Golding Homes Limited (202206194)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202206194

Golding Homes Limited

12 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 complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of overflowing gutters.
2. Response to the resident’s reports of drains being flooded following the jet washing of a neighbouring building.
3. Response to the resident’s reports of a boiler problem that left her without heating or hot water for four days in 2023.
4. Handling of the resident’s request for a new boiler.
5. Handling of the resident’s request for bathroom adaptations.
6. Response to concerns raised by the resident about the conduct of the landlord’s older people active lives team (the OPAL team).

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction: the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a boiler problem that left her without heating or hot water for four days in 2023.
Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme says the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.
The resident told us that she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of this matter which happened in Spring 2023. We have not seen that she has raised this as a complaint with the landlord. It is open to the resident to raise this as a fresh complaint. This report will therefore focus on the other complaint issues listed above.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy that started in 2019 under an older lives, active people scheme. The property is a 1-bedroom bungalow. The resident has many physical health issues and has recently been diagnosed with severe PTSD.
Under the terms of the tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible for, among other things, the repair of the structure and outside of the building; drains and gutters. It will also keep in repair and proper working order any installation provided by it for space heating, water heating and sanitation. This reflects the obligations in section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
Information taken from the landlord’s website says it has three categories of repairs:

Emergency (24 hour): Any problem that is causing immediate damage to the property or is a health and safety issue. At this appointment it will make sure action is taken to prevent further damage and that the resident is safe. Further repairs will take place after this.

Urgent (5 days): Any issue that will cause damage to the property or will affect the resident’s wellbeing if it is left for a prolonged period.

Routine (28 days): Any day-to-day repair to the property.

The landlord’s aids and adaptations policy says that it is committed to providing a high-quality aids and adaptations service to enable customers who are either disabled, aged or persons with health-related needs and support of the association to live safely and more independently within their homes for longer.
The policy says the landlord will actively engage and co–operate with customers, the local authority and other stakeholder organisations to provide its adaptations service to its customers.
The landlord’s disciplinary and dismissal policy says it expects satisfactory standards of behaviour and conduct from all its colleagues. The standards of conduct expected of all colleagues are set out in the National Housing Foundation Code of Conduct.
The landlord defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action with any service delivered by it or those acting on its behalf, affecting a customer or group of customers. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint procedure. It aims to respond within 8 working days at stage 1 and within 20 working days at stage 2. The landlord will speak to the resident at stage 1 to listen and to understand the complaint. The landlord’s complaint procedures also says that it will investigate complaints thoroughly gathering information which will allow it to respond efficiently and accurately.
The landlord’s compensation procedure says it will consider compensation as part of the complaint handling process and addressed at stage 1 and/or stage 2. The landlord can make a discretionary goodwill gesture to acknowledge when it got matters wrong or when the service received by a customer was not to the expected standard. The goodwill gesture can be a cash amount or goods such as flowers or vouchers.

Summary of events

On 9 August 2021 an occupational therapist (OT) made a recommendation for the resident to have a level access shower.
On 8 October 2021 a home improvement agency (HIA) put together a plan of the work needed to install the level access shower. (HIAs are not-for-profit organisations run by housing associations, local authorities and charities in England which give impartial advice on home adaptations).
On 28 June 2022 we sent a complaint to the landlord on behalf of the resident. The complaint included the resident’s concerns that she found the contact centre staff to be rude and she believed she was being bullied by the members of staff in the OPAL team. On the following day the landlord asked the OPAL team leader to respond to the complaint about staff rudeness.
On 30 June 2022 landlord spoke to the resident who confirmed the main issues of the complaint which were overflowing guttering and the adaptations to the bathroom. The note of the call does not refer to rudeness by staff members.
On the same day the landlord wrote to the resident saying its stage 1 response would be slightly delayed due to annual leave and agreed it would respond by 22 July 2022. That letter also responded to the resident’s concerns that staff had been rude to her. This included an apology for how the resident felt after speaking to its advisors. It said it understood that the resident felt the advisors were rude when speaking to her and said it would speak to the team about her feedback. It said it would look at how it could improve its service for her and others to make sure the team were speaking in a polite and professional manner to give support in the future.
In that letter the landlord addressed the specifics of interactions between the OPAL team and the resident upon which the resident had found to be inappropriate. It confirmed it had sent a message to the customer service team asking they be mindful, respectful, professional and supportive and to give customers as much help as possible with their enquiries. It added it was pleased the resident had been also able to discuss the OPAL team and why she had felt bullied by them.
In an undated memo, the landlord noted that the local authority had withdrawn their offer to convert the bathroom into a wet room due to non–contact from the resident. The landlord noted it had made numerous attempts to arrange to carry out the work via external contractors and the resident which did not happen, and the work was put on hold to allow for access to be arranged. The landlord noted it was keen to carry out the bathroom alterations and anticipated the work would take 2 weeks.
On 22 July 2022 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. In relation to the complaint brought to the Ombudsman, the main points were:
1. It had arranged for its operatives to check and clear the gutters on 5 August 2022.
2. It was happy to arrange the bathroom being updated to a wet room. However, this had been put on hold following a voicemail from the resident in February 2022 following a letter to her dated 4 February 2022. The voicemail was cut short, but it felt the resident was calling to say that she was not ready for the upheaval those works would cause. It explained it would visit on 25 July 2022 to make sure the bathroom met the renewal criteria, take photos, and do paperwork in preparation to hand the property over to the contractor (known as validation). The contractors had until March 2023 to complete all properties that were due an upgrade.
3. It had a specialist team that jet washed paths and patios and cleaned the day centre windows, carpets and furniture. They attended the day centre in June 2021 to jet wash the patio area at the back and the path leading to the entrance. It had spoken to the team who said they had checked the drains around the day centre before they started and when they had finished and confirmed they were clear and not blocked. They would not have checked the drains for the resident’s property as they would not have thought there would be a problem with drains further afield. It apologised if the jet washing caused the resident’s drains to be blocked.
4. It was saddened to hear the resident felt the OPAL advisors were bullying her and it offered its apologies. The team were there to support, assist and guide its tenants to live independently in their homes and within the terms of their tenancy agreements where possible. Sometimes that meant difficult conversations needed to be had where people’s safety was at risk.
5. It had organised a £30 RSPB voucher to be sent to the resident by way of apology and a thank you for bringing these concerns to its attention.
On 25 July 2022 the landlord noted a contractor would attend to carry out a new boiler survey.
On 9 August 2022 the landlord spoke to the resident about how the repairs were progressing. It noted it was not clear if the gutters had been done; the bathroom would be updated in October 2022; and it was waiting for an update on whether the boiler required replacement.
The repair log noted on 31 August 2022 that the resident reported that the guttering was blocked and that on 7 September 2022 work was completed. The log says that the front and rear guttering was cleared and cleaned, and two downpipes were unblocked.
On 7 September 2022, the landlord noted that the boiler was due to be replaced in 2022 and it had asked the contractor to arrange to replace it. On the same day the landlord wrote to the resident saying it understood she had cancelled work to replace the boiler. It said she should contact it if she decided she wanted this work to take place. On the same day the landlord noted that there was no further issue with the flooded drains caused by the jet wash and the water was now cleared.
On 5 October 2022 we wrote to the landlord asking it to escalate the complaint.
On 21 October 2022 the resident contacted the landlord about adaptation works to her bathroom.
On 24 October 2022 the landlord noted it had not had any contact from the resident about the bathroom works since November 2021. It noted the OT had said on 27 April 2022 that she had not managed to speak to the resident and would write, however, if no contact was made then the case would be closed.
On 25 October 2022 the resident told the landlord she wanted a new boiler.
In emails dated 30 October 2023, the landlord’s aids and adaptations assessor (the assessor) noted a timeline relating to the bathroom adaptation:

18 November 2021 – The HIA sent out a 10-day approval letter to the resident for her approval of the bathroom design. It did not receive a response.

30 November 2021 – The HIA chased the approval.

16 December 2021 – The resident told the HIA she was not happy with some elements of the design.

17 December 2021 – The contractor visited the resident to explain the proposed work.

4 January 2022 – The matter was referred back to the OT for either revision or to explain the design to the resident.

27 April 2022 – The HIA closed the case. The OT made attempts to contact the resident but got no response so the case was closed.

The assessor noted that the local authority had given approval for the disability funding grant works to be completed in November 2021, but the resident would now have to start the process again.
On 15 November 2022 the landlord issued its final complaint response to the resident under its formal complaint procedures. The main points relating to the complaint brought to us were:
1. Overflowing gutters: an inspection took place; a repair was raised on 31 August 2022 and the job completed on 7 September 2022. It could not see that the resident had reported any additional issues in respect of this work. It considered the handling of this repair was dealt with in a reasonable timescale. Two named housing managers had been appointed to support the resident and provide one to one contact with her, by phone and home visits. It was satisfied that the resident had received adequate assistance and support with this work.
2. The boiler was due for replacement that year and was on the landlord’s list of replacements. Its contractor had asked that the date for the boiler replacement be brought forward, and they would contact the resident direct to arrange a convenient day/time to attend. The landlord had asked that they liaise with the named housing managers to support the resident when access was required. It was satisfied that the relevant investigations had taken place and that it was responding to her adequately in replacing the boiler.
3. The request for adaptations to the bathroom: there had been plans to inspect the bathroom at the beginning of the year but that had been postponed at the resident’s request. The contractors had given a completion date for the installation of the level access shower as March 2023. It was satisfied that the inspection and approval of works had been carried out fairly and within a reasonable timeframe. It had asked the contractor to advise if they were able to schedule the bathroom works as a priority before 31 January 2023, subject to the needs of other customers. It said the bathroom was not highlighted as not fit for purpose or to the resident’s needs, but the resident should let it know if that situation changed.
4. Drains being flooded when the neighbouring property was power washed by contractors: it had apologised in the stage one complaint response on behalf of the contractor who had carried out the work. It extended this apology, and it was satisfied that this matter had been addressed with the contractor so that they could learn and improve from this failing. It offered a discretionary payment of £60 for the inconvenience that this caused the resident. It added that the area was clear and there had not been any on‑going problems.
5. It committed to replacing the boiler within six weeks, subject to stock availability.
6. It would be providing the resident with a clear plan and date of works by 22 November 2022 in relation to the bathroom. It would work with the contractor to minimise any delay.
7. It apologised that the resident had found members of its team to be rude. It said it took conduct extremely seriously and it prided itself on caring for its customers and doing the right thing. It could not see any evidence where the resident had been treated unfairly or disrespectfully and could see that its colleagues across the customer service team, tenancy management and OPAL team were very sensitive to her vulnerabilities and health.
8. It was satisfied that the correct enquiries had taken place at stage 1 and that there had been no intentional or deliberate act of misconduct when dealing with the resident on the phone or in person.
The landlord acknowledged that its stage 2 response had been slightly delayed and offered a discretionary payment of £50 to the resident in recognition of the inconvenience this had caused. The landlord signposted the resident to the Ombudsman.
On the following day the landlord confirmed that it had replaced the resident’s boiler on 9 November 2022. It apologised that this information had not been available when the final complaint response had been issued the previous day.
When the resident approached the Ombudsman, she confirmed that the complaint about the heating/hot water was for events that occurred in 2023. She also said that the level access shower had not yet been installed. She also raised issues about the security and street lighting. As an outcome, the resident wanted compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope

This report has focussed on events from mid-2021 in relation to the bathroom adaptation up to the date of the final response in November 2022. We have not considered the issue of street and security lighting which the resident mentioned when she spoke to us because these matters have not been considered by the landlord through its formal complaints procedure.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of gutters overflowing

We have not seen any evidence that the resident reported problems with the guttering until the complaint was made in June 2022. The landlord acted appropriately by arranging an appointment to inspect and clear the gutters on 5 August 2022 and told the resident about that in the stage 1 complaint response.
There is no evidence that a visit took place at that time because, at the end of that month, the resident reported the problems with the guttering again and they were cleared a few days later. There is also no evidence of a missed appointment.
Under the landlord’s repairs procedure, this was a routine repair and should have been completed within 28 days, that is by 26 July 2022. It was resolved some six weeks after that. That was a service failing. The delay by the landlord was not appropriate because it did not deal with this issue in line with its published timescales.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to provide fair and proportionate remedies where maladministration or service failure has been identified. That is, to consider the impact of the landlord’s failings on the resident which can include distress, inconvenience, time and trouble.
It is evident that these delays would have caused some inconvenience and frustration to the resident. It also meant that she had to chase the landlord to resolve matters at the end of August 2022. Financial compensation of £120 is appropriate here for that impact on the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of drains being flooded following the jet washing of a neighbouring building

There is no evidence that the resident reported this matter before making a complaint about it. In its complaint handling, the landlord responded appropriately by giving an explanation of how the drains had flooded as a result of the jet washing of the day care centre. It also talked to the contractor and was satisfied that some learning would come from it. This was appropriate action to take. The landlord also apologised and offered the resident £60 for the inconvenience caused to her.
It is evident that this matter caused some inconvenience and distress to the resident. We consider the sum offered by the landlord to be proportionate because the flooding lasted for a limited duration and was outside of the property.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a new boiler

The evidence suggests this request was made as part of the resident’s formal complaint. The landlord acted appropriately by carrying out a survey of the boiler. Its decision to replace it was appropriate given it was due to be replaced that year. The evidence suggests that the work was slightly delayed as the resident did not want to go ahead in early September 2022. However, a new boiler was installed the following month.
After the resident confirmed she wanted the new boiler to go ahead at the end of October 2022, the landlord took less than 2 weeks to install a new boiler. Overall, the time taken by the landlord was reasonable. There was therefore no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for a new boiler.

The landlord’s handling of a request for bathroom adaptations

The actions of the OT are not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction as they worked for the local authority and, as such, any complaint would fall under the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. This report has therefore focused on the actions of the landlord.
The evidence shows that the OT made a recommendation for a level access shower in mid-2021. The evidence suggests that the landlord – through the HIA – made reasonable attempts to progress this work during the remainder of the year. A decision was made to close the case in early 2022. That decision appears reasonable given that attempts by the OT to contact the resident, in order to progress matters, had been unsuccessful.
However, we have not seen evidence of communication with the resident about that decision. It is possible that the OT wrote to the resident to explain why the works would not be progressing at that time and why. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have also contacted the resident about that decision in light of her vulnerabilities and given her need for a level access shower remained. That lack of communication was a service failing as it did not meet the commitment in its aids and adaptations policy to actively co–operate with customers. Had it made such contact at the time, it is possible that the resident might not have had to make a complaint to start these works again.
Financial compensation of £150 is appropriate here for the lack of communication with the resident about the level access shower. This reflects the inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s poor communication.
Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord acted reasonably by agreeing to install the level access shower. It demonstrated good customer service by asking the contractor to prioritise this work, given the time that had passed. In the final complaint response, the landlord said this work should have been completed by early 2023.
When we spoke to the resident, she told us that this work has not yet been completed; she said it had “gone quiet”. An order has been made, below, for the landlord to write to the resident to explain the delay in carrying out the work to install a level access shower; what steps it needs to take now to undertake this adaptation and when it expects this work to start and be completed. The landlord should also consider whether financial compensation is appropriate for the length of time it has taken to install the level access shower since July 2022.

The landlord’s response to concerns about the conduct of the landlord’s OPAL team

When the landlord received the complaint about the resident’s concerns about its staff’s conduct, it responded to her two days later about this matter. The landlord apologised if the resident felt staff had been rude to her and if she had felt bullied. It did confirm it would speak to staff with a reminder to be polite and professional at all times, which was a reasonable step to give reassurance to the resident that it had taken this issue seriously.
The evidence suggests in the landlord’s response of 30 June 2022 that it had spoken to the resident about her allegations of bullying. We have not seen a note of that call. However, it was appropriate for the landlord to have a conversation with the resident to find out more about the substance of the complaint and to clarify if there were specific incidents that required further investigation. In this way, the landlord had an opportunity to uncover any potential bad practice and take learning from the complaint where appropriate. This also meant that the resident felt that their concerns were listened to. The landlord’s handling of the concerns raised by the resident was appropriate and in line with its complaints procedure.
The resident told us that OPAL staff had made verbal threats to kill her which she had reported to the police. This is a criminal matter and therefore a matter for the police, not the Ombudsman.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of overflowing gutters.
2. Handling of the resident’s request for bathroom adaptations.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord has made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint with respect to its response to the resident’s reports of drains being flooded following the jet washing of a neighbouring building.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its:
1. Handling of the resident’s request for a new boiler.
2. Response to concerns raised by the resident about the conduct of the landlord’s OPAL team.
The complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a boiler problem that left her without heating or hot water for four days in 2023 is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Reasons

There was delay by the landlord in resolving the blocked guttering. It did not deal with this issue in line with its published timescales.
There was a lack of communication with the resident about the decision to not progress the level access shower in early 2022. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have contacted the resident about that decision too, in light of her vulnerabilities and given the need for a level access shower remained.
The landlord acknowledged its contractors could have taken steps to potentially avoid the drains being flooded and awarded proportionate redress for the impact on the resident.
The landlord took appropriate action in relation to the resident’s request for a new boiler.
The landlord appropriately investigated the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.

Orders

The landlord shall take the following action within four weeks of the date of this report and provide us with evidence of compliance with these orders:
1. Apologise in writing to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident the sum of £270 made up of:
  1. £120 for the impact on the resident as a result of the delay in clearing the gutters.
  2. £150 for the impact on the resident by its poor communication relating to the bathroom adaptations.
3. Write to the resident to explain the delay in carrying out the work to install a level access shower; to explain what steps it needs to take now to undertake this adaptation and when it expects this work to start and be completed.
4. Consider whether financial compensation is appropriate for the length of time it has taken to install the level access shower since July 2022.