Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Cross Keys Homes Limited (202115873)

Back to Top

 

A picture containing logo Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202115873

Cross Keys Homes Limited

29 September 2022

 

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 a request for stronger water pressure to the resident’s shower.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured short hold tenancy for a one-bedroom retirement bungalow where she has lived since October 2020. There is a scheme manager available in the development, although the resident has chosen not to have welfare calls from the manager. The resident has advised the landlord of having had a mini stroke and suffering with arthritis.
  2. The resident first complained about the water pressure from her two-month-old electric shower in December 2020. The landlord’s contractors attended several times but found no fault. The resident advised that the water pressure could be adjusted as shown in the shower manufacturer’s handbook.
  3. In January 2021 the landlord said the shower pressure was adequate, and that the settings were a guide, not a minimum pressure required. The resident explained, however, that due to her long hair, the inadequate water pressure meant that it took too long to rinse soap off, which caused pain to keep her arms raised, due to her arthritis. The resident logged a formal complaint on 12 April 2021. A response on 16 April 2021 said that the shower would not be replaced unless faulty, but recommended that the resident ask the Occupational Therapist (OT) to assess her needs.
  4. The resident appealed further on 24 April 2021, and a panel was arranged by the landlord. The stage two complaint response dated 26 May 2021 said that the pressure was adequate to allow the resident to shower effectively and safely. The landlord recommended that the resident get an OT assessment and said it would arrange any adaptations they recommend.
  5. On 7 July 2021, after arranging an OT assessment, the OT recommended that the landlord ‘address issues with the poor shower pressure on the client’s electric shower’. Other recommendations in respect of shower doors and uneven garden slabs have since been acted on by the landlord, but it has said no further action is required as the shower is not faulty. The resident subsequently remains dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

  1. It is clear to this Service that the landlord was responsible for the resident’s shower. The tenancy agreement, effective from 3 October 2020, sets out the landlord’s responsibilities for ‘keeping in repair the home’s installations’, which included those used for water and sanitation. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy also sets out its repair responsibility, although it does not give a minimum water pressure requirement.
  2. In line with this, and noting its repair obligation, the landlord’s initial response to the resident’s concern about the shower was to send contractors three times within five weeks. In doing so, it was able to confirm for itself that the pressure was adequate for daily use and explained to the resident that it would not be changing the pressure so as to avoid overheating. This was not an inappropriate response. While this Service appreciates that the resident would have been disappointed by this, the landlord acted reasonably by explaining the reasons for its position.
  3. As stated above, the Ombudsman has been unable to identify that there was a minimum pressure requirement which the landlord had not satisfied. It subsequently was not obligated to take any further steps, other than to ensure that the shower was in working order and suitable for everyday use. The Ombudsman can see from the evidence provided that it was able to do this by relying on the opinions of its expert personnel who indicated no basis for adjusting the pressure.
  4. At stage one of the complaints process, the landlord recommended that the resident contact the OT via her Housing Scheme Manager. This was appropriate given the resident’s suggestion that the inconvenience caused by the shower pressure was impacting her health condition. It was important for the landlord to obtain the findings of the assessment so that an informed decision could be made on the suitability of the shower.
  5. As per the tenancy agreement, under section 20.2, an OT could determine necessary adaptations to the landlord’s fixtures and fittings. This could include adaptations to the shower to accommodate the resident’s personal circumstance.
  6. At stage two of the complaints process, the landlord convened a panel to consider the resident’s complaint, and the outcome was that the landlord should ‘arrange for any required adaptations that the occupational health assessment may recommend’. As it was unclear whether the resident pursued this following the landlord’s initial suggestion in its stage one response, it was reasonable that it again advised her to do so and assured her that it would take the recommendations forward. Based on this, the Ombudsman may have concluded that the landlord’s handling of the complaint was appropriate. In the absence of any evidence to indicate a requirement to change the water pressure, the Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord was required to.
  7. This Service is aware, however, that soon after the resident had exhausted the landlord’s complaint process, an OT assessment was arranged. A housing adaptations request form was subsequently put forward by the OT with several recommendations, including, that the landlord “address issues with the poor shower pressure on [the] client’s electric shower”.
  8. On receipt of the form, this Service would have expected the landlord to have acted on the recommendations and within good time. This Service would expect landlords to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate residents, particularly where a therapist has flagged the need for an adjustment. Adding to this though, landlords are also expected to uphold promises made as part of their complaint resolutions. As such, as the landlord suggested it would arrange for any required adaptations recommended by the OT, this Service would have expected it to have honoured this.
  9. It appears, however, that no action was taken by the landlord. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord further considered the resident’s shower pressure in light of the recommendation, or that it explained why it would no longer uphold the proposed action set out in its stage two panel response. There is also no evidence that the landlord discussed the matter with the OT, to establish how the matter might impact the resident if it declined to make this adjustment.
  10. It is also worth noting that within the stage two response, the landlord indicated that subject to the resident obtaining an assessment, and it arranging for any required adaptations, the complaint would be closed. It is clear, however, that the landlord did not hold up its end of this arrangement and so this Service cannot conclude that the complaint was appropriately closed, or managed in line with how the landlord suggested it would be.
  11. The Ombudsman is aware that on 17 March 2022 the landlord explained to the resident that the shower had been installed to the manufacturer’s specification, was fully functional, and met the decent homes standard. It is still the case, however, that the pressure was deemed problematic for the resident’s specific circumstance and as such, more should have been done to accommodate her. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord has failed to empathise with the resident’s medical condition and to consider the individual merits of this case. This is further evidenced in its suggestion to this Service that the same make and model of shower had been installed elsewhere without complaint.
  12. In light of the above, while the landlord initially took reasonable steps in response to the request for stronger water pressure, there was ultimately a failure in service.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme there was a service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to a request for stronger water pressure to the resident’s shower.

Orders

  1. In recognition of the landlord’s service failure, it should award the resident £200.
  2. The landlord should also revisit the recommendation made by the OT and consider a means of improving the water pressure for the resident. This may mean changing the shower completely, where there are safety concerns. The landlord should liaise with both the OT and resident to ensure that all parties are satisfied.
  3. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above two orders within four weeks of receiving this determination.

Recommendations

  1. In future cases, the landlord should ensure that it takes appropriate action following receipt of recommendations by an OT. If the landlord takes the decision not to act on an OT’s recommendations, it should set out in full why this is the case, and should demonstrate that it has considered the impact its decision could have.