living service’s manager’s assessment. It will not normally carry out adaptations that are not accommodated by the structure, build or design of a property, and communal adaptations must not negatively impact other occupants. The landlord’s fire safety policy confirms it must provide a safe and effective means of escape, appropriate fire safety information, and regular fire risk assessments.
  2. After completing earlier entrance ramp adaptations at the resident’s property and building in 2020 to 2021, the landlord was told by her and her carer on 13 August 2021 that she required further accessibility adaptations. This was because she could still not leave the building without help due to her disability and being a wheelchair user, which needed additional works to the entrance’s threshold, ramp, and to install an internal door release button. The landlord therefore requested an assessment from the resident’s OTs on the same date for it to make the above further adaptations. This meant it initially followed its aids and adaptations policy by seeking such an assessment so that it could carry out these major adaptations, which was reasonable.
  3. The landlord also confirmed on the above date that the fire service was aware the resident could not leave her building without help and was on their list for this if there was fire. It therefore additionally agreed its fire risk assessment of the building due in September 2021 would discuss this with her OTs. This showed that it sought to comply with its fire safety policy by providing a safe and effective means of escape and regular fire risk assessments. However, it is extremely concerning that there is no evidence the landlord gave the resident appropriate fire safety information, as required by the policy, in the form of a personal emergency evacuation plan (PEEP) or ensured a safe and effective escape route for her itself instead of only relying on the fire service to do so.
  4. As the resident was unable to leave her building without assistance until the landlord completed accessibility adaptations to allow her to, it was obliged by its fire safety policy to provide her with a safe and effective means of escape until then. While it was suitable that it confirmed that the fire service would assist her with this if there was a fire, it was completely unacceptable that it did not record that it had any other measures in place for this, or for it to help her escape fire or other emergencies itself. The landlord should have instead complied with the policy by outlining what its actions and those of other agencies would be in such circumstances to assist the resident with escaping, and recorded communicating these to her, its staff, and any other relevant agencies.
  5. The resident and her OTs therefore understandably expressed her anxiety at the risk to her and her pets of not being to leave her building independently in an emergency on at least 20 July 2022, 19 July and 19 December 2023, and 22 January 2024. The landlord was nevertheless not responsible for the OTs taking until 21 September 2021 to provide it with an assessment of her need for the above accessibility adaptations, and that she needed her shower adapted into a bath in December 2021. However, it was responsible for then taking over 6 months to begin discussing the options for the resident’s accessibility adaptations with the local council and the OTs on 30 March 2022, which was an unreasonably excessive unexplained delay that it did not update her on.
  6. It was appropriate the landlord subsequently discussed adapting the resident’s entrance door, and either her building’s communal entrance door or her bedroom window into secondary accessible entrance door, with the local council and her OTs. It is nevertheless of concern that it then had to be chased by the OTs for a timetable to adapt her shower into a bath on 20 July and 5 August 2022, which were 7 and 8 months after it agreed to do so, as it had still not provided one. It is also concerning that the resident and her OTs chased the landlord on 20 July and 15 August 2022 as there had been no update on her accessibility adaptations either, including the preferred bedroom window adaptation for a second exit, as well as an independently accessible one.
  7. It was suitable that the landlord’s contractor did subsequently attend and report on 16 August 2022 that the resident needed a bath lift as well as for her shower to be adapted into a bath, which also required a surveyor’s investigation. However, there was another unreasonably excessive unexplained delay of 3 months that she was not updated on until it confirmed with her and her OTs that she would be unable to cope with moving from her property on 8 November 2022. It was appropriate that the landlord considered and sought to confirm whether the resident’s needs for adaptations could be met elsewhere, but it was unacceptable that it only did so 15 months after it was told adaptations were still needed at the property in August 2021.
  8. The landlord then told the resident’s OTs on 23 November 2022 that it had chased its contractor about her bath adaptation, but that this still did not have a timescale for completion, which was unsuitable. It added that it would not consider adapting her bedroom window or her building’s communal entrance door due to a lack of space for adapted doors and ramps, others being negatively impacted by these, and security concerns about easy street access from the side of the building if patio doors replaced the window. The landlord’s complaint responses later explained that these were its April 2022 surveyor’s inspection’s findings, which it was entitled to rely on, but it was unreasonable that it only communicated these findings 7 months later after being chased.
  9. Moreover, it was inappropriate that the landlord did not provide the resident with alternatives to the above accessibility adaptations after explaining that it could not consider these. It was in line with its aids and adaptations policy that it would not normally carry out such adaptations that were not accommodated by her property’s and building’s structure, build and design, and that might negatively impact other occupants. It was also understandable that the landlord did not do so as its complaint responses explained that access to the property and building was complex, and that assessments by its surveyors, the resident’s OTs, and the local council had been unable to feasibly resolve her accessibility adaptations.
  10. It is nevertheless extremely concerning the landlord did not then try to resolve the resident’s lack of independent access to her property and building with alternatives to adaptations found to be unfeasible, such as permanent access to help or a different property or entrances in the building. It is also of concern she reports difficulties opening her property’s heavy entrance door, that her bedroom window adaptation would not affect security as a high wall, fencing and cameras prevented access, and that ramps would not affect others or be unfeasible as there was a ramp at her building for 2 decades. While this investigation is unable to assess the resident’s proposed adaptations due to the lack of supporting expert evidence, the landlord should have addressed her concerns and proposed alternative resolutions.
  11. This is particularly because the resident reported her multiple complex health issues and disabilities were worsened by her inability to go outside without help at her property and building, which is very concerning. This also meant her enjoyment of access to and from the property was negatively impacted by the lack of accessibility adaptations or alternatives to these, which is completely unacceptable. The resident’s lack of enjoyment of the property was further affected by the landlord’s unsuitably excessive delay in adapting her shower into a bath at her property. Her OTs chased it for this again on 27 November 2022, but it only adapted this on 17 February 2023, an unreasonable 14 months after agreeing to do so in December 2021.
  12. The landlord noted its above bath adaptation delay was affected by having to discuss the bath lift its contractor found necessary for this in November 2022, which it confirmed on 17 January 2023 would be provided by the resident’s OTs. However, it was inappropriate that it did not provide her with updates and alternative timescales for this adaptation while it was being delayed. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord’s complaint responses apologised to the resident for its delays in responding to her adaptations requests, the time it took to fit her bath, and her stress and inconvenience. It also offered her £500 compensation for its handling of her bath and accessibility adaptations plus £500 for her stress and inconvenience from this and her above repairs.
  13. The landlord tried above to follow the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle to put things right. However, its offer was not in the range its compensation procedure and our remedies guidance suggest for significant failures that had a seriously detrimental severe long-term physical and emotional impact on the resident over a significant period of time. This offer was also not proportionate to recognise her loss of enjoyment of her property from her delayed bath adaptation and still outstanding accessibility adaptations, which our guidance permits rent-based compensation to be awarded for. Nor was the resident’s distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble from lacking and having to chase adequate bathing, access, and a PEEP proportionately recognised.
  14. The landlord has therefore been ordered below to pay the resident its previous offer, if it has not done so already, plus £1,416.79 further compensation. This is broken down into £416.79 for her loss of enjoyment of her property for the 35 months of outstanding adaptations there, which is 10% of her total average monthly rent of £404.80 during this period less the amount it previously offered her, and £1,000 for any distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble she experienced from lacking and having to chase adequate bathing, access, and a PEEP. The apology that the landlord has been ordered to write to the resident above shall also be made for the additional failings identified by this investigation in relation to its handling of her bath and accessibility adaptations.
  15. Moreover, the landlord has been ordered below to contact the resident, her OTs, and the local council to discuss and respond to her points about her property’s entrance door, security, and ramps for her accessibility adaptations, as well as to discuss and provide her with alternatives to the adaptations. It has also been ordered to liaise with her, the OTs, the local council, and the fire service to produce and provide her and the Ombudsman with a copy of a PEEP for her from her property and building. As it is additionally of concern that the landlord did not indicate that it had learnt from the outcome of the resident’s adaptations complaint, contrary to our dispute resolution principle for it to do so, the following further order has been made.
  16. The landlord has been ordered below to carry out a senior management review of the resident’s adaptations case to identify exactly why its failings in handling her bath and accessibility adaptations happened, and to outline exactly how it proposes to prevent these from occurring again in the future. It shall present the review to its senior leadership team and provide her and the Ombudsman with a copy of its review. This review should include the landlord’s staff’s and contractors’ training needs in relation to its aids and adaptations and fire safety policies. This is to ensure it provides timely and comprehensive responses, works and updates, addresses all concerns raised, and provides appropriate alternatives and mitigations where necessary in every adaptations case.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of interior, window frame, and electrical repairs at the resident’s property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of bath and accessibility adaptations at the resident’s property.

Orders and recommendation

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £3,556.79 total compensation within 4 weeks, which is broken down into:
      1. £1,640 it previously offered her, if she has not received this already.
      2. £500 further compensation to recognise any distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble she experienced from its outstanding bathroom panel and wall repairs.
      3. £416.79 further compensation for her loss of enjoyment of her property from the outstanding adaptations there.
      4. £1,000 further compensation for any distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble she experienced from lacking and having to chase adequate bathing, access, and a PEEP.
    2. Write to the resident within 4 weeks to apologise for the additional failures identified by this investigation, accept responsibility for these, and acknowledge their impact on her.
    3. Contact the resident within 4 weeks to arrange for it to inspect and complete any necessary outstanding repairs to her bathroom panel and wall.
    4. Provide the resident with details within 4 weeks to enable her to claim damages to her flooring and decorations from its liability insurance.
    5. Contact the resident, her OTs, and the local council within 4 weeks to discuss and respond to her points about her property’s entrance door, security, and ramps for her accessibility adaptations, as well as to discuss and provide her with alternatives to the adaptations.
    6. Contact the resident, her OTs, the local council, and the fire service within 4 weeks to liaise with them to produce a PEEP for her from her property and building. It shall provide her and the Ombudsman with a copy of the PEEP.
    7. In accordance with paragraph 54g of the Scheme, carry out a senior management review of the resident’s adaptations case within 8 weeks to identify exactly why its failings in handling her bath and accessibility adaptations happened, and to outline exactly how it proposes to prevent these from occurring again in the future. It shall present the review to its senior leadership team and provide her and the Ombudsman with a copy of its review. This review should include:
      1. Its staff’s and contractors’ training needs in relation to its aids and adaptations policy.
      2. Its staff’s and contractors’ training needs in relation to its fire safety policy.

This is to ensure it provides timely and comprehensive responses, works and updates, addresses all concerns raised, and provides appropriate alternatives and mitigations where necessary in every adaptations case.

  1. The landlord shall contact the Ombudsman within 4 and 8 weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above orders and whether it will follow the below recommendations.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord is recommended to review its staff’s training needs in relation to its repairs and maintenance policy to ensure it provides timely repairs, progress updates, and reasons and alternative timescales for any delays in every relevant repairs case.