Cottsway Housing Association Limited (202303048)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303048

Cottsway Housing Association Limited

27 September 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 the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a replacement tap.
  2. This Service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom bungalow. The tenancy began on 19 April 2022. The landlord’s records state that the resident is autistic and vulnerable due to health and support needs.
  2. On 17 May 2022, the landlord raised a repair order to replace the kitchen tap with a mixer tap. On 19 May 2022, an occupational therapist (OT) completed a report with a request for adaptions to the property to help the resident manage his medical conditions. This report did not include a request for a mixer tap in the kitchen. The landlord attended on 15 June 2022 but was not able to fix any type of mixer tap to the basin. It noted that the resident said he would request permission to replace the basin himself. On 18 August 2022, the landlord attended and noted that the resident intended to install a new basin himself, and a follow-on work order was booked for 6 October 2022.
  3. On 6 October 2022, the appointment was rearranged by a representative for the resident. On 7 October 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident advising that planned maintenance to replace the kitchen had been brought forward so it would not be replacing the tap until the kitchen is replaced. The landlord did not specifically inform the resident that it had cancelled the appointment it arranged for 22 November 2022 to replace the tap.
  4. On 23 November 2022, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord about the delay in replacing the tap, the missed and rescheduled appointments, and the communication from the landlord.
  5. On 28 November 2022, the landlord provided its initial complaint response entitled “stage feedback complaint response”. It said that there had been a delay in receiving the part required, an appointment was rescheduled by the contractor and an appointment was rescheduled by the resident. It apologised for failing to cancel the last appointment when it was aware that it would be included in upcoming planned maintenance and offered £15 for that missed appointment. It advised that it would survey the kitchen in the near future.
  6. On 28 November 2022, the resident escalated his complaint. He wanted to know why it could not source the part from another supplier or why has taken 6 months to fit the equipment. He said that the mixer tap would have made his life so much easier on account of his disabilities. He said that the delay caused him inconvenience as he repeatedly burned his hands or was unable to wash his hands properly. He felt the offer of compensation was not enough as there were 3 separate appointments in which the tap installation did not take place. The resident requested for the complaint to be escalated to stage 2.
  7. On 12 December 2022, the landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response. It upheld the complaint. It acknowledged the resident’s inconvenience and made an offer of £45 for the 3 appointments and a further £50 for the delay in sourcing the replacement tap. It said that the new kitchen installation would take place within the next 2-3 months and that it would replace the tap in the kitchen at that point.
  8. On 19 December 2022, the resident chased a stage 2 complaint response. He said he would like the tap to be installed as a matter of urgency in the interim because it was unclear when the kitchen replacement would take place. He said he had not been able to use his kitchen taps properly for months and it was stressful for him due to his disability and health issues. He also requested a suitable level of compensation for the missed appointments.
  9. On 23 January 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident attaching all relevant documentation in respect of the kitchen tap issue. It highlighted that the OT report had not included a request for a mixer tap in the kitchen. The landlord completed the kitchen replacement between 3 April 2023 and 6 April 2023.
  10. On 24 April 2023, the resident escalated his complaint. The landlord replied to clarify which complaint he referred to and attached its stage 1 complaint response. The resident replied and said he was confused as he was unaware that another staff member had issued that response. He asked for a final review of his complaint. He said that the compensation did not cover the losses, inconvenience, stress, and time spent to get the issue resolved. He said the minimum compensation he would accept was £400.
  11. On 28 April 2023, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It upheld the complaint. The landlord said that it had clearly communicated that it would only install the tap as part of the kitchen refurbishment. It acknowledged that there were times when the resident expected operatives to attend before 6 October 2022, but the work was not complete. It offered compensation of £45 for 3 appointments and £100 for time resident was without a mixer tap and frustration caused when chasing updates.
  12. When the resident brought his complaint to this Service, he remained unhappy because the landlord delayed replacing the tap which was a failure to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate his disabilities. He confirmed that the tap had been fitted as part of the kitchen refurbishment. He said there were missed appointments, and that the work was not prioritised. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident wanted a higher level of compensation.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a replacement tap

  1. The landlord’s aids and adaptations policy states that it “must balance requests to tailor a property to specific customer’s needs with our ability to cost-effectively retain the stock for general needs use in the longer term. A suitability and needs assessment will be carried out on receipt of a formal request clearly identifying the work required (from a tenant or a GP, Occupational Therapist (OT) or other suitably qualified health professional).”
  2. It is not the role of this Service to determine what reasonable adjustments a landlord should or should not make. It is our role to consider whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s request was reasonable in the circumstances.
  3. The landlord it worked with the OT and aids and adaptions team. It demonstrated that it showed due regard and consideration for the resident’s disabilities and vulnerabilities which was appropriate in the circumstances. The OT assessment did not include a request for mixer taps as an adaption to assist the resident with his medical needs. However, the landlord’s aids and adaptions team raised a repair request to replace the tap. While it was not identified as a recommendation by the OT, it was reasonable for the landlord to consider the adaptation request and raise a repair order.
  4. The landlord acknowledged that there were failings and offered redress for its delay in replacing the tap after it raised the work order. When a landlord has accepted a failing, it is the role of this Service to consider if redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering this the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  5. The landlord explained in its initial complaint response why there was an initial delay in replacing the tap and why it decided to further delay the work. It explained that it would be replacing the resident’s kitchen in the near future and that fitting a new tap at the same time as the rest of the kitchen refurbishments would ensure the tap is suitable for the new sink, kitchen layout, and design. While it is acknowledged that this delay caused inconvenience to the resident, the landlord did have a valid reason for delaying the work and it appropriately communicated its reason with the resident.
  6. This Service finds that there was reasonable redress with the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a replacement tap. It is evident that the delay in the repair was frustrating to the resident. However, on balance, the landlord decision to delay the repair was reasonable in the circumstances, and it appropriately communicated its reasons to the resident.

Complaint handling 

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code makes it clear that having an informal stage 0 is not appropriate as this delays the completion of the complaints procedure and causes unnecessary confusion for the resident.
  2. The landlord initially categorised the resident’s complaint a as “feedback with investigation case.” The landlord’s customer feedback and complaints policy states that these are cases that require further input and investigation. If the resident is not satisfied with the outcome of such an investigation, they can refer the matter to stage 1 of the complaint’s procedure. This initial stage caused delay and frustration to the resident in escalating the complaint through the landlord’s complaint procedure.
  3. After the resident escalated his complaint on 19 December 2022, the landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 28 April 2023. This was 70 working days beyond the Code’s timeframe for responding to a stage 2 complaint within 20 working days. Failure to adhere to timeframes for responses is a service failure and the resident expressed his frustration in escalating his complaint through the complaint’s procedure.
  4. The landlord acknowledged that frustration when considering compensation in its stage 2 complaint response and offered £100 for delay in supplying the mixer taps and frustration caused to the resident in chasing a response.
  5. This Service finds that there was reasonable redress with the landlord’s complaint handling. While the landlord’s complaint’s policy was not compliant with the Code, it is acknowledged that the landlord appropriately signposted the resident to the Ombudsman in each complaint response. It sought to put things right and offered compensation which was reasonable in the circumstances.
  6. It is acknowledged that the landlord has since updated its complaints policy in line with the Code and no longer operates its “feedback with investigation” stage of its complaints process.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation, in its response to the resident’s request for a replacement tap which resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation, in its complaint handling, which resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendation

  1. If it has not already done so, it is recommended that the landlord pay the resident £100 it offered in its stage 2 complaint response. A finding of reasonable redress was made on the basis of that offer.