Charnwood Borough Council (202120834)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120834

Charnwood Borough Council

5 June 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the level access shower and the level of compensation offered.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The landlord’s records show that the resident has physical disabilities and impaired mobility.
3. On 29 August 2019 the resident reported that there was water leaking from his level access shower and through his hallway light. The landlord attended on 3 September 2019 and reported that an inspection was required as the shower floor was bubbling.
4. On 17 October 2019 the resident reported a further leak in the hallway ceiling. The landlord attended on the same day and completed a temporary fix. Records show that a tear in the shower flooring had caused the bubbling and was now beyond repair and needed to be replaced.
5. The resident raised an historic complaint on 14 February 2020 about the length of time the landlord was taking to fix the leak. The complaint also said that the resident was concerned about using the shower as they had been told the flooring was unsafe. The landlord spoke to the resident on 5 March 2020 and confirmed that the shower replacement had been added to the next planned program of works and it would be in touch with details of when it could start. The records note that the resident was happy with this.
6. Following a further leak on 18 August 2020 the resident informed the landlord that the crack in the underside of the shower tray was getting worse and that the leak was so bad ‘it was like having another shower if you stood underneath’ (in the hallway). The resident also informed the landlord that due to his health conditions he needed to shower twice a day, but was not able to use the shower. The landlord raised a repair for the same day and on 8 September 2020 again informed the resident that the level access shower replacement would be prioritised on the planned program of works, but was unable to give any indication of when that would be.
7. On 13 October 2021 the resident raised a complaint with the landlord as the shower was still leaking and as a result his carpets had been damaged. The  resident further informed the landlord on 21 October 2021 that he could not use the shower everyday due to the issue, that the wash hand basin was also unstable and that works to stabilise it had not worked. The landlord informed the resident that the bathroom would be replaced in January 2022 and arranged for an surveyor inspection to be carried out.
8. The resident escalated his complaint on 22 November 2021 as he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. The resident said that he was unhappy with the timescale, he was concerned that the leak was potentially dangerous due to being close to electrical fittings, and that it was causing him severe distress. The landlord provided a stage one response on 16 December 2021, where it apologised for the length of time it was taking to complete the works and that this was due to trying to procure a new contractor. The response also said that if water was to go near the electrics then there was a safety breaker in place. The landlord offered the resident £100 compensation as a gesture of goodwill.
9. On 22 December 2021 the resident escalated his complaint to stage two as he was unhappy with the amount of compensation offered. The resident also asked for the landlord to confirm a date for when his repair will be finalized. The landlord provided its final response on 11 March 2022 which said that:
   1. The level access shower was identified as needing to be replaced on 17 October 2019, but an order was not raised until 26 February 2020. It was unable to identify why there was a delay in raising an order.
   2. Since the order had been a raised a number of factors had delayed the installation, including restrictions relating to Covid-19 and that the contract with the repairs contractor had ended sooner than anticipated.
   3. Procurement of new contractors was carried out but due to issues with capacity it was unable to deliver any works. Furthermore, an replacement contractor would not complete work in any properties which were occupied.
   4. The process for appointing a new long term contractor was largely complete and that an officer would keep the resident updated with regards to a timescale and provide an initial update on 25 March 2022.
   5. Communication had been ongoing with the resident, although it recognised that it could have been better.
   6. To conclude, the landlord could not be satisfied that the four month delay in raising the order for a replacement level access shower was the only contributing factor to the works not being completed. It further noted that the pandemic and change of contractors had been the main reason for the delay and it had been working hard to remedy the issues.
   7. An increased offer of £250 compensation was made, in light of the time and trouble the resident had taken to try and resolve the matter and that the resident should contact the landlord’s insurance provider regarding the damage caused to the carpet.
10. The resident referred his complaint to this Service on 31 May 2022 as he felt that the landlord had not taken into consideration the distress and inconvenience he had suffered as a result of the leaking bathroom.
11. The resident has further confirmed to this Service that works to replace his bathroom were started in September 2022 and were completed in February 2023. The resident further stated that whilst the leak was occurring he and his family were unable to use the shower and had to use other facilities at family member’s house and the hospital where he was receiving treatment.

Assessment and findings

12. The Ombudsman’s role is to determine complaints by reference to what is fair in all the circumstances and decide if the landlord is responsible for maladministration or service failure. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its dispute resolution principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
    1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
    2. put things right, and.
    3. learn from outcomes.
13. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for:
    1. Keeping in proper working order all the installations for supply of water, gas, electricity, sanitation and waste pipes.
    2. Keeping in proper working order all our fixture and fittings.
14. The landlord’s repair guide explains that when reporting a repair, a resident will be told what response time category it has been placed in. Repairs are categorised as either:
    1. Emergency: Repairs that remove immediate danger to people or stop serious damage to the property, will be attended too within 24 hours.
    2. Urgent: Repairs that there is no risk, but are causing an inconvenience will be attended to within five working days.
    3. Routine: Repairs where the faulty does not cause problems straight away or make it dangerous for people in the property will be attended to within 28 working days.
    4. Planned: Certain non-urgent work are placed into ‘packages’ that can be carried out all together in an area within 90 working days.
15. The landlord’s repair records confirm that the resident first reported a leak from his level access shower on 29 August 2019. An operative attended on 3 September 2019 and reported that an inspection was required due to the flooring bubbling. This Service would have expected to see records to indicate that an electrician also attended as an emergency as the resident reported water was coming through the hallway light, however it is not clear from the information provided whether this happened.
16. A further leak was reported on 17 October 2019, and whilst it is not clear what work was completed, it was recommended that new flooring was required due to a tear.
17. This Service has been provided with copies of internal emails which show that that the landlord was aware that there was a persistent leak which could not be fixed as the flooring was not repairable, and that the resident was managing by placing a bucket in the hallway to catch the water. On 21 October 2019, further internal emails show that the landlord agreed to replace the flooring as a priority and add the property to the planned program of works. Although the landlord was taking steps to repair the issue, this information was not passed to the resident and would have caused the him additional unnecessary stress.
18. Following an expression of dissatisfaction from the resident’s daughter on 25 February 2020, the landlord raised an order for a like for like level access shower replacement and in March 2020 works progressed as internal drawings were being produced and the resident was asked to choose their preferences for tiles.
19. However, the works were not completed due to issues with the contractor. Whilst this Service acknowledges the landlord was taking steps to procure a new contractor, it was also aware that the shower needed replacing urgently as the resident continued to report leaks coming from the shower.
20. An internal email dated 7 July 2020 recommended that the shower tray was either replaced or a further temporary fix was done as there was no timeline for when the full replacement was going to go ahead. The landlord failed to take further action and as the resident contacted the landlord again on 18 August 2020 to report that the shower was still leaking. It was at this point that the resident also informed the landlord that due to his health needs, he needed to shower twice a day and that he was unable to use his shower.
21. The resident continued to contact the landlord for an update throughout October 2021 and again informed the landlord that he was unable to use the shower. Each time the landlord informed the resident that the level access shower was due to be replaced as a priority, but could not give a date. The landlord took no steps to acknowledge the resident’s statement that he was unable to use the shower. This was a failure on the landlord’s behalf as it failed to treat the resident fairly.
22. A further inspection was carried out on 6 October 2021, which confirmed that new flooring was urgently required and that it was ‘bouncing all over’. This further confirms the resident’s position that he was unable to use the shower as it didn’t feel safe. An order was raised to supply and fit joists under the shower tray, then board and skim the hallway ceiling.
23. The resident chased the landlord on 10 November 2021 for an update, but records show he was given no further information regarding a timescale. It was at this point that the resident progressed his complaint to stage one of the formal process.
24. Within the landlord’s final response, the landlord acknowledged that there had been a delay in undertaking the planned works and explained why. It also acknowledged that time and trouble the resident had faced when chasing a response and offered £100 compensation. Whilst this Service acknowledges that there were delays which were outside of the landlord’s control, these do not account for the overall delay of over three years.
25. The landlord failed to acknowledge the impact that the delay had on the resident, namely that he was unable to use the shower and that there was ongoing damage to his home. As such, it has not taken sufficient action to ‘put things right’ for the resident. Neither had it detailed how it has ‘learned from outcomes’ and what steps it has taken to prevent a recurrence of the failings.
26. The Ombudsman draws the landlord’s attention to section six of the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code, which sets out what the Ombudsman considers are the best practice principles of “putting things right” where there have been failings. This includes the principle that any remedy offered by a landlord “must reflect the extent of any service failures and the level of detriment caused to the resident”. Therefore, the decision to not take into consideration those factors was not reasonable.
27. In assessing an appropriate level of compensation, the Ombudsman takes into account a range of factors including any distress and inconvenience caused by the issues, the amount of time and effort expended on pursuing the matter with the landlord, and the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s acts and/or omissions. It considers whether any redress is proportionate to the severity of the failing by the landlord and the impact on the resident. The Ombudsman also takes into account the evidence that has been provided.
28. Ultimately the Ombudsman considers what would be fair and proportionate. The aim of compensation is not to be punitive, but to provide redress for the impact of any failings by the landlord on the resident. In the case of compensation for distress and inconvenience, we are not able to quantify a definitive loss and the intention of such an award is to recognise the overall distress and inconvenience suffered by the resident.
29. The Ombudsman has first considered the distress and inconvenience suffered by the resident as a result of the delay in replacing the level access shower within a reasonable timeframe. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance where there has been a failure which accumulated over a significant period of time a payment of over £1000 is recommended. Overall there was a delay of over three years in this case, and whilst the landlord took steps to try to mitigate the damage and carried out temporary repairs, it was aware of the impact the leak had on the resident, his ability to enjoy his home and that ultimately he was unable to use to the shower. The prolonged amount of time the resident was without a shower was unacceptable and the landlord should have taken steps to replace the level access shower in a reasonable timeframe. In recognition of this, the Ombudsman has made an order for the landlord to pay the resident £1200 compensation.
30. The Ombudsman must also consider whether compensation based on rent is appropriate. The resident was unable to make full use of his property, namely the shower and the hallway safely due to the reoccurring leak. The Ombudsman considers that a 10% compensation based on rent paid during the period of service failure is appropriate for 180 weeks (from the date the landlord was aware of the leak until the level access shower was replaced). The calculation has been used based on the average social rent for Leicestershire in 2020/21, of £71.97 (rounded up to £72 for ease).  An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident a total of £1296.
31. In summary, a finding of severe maladministration has been made as the landlord failed to address the resident’s report of a leak from his level access shower within a reasonable timeframe. The landlord was aware of the resident’s health condition and furthermore that he was unable to use the shower.

Determination

32. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the level access shower

Orders

33. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £2496 within four weeks of the date of this report for the reasons identified above.
34. The landlord is ordered to carry out a case review to identify any lessons that can be learnt from this complaint and any changes which may been needed to the landlord’s processes and policies in view of this. The landlord should write to the resident and this Service to confirm the findings of this case review within eight weeks of the date of this report.
35. The landlord should also provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

36. The landlord should carry out training with its repairs contractors to ensure all relevant information is recorded accurately to reflect the work that has been completed following a repairs visit.