Norwich City Council (202316688)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202316688

Norwich City Council

7 November 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 response to a lack of water supply in the property.
   2. The landlord’s handling of repairs in the kitchen.
   3. The landlord’s handling of adaptations to the bathroom.
   4. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Background

2. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom flat under a secure tenancy agreement. The tenancy started 17 April 2023, and was offered to the resident by the local authority under its homelessness prevention duty. It is understood that the resident lives with a disability which affects her mobility.
3. The resident raised complaints on 2 May 2023. The resident was dissatisfied that:
   1. she had been left without any water supply to the property for 5 days after she moved in on 17 April 2023
   2. the contractors who restored the water supply damaged the pipes which had resulted in a leak in the kitchen
   3. her washing machine could not be installed on 26 April 2023 because of the leak
   4. when the installation of the washing machine was rebooked, it had been identified that the kitchen pipework had been configured in such a way as to prevent a washing machine being installed
   5. she had also identified that the stop-tap for the water had been placed behind where the washing machine was supposed to be installed
   6. a further leak had occurred on 2 May 2023, which had been attended the same day and it had been identified that the sink had been incorrectly installed
4. In its stage 1 complaint response on 26 May 2023, the landlord:
   1. stated it had inspected on 25 May 2023 and identified the following repairs:
      1. refit sink
      2. fit new section of worktop
      3. remove 2 kitchen base units
      4. fit new sink base unit
      5. adjust ‘services’ as required
   2. stated it had assigned the repairs to its contractor
   3. apologised for any distress and inconvenience caused
5. The resident escalated her complaint on 8 June 2023. The resident remained dissatisfied that:
   1. the landlord had not given consideration to her disabilities
   2. the kitchen was not safe for her, because:
      1. the washing machine could not be put into place and stuck out into the kitchen
      2. the tumble dryer was partially blocking the doorway
      3. the dishwasher was left in the middle of the kitchen floor
   3. she had been injured trying to move around the kitchen
   4. the landlord had not responded to her complaint about having no water for the first 5 days of the tenancy
   5. the landlord had delayed in taking action on the recommendations of an Occupational Therapist to adapt her bathroom with a level access shower
   6. the landlord had indicated that if the property was not suitable to her needs she should not have accepted it, which the resident believed was unfair because she was at risk of homelessness
   7. she had been caused embarrassment and humiliation as she was unable to care for herself in the property
6. In its stage 2 complaint response on 21 June 2023, the landlord:
   1. explained that due to a miscommunication, the repairs it had identified in the kitchen were not immediately raised with its contractors
   2. stated an inspection was carried out on 19 June 2023 and that due to the extent of repairs, further parts were needed
   3. expected it would take 2 weeks for these parts to be delivered
   4. apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused
7. In her complaint to this service, the resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint responses. In resolution of her complaint, she believed the landlord ought to compensate her for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s record keeping

8. The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise. 
9. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord has failed to maintain adequate records, which has impacted this service’s ability to carry out a thorough investigation, as highlighted at various points throughout this report. This was a failure by the landlord and contributed to the other failures identified in this report.

The landlord’s response to a lack of water supply in the property

10. The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a duty on landlords to ensure a property is fit for human habitation at the start of a tenancy. This includes a supply of water.
11. The landlord’s repairs policy states it will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours. The policy describes an emergency repair as one which, if not attended, would cause extreme discomfort to the tenant.
12. The Ombudsman expects landlords to complete repairs within a reasonable time. What is reasonable will depend on the circumstances and the nature of the repair. Where there is a delay in completing repairs, the Ombudsman expects landlords to be proactive in:
    1. communicating the cause of delays to residents
    2. explaining to residents what it intends to do about the delays
    3. identifying what it can do to mitigate the impact of delays on residents
13. In her complaints the resident reported that:
    1. the property was without any supply of water when she moved in on 17 April 2023
    2. she contacted the utility company about this, was told the property had its water supply capped off and that the landlord would need to fix this
    3. she reported this to the landlord
    4. the water supply was restored 5 days after moving into the property
14. Due to the lack of adequate records, it is not known precisely when the resident reported the lack of water supply to the landlord or what the landlord did in response. The resident’s account has not been disputed by the landlord, nor has it provided any evidence on which the Ombudsman could conclude that the resident’s account is inaccurate.
15. Due to the lack of adequate records, it is also not possible to determine whether the water supply was checked during the void period as it ought to have been.
16. This was not acceptable. The landlord had a legal obligation to ensure the property had a supply of water before the start of the tenancy. Furthermore, once the landlord had been notified of the error, it ought to have acted to restore the water supply as an emergency. In addition, there is no evidence the landlord took any action to mitigate the impact on the resident, such as providing bottled water. This was a significant failure by the landlord.
17. Considering all the circumstances, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its response to the lack of water supply in the property, in that:
    1. it ought to have ensured the water supply was there before the start of the tenancy
    2. once it was notified of this, it ought to have attended as an emergency to restore the water
    3. if it was not possible to restore the water supply immediately, it ought to have taken action to mitigate the impact on the resident
18. Due to the failures identified in this report, the resident was left for 5 days without running water, nor was she provided with any alternative means of access to water. This would have caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident, for which the resident ought to be compensated.

The landlord’s handling of repairs in the kitchen

19. The landlord’s repair policy states it will attend urgent repairs within 5 working days and routine repairs within 60 working days. The policy describes urgent repairs as those which may affect a tenants ability to live comfortably in their home. The policy describes routine repairs as all repairs which are neither emergency or urgent.
20. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord stated it had inspected the property on 25 May 2023 and identified the repairs described at paragraph 4 of this report, which was 23 days later.
21. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was not appropriate. The repairs the resident reported included uncontained leaks. Therefore, in the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord ought to have considered this an urgent repair.
22. The Ombudsman acknowledges that at times things can go wrong and landlords can make mistakes. In such circumstances, the Ombudsman expects landlords to acknowledge and explain the mistake, apologise for it, and explain what it intends to do to rectify it.
23. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord explained that due to a communication error, the repairs were not immediately raised with its contractor. The landlord apologised for the error. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was appropriate in the circumstances.
24. It also explained an appointment was attended on 19 June 2023 and it identified that further parts would be needed to complete the repairs. Due to the lack of adequate records, it is not possible to verify the landlord’s account. This was a failure by the landlord.
25. It is also not clear why the landlord had not already identified that further parts would be needed to complete the repairs at its inspection on 25 May 2023. This was a missed opportunity by the landlord to prevent delays in completing the repairs.
26. This service understands the landlord completed the repairs at an unknown date in 2023. Due to the lack of adequate records, it is not possible to determine:
    1. when the landlord completed the repairs
    2. whether the time taken to complete any repairs was reasonable
27. Considering all the circumstances, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs in the kitchen. This is because there is no evidence on which the Ombudsman could conclude the landlord carried out the repairs in a way that was consistent with its policies and the Ombudsman’s expectations.

The landlord’s handling of adaptations to the bathroom

28. On 16 March 2023, an Occupational Therapist (OT) recommended that the landlord adapt the bathroom to make it suitable to the resident’s needs. This consisted of removing the bath and installing a level access shower.
29. The resident made an application for grant funding for the adaptation on 20 April 2023.
30. In her complaint escalation on 8 June 2023, the resident was dissatisfied that the landlord had not taken any action on the OT recommendation.
31. On 5 July 2023, the landlord confirmed it would carry out the adaptations. It stated:
    1. a survey would be done on 8 August 2023
    2. a follow up meeting would be held with the resident and its contractors on 21 August 2023
    3. it expected work to commence on 29 August 2023
32. On 14 September 2023, the landlord confirmed to the resident that the adaptations had been completed on 1 September 2023, which was 58 days after it agreed to do them. Although the landlord has not provided any evidence of this, this is not disputed by the resident.
33. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the time taken to complete the adaptations was reasonable, because it was consistent with the landlord’s policy to complete routine repairs within 60 working days.
34. In correspondence with this service, the landlord explained it had a long waiting list for adaptations, and that it had not prioritised the resident’s adaptations because her disability was not life-limiting. Therefore, there was no justification for prioritising the resident’s adaptations over other people also in need of adaptations.
35. The Ombudsman acknowledges that it would have been desirable for the resident if the landlord had completed the adaptations sooner than it did. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s decision was reasonable. Landlords have a responsibility to use limited resources for the benefit of all residents.
36. However, there is no evidence the landlord at any time explained its decision to the resident. Had it done so, it could have managed her expectations about what could be achieved.
37. Furthermore, the landlord has not explained why it took nearly 4 months for it to agree to the adaptations recommended by the OT.  There is no evidence on which the Ombudsman could conclude that this delay was either reasonable or unavoidable. This was a failure by the landlord.
38. Considering all the circumstances, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the adaptations, in that it:
    1. unreasonably delayed in its decision to undertake the adaptations
    2. did not explain its decision to not prioritise the adaptation to the resident
39. As a result, the resident was left in a position where she was having difficulty maintaining personal hygiene with no understanding as to if or when this would change. This would have caused avoidable distress to the resident, for which she ought to be compensated.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

40. This service’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should handle complaints. This includes an expectation that landlords will:
    1. respond to complaints and complaint escalations within a reasonable time
    2. respond to all aspects of the resident’s complaint
    3. offer appropriate remedies to resolve the complaint
    4. offer appropriate advice about residents’ ability to escalate their complaint to this service
41. The landlord operated a 2-stage complaints policy. The policy states that the landlord will provide a stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days of the complaint being logged. The landlord will provide a stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated.
42. The resident raised her complaints on 2 May 2023. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 26 May 2023, which was 17 working days later. There is no evidence on which the Ombudsman could conclude this delay was reasonable or unavoidable, or that the landlord informed  the resident about this delay. This was not appropriate, as it was not consistent with the landlord’s policy or the Ombudsman’s expectations.
43. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord addressed the resident’s concerns about repairs in her kitchen. It did not acknowledge or otherwise address her complaint about the lack of water in the property for the first 5 days of the tenancy. This was a significant failure by the landlord as it was not consistent with the Ombudsman’s expectations.
44. The resident escalated her complaint on 2 June 2023. In her escalation, the resident clearly stated that the landlord had not responded to her complaint about the lack of water supply. She also included a new complaint about the landlord’s handling of the adaptations.
45. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 21 June 2023, which was 13 working days later. This was appropriate, as it was consistent with the landlord’s policy.
46. However, the landlord did not address the resident’s complaint about the lack of water supply in its stage 2 complaint response. This is despite the resident raising this in her complaint escalation. This was not acceptable, and was a significant failure by the landlord. The landlord ought to have either:
    1. responded to the residents complaint
    2. explained to the resident why it was not considering this aspect of her complaint and that she could bring this to the Ombudsman to investigate
47. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord also did not acknowledge or otherwise address the resident’s new complaint about its handling of the adaptations. This was not appropriate. The landlord ought to have either:
    1. explained that as this was a new complaint, it would address this separately under a new stage 1 complaint response
    2. explained to the resident why it was not considering this aspect of her complaint and that she could bring this to the Ombudsman to investigate
48. In its complaint responses, the landlord apologised for the delay in progressing repairs in the kitchen but offered no further remedies. There is no evidence on which the Ombudsman could conclude that the landlord gave any consideration to what remedies would be appropriate in the circumstances. This was a failure by the landlord.
49. Considering all the circumstances, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaints, in that it:
    1. unreasonably delayed in providing its complaint response
    2. did not respond to all aspects of the resident’s complaint
    3. did not explain to the resident why it would not consider some aspects of her complaint or provide advice about her ability to escalate these aspects of her complaint to this service
    4. did not offer or consider any remedies beyond an apology

Determination

50. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its response to a lack of water supply in the property.
51. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs in the kitchen.
52. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of adaptations to the bathroom.
53. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaints.

Orders

54. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination:
    1. pay the resident £750 compensation comprised of:
       1. £50 for the period in which the resident was without water (this is £10 per day, which is consistent with the landlord’s compensation policy)
       2. £200 for the delay in responding to lack of water supply in the property and the distress and inconvenience this caused
       3. £200 for the unreasonable delay in completing the repairs in the kitchen and the distress and inconvenience caused
       4. £100 for the delay in its decision to undertake the adaptations its failure to explain its decision to the resident
       5. £200 for the complaint handling failure identified in this report
    2. provide evidence of the above payment to the Ombudsman
    3. complete the repairs to the kitchen and provide evidence of this to the Ombudsman
55. In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to, within 8 weeks of the date of this determination, undertake a review of this complaint to identify what went wrong and how it can prevent similar failures in future. The landlord must provide a copy of this review to the Ombudsman. The review ought to consider:
    1. how the landlord’s record keeping systems and processes could be strengthened
    2. why a situation was allowed to occur in which there was no water supply at the start of the tenancy
    3. why there was a delay in responding to the lack of water supply when it was raised
    4. why there was a delay in progressing the repairs
    5. why the landlord did not explain its decision about the adaptations to the resident
    6. why the landlord did not respond to all aspects of the resident’s complaint