Camden Council (202208128)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208128

Camden Council

21 July 2023

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of repairs required to her wet room to make it more accessible and the resident’s reports of discrimination.
2. The resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secured tenant and a tenancy agreement has been provided which outlines conditions of tenancy starting from 19 April 2021 (with rent payable from 2 May 2021). The property is a one bedroom flat. The resident has said that she has some disabilities which impact her day to day mobility.
The landlord has a ‘tenants guide’ that shows that:
1. It is responsible for repairs to fittings within the property that use water and for hot and cold water pipework.
2. Tenants must always get the written permission of the landlord before completing alterations and improvements and it is the tenant’s responsibility to maintain these.
The landlord has provided a copy of its complaints policy which states that a stage one response will be provided within ten working days and a stage two response within 25 working days. It should be noted that the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code only allows 20 working days for the landlord to provide a stage two response.

Scope of investigation

There are sometimes reasons why the Ombudsman is unable to consider complaints or part of complaints. In contact with this Service, the resident advised they are seeking damages and also that they have suffered injuries as a result of the state of the bathroom. Unfortunately, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more usually dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
Furthermore, part of the complaint concerns allegations of discrimination. This Service is unable to determine that the resident has been a victim of discrimination as set out in the Equality Act; this is a matter for the courts. However, the role of this Service is to consider whether the landlord handled the complaint in line with policy and procedure and whether the resident has been treated fairly, given all the circumstances of the case.
The Ombudsman is not able to comment on any adaptations decisions agreed by the Occupational Therapy Team or actions taken by them as these would be a matter for the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman who look at complaints about social care services.
It is noted that further events have taken place after the landlord issued its final complaint response on 18 October 2022. Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme sets out that this Service may not consider complaints about matters that have not exhausted a landlord’s complaints process. This investigation is therefore focused on the events leading up to the landlord’s final complaint response in October 2022, although later events may be referred to for context.

Summary of events

The landlord’s notes show that correspondence was exchanged between it and the resident prior to the start of the tenancy and the resident also had access to the property before the start date. On 23 April 2021, an email from the resident stated that the wet room needed to be re-assessed and that a pump was not functioning properly. On 27 April 2021, the resident called the landlord to say that the wet room floor was level and unsuitable as water did not flow towards the drain.
An Occupational Therapist (OT) emailed the landlord on 29 April 2021 to say that it may be necessary for a company to visit to survey the bathroom as the resident’s previous toilet could not be moved as it was owned by her previous landlord. The OT said that there was nothing more he could do at that time.
On 30 April 2021, the resident emailed to request that the wet room ‘be put right’ as it was not ‘fit for purpose’. Internal landlord correspondence on the same date showed that operatives were willing to go and have a look at the reported issue, but required permission to be able to contact the resident. On the same day, the resident gave permission for an inspection of her wet room. She said that she was unhappy that none of the repairs and adaptions had been completed as she needed to vacate her current property within a couple days.
On 30 April 2021, the landlord said it had extended the tenancy start date until 2 May 2021, apologised for a delay in completing the repairs and said it had asked for the company completing the inspection to contact the resident urgently. The landlord asked for a copy of the resident’s blue badge so it could add her to its Enhanced Repairs Scheme.
The resident asked for alternative accommodation and the landlord said it would consider emergency accommodation whilst the repairs were completed, but then said it would be difficult to source suitable emergency accommodation given the resident’s disability. It said she should talk to her current landlord about not being able to move so soon. Nevertheless, the housing officer enquired about properties with adaptions for residents with disabilities and requested emergency temporary accommodation. The landlord also attempted to contact the resident’s current landlord to enquire whether her current tenancy could be extended but could not get through to them. The landlord updated resident about the request it made for temporary accommodation.
On 30 April 2021, the landlord arranged for an operative to attend to assess the fault with the drainage in the shower. The operative attended but was unable to resolve the issue as the electric shower unit had been removed from the wall and was not on site. Furthermore, a company fitting a new boiler had supplied a plastic pipe to the shower. Notes from 30 April 2021 also show that the landlord had been in communication with a clerk of works who had advised that the shower and drainage were working fine at the point of handover. The landlord said it would arrange a joint inspection.
On 4 May 2021, the landlord looked to book a hotel for the resident. The resident said she needed a property that allowed dogs as she had a dog for PTSD. The landlord asked if the dog could stay with anyone else but the resident said this was not possible, but she was happy with a hotel booking. The landlord checked with the hotel if it would allow dogs and it said only if it was a genuine assistance dog. The landlord emailed the resident on the same date and said that it could reimburse reasonable meal expenses if receipts were kept. It said that the hotel allowed assistance dogs and if the resident’s dog fitted this criteria then it would be allowed.
On 5 May 2021, the landlord was unable to get hold of the resident and called the hotel to see if the resident was actually staying there. When the landlord did speak to the resident, she confirmed that she was staying at her flat. The landlord then cancelled the hotel booking.
Internal landlord correspondence shows that a contractor was to return to the resident’s property to install a workable shower and connect this to the pump (which would remove water from the shower). The landlord’s notes from the same date show that that the resident wanted drainage that connected directly to the waste but this was not within the landlord’s specification for a wet room.
On 7 May 2021, correspondence shows that an adaptations team had given the go-ahead for the installation of a WC. On the same date, internal correspondence showed that an OT had spoken to the resident and discussed how the WC would be replaced. However, further records from the same date said that the resident had made modifications to the kitchen, including works to the water feeds from the bathroom, affecting the drainage.
Internal correspondence from 13 May 2021 said that since the handover, the resident had made significant modifications that may have affected the functioning of the shower and pump. The contractor would therefore not attend as repairs were no longer covered under the void defects period due to the modifications made.
The landlord has said that the resident, or someone acting on behalf of the resident, removed the shower. However, internal notes from 13 May 2021 suggest that one of the landlord’s contractors removed the shower at the request of the resident. The landlord’s notes suggest that the contractor should return to install a functioning shower, connecting to the pump to enable both the shower and pump were fit for service.
The neighbourhood officer sent the resident an email on 14 May 2021 to say that the landlord would not assist the resident with this repair any further.
On 17 May 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord to inform it about her and her husband’s health conditions, why she felt the landlord was in breach of its duty to repair the shower and report that the bathroom was not functional. The landlord sent the resident a letter on 27 May 2021, regarding the unauthorised alterations. On 28 May 2021, the resident emailed to say that she had become very unwell and her husband went into a crisis following a letter from the landlord. On the same date, the landlord tried to book an inspection of the resident’s property and planned to send an appointment letter.
The neighbourhood manager wrote to the resident on 1 June 2021, acknowledging her letter regarding the recent health problems with her husband. The letter said that the unauthorised alterations needed to be inspected as soon as possible and it would find a time that was convenient for the resident.
On 16 June 2021, the resident asked to postpone the inspection due to a medical emergency. A new appointment was agreed for July 2021. The notes show that on 23 June 2021, the landlord called the resident and acknowledged receipt of her GP’s letter. The landlord was trying to arrange a survey, but the resident said that this may need to be pushed back due to her husband’s health.
On 19 July 2021, the landlord carried out an inspection of the resident’s property and found that the resident had made several unauthorised alterations, including installing her own shower. The installation had not been completed as the resident stopped work following a letter from the landlord.
On 8 October 2021 and 3 December 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident asking for further information regarding the unauthorised alterations so it could look to retrospectively approve them. The resident did reply in October 2021 to say she would need some extra time to respond. On 3 December 2021, the resident said that no major building works took place and she refused to be bullied as no works were done incorrectly. The resident said she would respond in full by 17 December 2021.
In April 2022, the resident made a self-referral for the installation of a wet room and said she needed an OT to visit to assess her property. There was a wait of four months and the landlord agreed to refer the resident to the waiting list for an assessment with a view to a wet floor shower adaptation.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 14 July 2022 and the landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same day. The Housing Ombudsman Service also wrote to the landlord on 21 July 2022, asking it to respond to the complaint by 4 August 2022.
On 22 July 2022, internal correspondence from the landlord showed that it did not have any repair records for the resident’s wet room. The landlord said it provided its stage one response on 27 July 2022 and partially upheld the complaint; however, this response seems to relate to a separate complaint.
The landlord confirmed that the resident’s complaint was registered at stage two on 28 July 2022. It said that its complaints procedure allowed it up to 25 days to respond at stage two and the resident would receive a reply by 2 September 2022.
On 5 October 2022, the Ombudsman chased the landlord for a response at stage two. On 13 October 2022, the Ombudsman sent a final request for action to the landlord for it to provide the stage two response.
The landlord sent its stage two complaint response on 18 October 2022, which said the following:
1. On 8 October 2021, the neighbourhood manager wrote to the resident about various unauthorised alterations and improvements to her home.
2. It apologised for its delayed response. The resident had said that she had private works undertaken to make her bathroom safe as it was flooding and work was done to improve the drainage.
3. The resident wanted a proper occupational health (OT) assessment and for her bathroom to be brought up to a proper standard, including level entrance to the room and grab rails fitted so that she could safely use the facility alone. The landlord agreed and said it would send a surveyor for further inspection along with an OT so that progress could be made with minimum disruption.
4. The landlord said it was partially upholding the complaint. It said it would only consider the resident’s treatment after the outcome of the findings of the OT assessment. It also said it would only respond to a compensation request at that point.
In November 2022, an OT visited to assess the shower and toilet. The resident had reported that she had fallen a couple of times due to the raised tray position off the floor. The OT recommended provision of a rail.
On 21 November 2022, the resident emailed to say that no one had contacted her to arrange a survey and OT visit. However, as of June 2023, the resident has said that she has now had an OT visit and her referral for a wet room was declined. The resident said she has a complaint regarding this with the local authority.
In December 2022, it was noted that the current shower tray was installed by the resident’s husband with no authorisation. The landlord’s notes confirmed that there was no evidence that the resident had raised a repair issue regarding the wet room shower that was previously there when she moved in.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs required to her wet room to make it more accessible and the resident’s reports of discrimination

The resident raised issues regarding her bathroom prior to starting the tenancy on 23, 27 and 30 April 2021. She said that due to the floor being level, water did not flow towards the drain and she reported drainage issues. On 30 April 2021, the landlord agreed to send its contractor to inspect the bathroom and the resident agreed to the contractors contacting her. This was a reasonable action for the landlord to take to try and resolve any issues and it responded promptly to the resident’s concerns.
At this point, the resident was still living in her old property with a different landlord but was due to move shortly. The resident said she could not move into the property with the shower in the state it was and asked for alternative accommodation. The landlord said that finding suitable alternative accommodation would be hard but tried to find temporary accommodation whilst also seeking to extend the resident’s existing tenancy for a few days (albeit it was unable to get through to the resident’s previous landlord). These were reasonable steps for the landlord to take, given it was not sure it could find suitable alternative accommodation due to the resident’s health concerns.
On 30 April 2021, the landlord arranged for an operative to attend to assess the fault with the drainage in the shower. The operative attended but was unable to resolve the issue as the electric shower unit had been removed from the wall and was not on site. As mentioned above, it was reasonable for the landlord to inspect the wet room to determine the next steps but this could not be progressed as the shower had been removed. In the meantime, it extended the tenancy start date to 3 May 2021 – this was appropriate and in line with its ‘extending tenancy dates’ procedure that allows for this where repairs have not been completed so the property cannot be inhabited.
The landlord also arranged alternative accommodation in a nearby hotel for the resident as she had said she could not stay at the property on 4 May 2021. The resident then said she needed her dog for health reasons. The landlord emailed the resident on the same date and said that it could reimburse reasonable meal expenses if receipts were kept. It said that the hotel allowed assistance dogs and if the resident’s dog was one of these then it would be allowed.
The actions taken by the landlord were reasonable as it found and paid for alternative suitable accommodation whilst the repairs were being investigated, as the resident said she could not use the shower at the property. The landlord offered to cover the expense of meals and explored whether the resident could take her dog. This demonstrated that the landlord was resolution-focused and willing to be pro-active to ease inconvenience to the resident and progress any repairs.
The landlord tried to contact the resident on 5 May 2021 to check if they were staying at the hotel. It discovered that she was staying at the property and so cancelled the alternative accommodation as it was not being used. It was reasonable for the landlord to end the temporary accommodation arrangement once it became aware that the resident had not taken up this option.
Internal correspondence from 5 May 2021 shows that a contractor was to return to install a workable shower and connect this to the pump which would remove water from the shower. Again, this was a reasonable plan of action as the landlord sought to rectify the issue with the shower.
However, on 13 May 2021, the landlord said that since the property handover, the resident had made significant modifications that may have affected the functioning of the shower and pump. The contractor would therefore not attend as it was no longer covered under the void defects period due to the modifications made by the resident. It is not disputed that the resident wished to make these modifications and the landlord’s decision that it would not maintain these items was therefore in line with the repairs responsibility outlined in the ‘tenants guide’. The landlord also checked to determine if there had been any fault with drainage prior to the tenancy – it was reasonable for it to check this as part of its investigations into whether the modifications since the tenancy began were the reason for the faults the resident reported.
However, the landlord has said that the resident, or someone on behalf of the resident, removed the shower, but its notes suggest that one of the landlord’s contractors removed this at the resident’s request. Unless the landlord’s notes are incorrect, then as the contractor worked for the landlord, the landlord should have considered whether it did have a responsibility in maintaining any new shower. It is unclear exactly how the contractor took the decision to assist the resident with removal of the shower and whether the landlord was involved in this decision. It is of concern that the landlord’s records are inadequate in this regard and that it failed to account for this in its decision that it would not complete subsequent repairs.
The neighbourhood officer sent the resident an email on 14 May 2021 to say the landlord would not assist her with the further bathroom repairs. Although the resident had potentially breached the terms of her tenancy by making alterations which she had not received permission for, and these modifications potentially affected the shower and drainage, the landlord did not consider its internal records that indicate its contractor was involved in the shower removal and whether this meant that it had a responsibility to maintain a new shower.
On 27 May 2021, the landlord sent the resident a letter regarding the unauthorised alterations. The resident responded to say that she had become very unwell and her husband went into a crisis following a letter from the landlord. Over the next month, the resident sent several communications explaining hers and her husband’s medical conditions. Whilst the landlord did acknowledge the resident’s comments, it also made it clear that the resident would need the unauthorised alterations approved and said it needed to inspect the alterations. The actions taken by the landlord were reasonable as it needed to assess the alterations before it could look to approve them.
By December 2021, the landlord still had not received all the information it required to retrospectively approve the alterations, despite corresponding with the resident on numerous occasions in an attempt to obtain this. It was reasonable for the landlord to ask for this information and assist the resident with obtaining it. The landlord demonstrated that it was attempting to resolve the situation by retrospectively authorising the alterations rather than requiring the resident to revert the wet room to the way it was before her tenancy.
In April 2022, the resident made a self-referral for the installation of a wet room and said she needed an OT to visit to assess her property. The landlord said there was a wait of four months which the resident was not happy about, but agreed to refer the resident to the waiting list for an assessment. It was reasonable for the landlord to put the resident on the list for an assessment and explain the likely timescales involved. The resident had not made a referral prior to this and so the landlord acted appropriately.
The resident later reported that she had fallen a couple of times due to a raised tray position off the floor. Internal correspondence indicates that the resident fitted the shower tray. Therefore, there was no service failure on the part of the landlord for the shower tray potentially being a hazard.
The resident has also complained about how the landlord handled her reports of discrimination. However, the resident had not raised issues of discrimination prior to the complaint except in regard to the handling of housing benefit – this aspect of the complaint was therefore outside of the landlord’s jurisdiction and it explained this in its final complaint response.
The landlord agreed in its final complaint response that it would send a surveyor and OT to jointly assess the resident’s situation. The resident had asked for an OT to visit in April 2022, yet this did not happen until over six months later. The delay in progressing the OT inspection is not within the jurisdiction of this Service and the OT later declined the resident’s request. However, given the resident’s potential vulnerability and that she raised a complaint in July 2022, the landlord missed an opportunity between July-October 2022 to arrange its own surveyor inspection and determine whether any interim works were possible.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The resident submitted a complaint in July 2022 and the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 21 July 2022 to request that it progress the matter. The landlord sent a stage one response on 27 July 2022, but this did not address the resident’s complaint about the repair to her bathroom. This meant that the landlord missed an opportunity to investigate the resident’s property condition concerns.
The resident referred the complaint to stage two on 28 July 2022; the landlord acknowledged this and said that a response would be provided by 2 September 2022. However, it did not provide its stage two response until 18 October 2022. This delay was outside of both the landlord’s complaints policy and the Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code timescales and therefore represented an inappropriate delay of almost two months.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration with regards to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs required to her wet room to make it more accessible and the resident’s reports of discrimination.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration with regards to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

Although the resident had made alterations to the wet room and so would be responsible for ongoing maintenance of these, the landlord did not take into account its contractor’s involvement in removal of a shower. Further, the landlord missed an opportunity during the complaints process to conduct a survey to assess whether any interim works could be carried out to assist the resident while the OT inspection was pending.
The landlord’s stage one complaint response did not address the resident’s property condition complaint and there was a delay in it providing the stage two complaint response.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to write to the resident within four weeks of the date of this report to apologise for the service failures identified.
The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £350 compensation within four weeks of the date of this report, made up of:
1. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her by the failings in its handling of her reports of repairs required to her wet room.
2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her by the failure in its handling of her complaint.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with the above orders within the timescales set out above.