LiveWest Homes Limited (202120571)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120571

LiveWest Homes Limited

6 December 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the bathroom.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling in this case.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident lives in a 1-bedroom flat. He is the sole occupant of his assured tenancy that began in 2019.
The landlord’s records note the resident has a long-term brain injury that causes him confusion and anxiety.
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the tenancy agreement places obligations on the landlord to maintain the property, in particular in relation to the structure, fixtures and fittings.
The landlord does not have a repairs policy. It has provided a copy of its service offer; however, this only refers to resident repair responsibilities.
The landlord’s customer compliments, complaints and feedback policy has a 2 stage complaints approach. It states it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and stage 2 complaints within 7 working days. Its compensation guidance assesses the level of service failure and impact caused to the resident. It recommends a payment level based on whether the impact was low, moderate or high up to a £500 maximum.
The resident has a representative (his friend). For the purpose of this report, both the resident and the resident’s representative will be referred to singularly as ‘the resident’.

Summary of events

The resident explained to this Service he had experienced issues with the shower drainage. He said the landlord had delayed in resolving the issue and this had resulted in a period of time where he was without a working shower. The following landlord records have been provided to this Service.
The landlord’s repairs history of 22 July 2021, showed repair orders to the following items:
1. The glass shower screen door. The completion date recorded was 28 September 2021.
2. The shower seat that would not fold away. The completion date recorded was 8 October 2021.
The landlord’s records showed it visited the property on 30 July 2021. It noted the “shower chair was working fine”. It recorded that a new shower screen was required.
On 9 August 2021, the landlord raised another repair for the floor and the extractor fan in the bathroom. The completion date shown for these repairs was 8 October 2021.
The landlord arranged repairs to the bathroom floor at the property on 27 September 2021. Its records note “a plumber should have attended to remove the fittings and then the floor company follow to lay the floor”. The plumber failed to attend meaning that the floor could not be repaired. Another landlord record showed the work was not completed due to the resident’s behaviour during the visit.
The next day, the resident raised a complaint about the delayed bathroom works and asked for urgent arrangements to be made to complete the work. He was concerned that the landlord was contacting him directly rather than making arrangements through his appointed representative. He stated the landlord was ignoring his disability. The resident said he was upset as he had waited in all day in order to facilitate the works. Part of the complaint was about an allegation from the landlord’s contractor of the resident taking part in inappropriate actions. He wanted the landlord to explain more as he did not understand the allegations being made against him.
The next day, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint by telephone and email. It confirmed the complaint was about the landlord not completing the work in the bathroom. It also said it would clarify the report it had received from the contractor about the resident’s behaviour. The landlord said that it would respond to the resident by 5 October 2021.
The landlord’s records showed it visited the property on 8 October 2021 to remove the toilet, wash hand basin and shower screen. It noted the timber floor was rotten and the floor needed to be replaced. It recorded that the toilet was reinstated but it did not record whether or not the wash hand basin and shower screen were reinstated or whether in fact it was not necessary for these to be removed/reinstated.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 8 October 2021. It outlined the complaint to be:
1. The delays in completing bathroom work – The landlord said there had been a lack of communication between contractors in getting the repairs resolved in a timely manner and it apologised for the delays and acknowledged further work was required as the bathroom floor was rotten.
2. Allegations about the resident’s behaviour – The landlord said it had received information from its contractor that the resident was taking part in inappropriate actions while the contractor was on site. This had led to the job being cancelled as the engineer felt uncomfortable.
3. The landlord committed to keep in touch with the resident to ensure work was completed swiftly so he would not be without a shower for too long.
4. It partly upheld the complaint as it believed both the resident and contractor had caused the delays.
The landlord’s repairs history showed that on 13 October 2021 it received a call from the resident chasing up the bathroom floor work. Its notes showed the resident could not use the shower.
The resident contacted the landlord on 14 October 2021 concerned that he had been left without a working shower and floor in the bathroom for 7 days because he was awaiting the floor to be repaired. He explained to the landlord that he was relying on his friend to help with personal hygiene but she was going away shortly and he would not be able to manage.
The landlord visited the property on 15 October 2021 to start work on the floor. Its notes showed the resident was being decanted until the works were completed. It also said it would return to fit the wet room floor.
The landlord confirmed to this Service that the resident was decanted to a hotel between 18 October 2021 to 20 October 2021.
The landlord recorded the floor work was completed and the fittings reinstated on 18 October 2021. It noted it had to reattend to complete the wet room floor covering.
The landlord’s repairs history on 21 October 2021 showed it raised an order to “supply and fit wet room vinyl.” It showed the work was completed the same day. However, in another landlord record, it said the work was completed 22 October 2021 and the new floor and shower screen were fitted on 23 October 2021.
The resident contacted the landlord on 22 October 2021 to report water still escaped from the new shower unit into the hallway and he said it was worse than before work had been completed. He asked for the issue to be resolved urgently as he had previously been without a shower for 2 weeks’ and the stress was making him very upset. He also explained wooden skirting boards had been left exposed around the sink and behind the toilet. The landlord recorded it was reopening the complaint.
On 26 October 2021 the landlord raised a repair to investigate issues with the new wet room shower. Its notes refer to “large gaps under the shower screen doors. The new floor had not been levelled properly and water escaped into the hallway when in use”.
A landlord internal email of 27 October 2021 refers to the wet room being installed “poorly” resulting in water escaping into the hallway. It said it would arrange work as soon as possible.
The resident contacted the landlord on 3 November 2021 to say the water was still escaping from the shower and he was having to use a bucket, mop and place a towel by the shower doors. He said he was happy for the landlord to remove the shower seat and fit “tall doors rather than short doors”.
On 5 November 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to say he did not feel the shower door reconfiguration would work and that the solution was either to create a larger sloped area or provide a ‘step in’ tray.
The landlord recorded on 5 November 2021, it offered the resident a move to a property with a wet room and ‘upstands’. The resident confirmed he did not want to move home.
The landlord’s records of 11 November 2021 state it inspected the bathroom that day. It said “the current set up in the bathroom was not suited to the resident. The bathroom was not classed as a full wet room and work was required to stop water escaping from the shower”. It recommended the following work and scheduled it to take place the next day:
1. Reposition the shower;
2. Remove the disused seat;
3. Replace the extractor fan.

The landlord recorded the work to be complete on 17 November 2021.

On 19 November 2021, the landlord spoke to the resident and it noted the shower hose was an issue. The landlord made internal enquiries to see if the shower could be repositioned that day to enable more flex on the hose. It confirmed it would arrange the work but would need to find an appointment slot and would aim to carry out the work the following week.
The landlord’s internal email of 29 November 2021 showed it was ordering a new shower hose and holder. It was taking longer to source as it was “non-standard”.
On 7 December 2021, the resident said water was still escaping from the shower. The resident contacted this Service on the same date, and the Ombudsman issued a ‘first request for action’ to the landlord for it to register a stage 2 complaint.
The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 13 December 2021. It explained it had attempted to resolve the water drainage issue by repositioning the shower but it had not been successful. It arranged for work to be completed on 14 December 2021 to fit a shower door and it would inspect the work on 16 December 2021.
The landlord confirmed to the resident in the stage 2 complaint response that it upheld the complaint, it apologised and offered compensation of £550 to the resident to cover the complaint handling delays at stages 1 and 2 and failures within the repairs process.
The landlord visited the property on 14 December 2021 to install the shower doors.
On 16 December 2021, the landlord inspected the completed works. During the visit, water was still escaping from under the shower doors. It arranged to return in the new year to remove the floor and “dig down” to allow the correct drainage.
The resident contacted the landlord on 11 January 2022 to say he had been unable to stay at his home since 8 January 2022 as it was full of “thick cement dust”. He asked for the job to be finished urgently and for the landlord to remove the “thick layer of dust”. The resident was staying at a friends which he said was not ideal.
The landlord started work on 14 January 2022 and completed the final work in the bathroom over 2 to 3 days.
On 19 January 2022, the landlord’s records showed it visited the resident, checked the works and confirmed everything was complete. It offered the resident a further £100 in recognition of the additional delays.
The landlord sent the resident its revised stage 2 complaint response on 21 January 2022 to confirm the correct amount of compensation of £650. It acknowledged it had previously made a mistake of an incorrect compensation figure of £400.

Summary of events after landlord’s final complaint process

The landlord recorded a repair to the toilet on 7 April 2022 noting it was cracked during previous work. The toilet was replaced on 14 June 2022.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are to:
1. Be fair;
2. Put things right; and
3. Learn from outcomes.

These principles will be applied throughout this assessment.

The landlord raised repairs to the bathroom at the end of July 2021. It demonstrated that it inspected the bathroom within a reasonable timeframe of 1 week and noted further work was required for the shower door. However, the landlord did not complete the work until 2 months later. While the landlord does not have a repairs policy and therefore does not have target response timeframes for repairs, it was unreasonable for the landlord to delay essential works by 2 months when there was potential for damage to the property and inconvenience to the resident of having to deal with the issues from the shower.
At the beginning of August 2021, the landlord raised further work to repair the bathroom floor and the extractor fan. However, it did not record that the repairs were completed until the beginning of October 2021; 2 months later and this was again an unreasonable timeframe for the resident to wait given the repairs were to an essential bathing facility.
The landlord arranged repairs to the bathroom floor at the end of September 2021. It was clear that 2 different trades were required; a plumber to remove the bathroom fittings and then a follow on operative to repair the floor. It is apparent that the plumber failed to attend to remove the fittings and this resulted in delays to the floor works. It is key for the landlord to ensure coordination, planning and communication of this type of work and the landlord failed to do this which resulted in inappropriate delays.
The resident raised a complaint the following day about the delayed repairs and concerns the landlord was contacting him directly about repairs and not his representative as he had previously requested. He wanted an explanation about an allegation from the landlord’s contractor about his inappropriate behaviour during a visit at the end of September 2021.
Early October 2021, the landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint in which it partly upheld the complaint about the delayed works but it said that part of the delays were due to the resident. Although the landlord was right to raise and follow up the allegation with the resident, the substantive issue was the plumber’s failure to attend the property on time. The allegation about the resident’s behaviour was clearly a separate issue from the delayed bathroom work and it was unfair of the landlord to partly blame the resident for the delays. Further, there was no evidence the landlord responded to the resident about the concerns he had raised of the landlord communicating directly with him rather than his representative.
The landlord arranged for the bathroom fittings to be removed early October 2021 and at this point it identified the timber floor was rotten and required replacement. It appropriately put back the toilet but it is unclear whether the wash hand basin and shower screen were removed and or reinstated.
The resident had to chase up the bathroom works mid-October 2021 as he had been left without the use of a shower for 7 days. Given the shower is an essential bathing facility, it was inappropriate that the landlord delayed in the works and left the resident without bathing facilities.
The landlord did, however, demonstrate that it completed the work mid-October 2021 over a 2-day period and it appropriately arranged for the resident to stay in a hotel during the works. This demonstrated the landlord was responsive to the resident’s needs. Further work was still required to the bathroom floor and it is unclear of the date this work was completed as the landlord’s records show different dates towards the end of October 2021.
The resident reported he was still experiencing issues with water escaping from the shower area shortly after the completion of work, stating it was worse than it had been prior to work being completed. Although the landlord started its internal communications quickly within 2 working days, the resident had to make a further chase up to the landlord early November 2021.
The landlord demonstrated it was investigating solutions to the persistent bathroom fault and also looked at wider options including rehousing the resident to a property with a bathroom facility more suitable to his requirements. The resident declined the landlord’s offer of rehousing and the landlord made recommendations for work to rectify the bathroom defects stating it would start these the following day.
The full work to the bathroom was not completed until mid-November 2021 but there was still an issue with the shower hose which was delayed due to it being a ‘nonstandard’ item. At the end of November 2021, this work still remained outstanding.
The resident reported water was still escaping from the shower area early December 2021. He escalated his complaint and the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response mid December 2021. The landlord appropriately arranged for work to be completed to fit a shower door and returned shortly after completion to inspect the work. However, upon inspection, the landlord found water was still escaping from under the shower doors and it arranged to return in the new year to complete works. The landlord’s records showed the full work was completed mid-January 2022.
In summary, the landlord failed to carry out timely repairs to the bathroom at the property that extended over a period of 6 months. While the landlord demonstrated that it did attend and attempted to resolve the issues, the resident experienced a period of not being able to use his shower (approximately 2 weeks). In addition, the same fault continually occurred with water escaping from the bathroom, when it would be reasonable for the resident to expect the issue to be resolved at the first attempt. During the works, the resident was inconvenienced by the repeat appointments to resolve the issues and at times he had to stay with a friend until the work was completed.
The landlord appropriately recognised its delays, decanted the resident for a short duration and offered him permanent rehousing. Although the landlord recognised its failures, apologised and offered the resident £450 compensation for the delays, this amount of compensation falls short in recognising the level of disruption, inconvenience and distress on the resident. The Ombudsman has therefore made a finding of service failure and an order of £700 compensation to be paid to the resident. This is in recognition of the considerable failures, the impact on the resident, his inability to use the shower for a period of time and the ongoing inconvenience of dealing with water escaping from the bathroom.

The associated complaint

The resident raised a complaint at the end of September 2021 and the landlord acknowledged this the following day stating its timescale for a response to be the beginning of October 2021.
The landlord responded to the resident on 8 October 2021, (8 working days later). Although this is slightly outside of the landlord’s complaints policy of 5 working days, it is still considered to be an appropriate timeframe and falls in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code that states complaints should be responded to within 10 working days.
It is unclear when the landlord registered the complaint escalation request. Although the landlords records showed it reopened the complaint at the end of October 2021, it failed to evidence records that it appropriately registered the stage 2 complaint. It was not until this Service sent its ‘first request for action’ on 7 December 2021, that the landlord progressed the complaint and responded mid December 2021. It appropriately apologised and offered the resident £200 compensation for its complaint handling failures. The Ombudsman considers this level of compensation to be in line with its remedies guidance for failures that had impacted the resident over a short duration of 2 months.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the complaint about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the bathroom.
In accordance with 53(b) of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord failed to carry out timely repairs to the bathroom and resolve the ongoing issue of water escaping from the bathroom. It did however acknowledge its failings and offer compensation to the resident but this did not go far enough to recognise the failings and the impact on the resident.
The landlord recognised its failures in handling the stage 2 complaint and offered reasonable redress in its compensation offer to the resident.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord should write to the resident and apologise for the failures identified within this report.
Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay compensation of £900 (including the £650 it had already offered the resident, if not already done so) as follows:
1. £700 in relation to the landlord’s handling of repairs to the bathroom.
2. £200 in relation to the associated complaint.
Within 8 weeks of this report, the landlord to consider the failings identified within this report and review how it will improve its future repair service in relation to its process and guidance for staff on the coordination and planning of repairs that involve multiple trades.

Recommendation

The landlord should consider having a repairs policy to include how it prioritises repairs and target timescales for completion. This will enable consistency in its repair provision for staff and transparency for residents.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with orders within the timescales set out above.