Incommunities Limited (202011217)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202011217

Incommunities Limited

19 March 2021


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 the resident’s request to have mixer taps fitted to her kitchen and bathroom sinks.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. In her correspondence, the resident has also referred to the issue of wanting additional extractor fans in the property. However, there is no evidence of this particular matter being raised as part of the formal complaint or pursued through the landlord’s internal complaints process. The Ombudsman will not consider a complaint until the landlord has had an adequate opportunity to investigate and resolve the issues itself in the first instance, through the operation of its complaints process.
  3. This is in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure. As a result, the issue of the additional extractor fans is not addressed further in this report. If the resident remains dissatisfied on that point, she may wish to raise a new complaint in that regard. This investigation covers the issue of mixer taps only.

 

 

Background and summary of events

  1. The landlord’s notes show that a new tenancy visit was made to the resident’s property in 2015, a month after the tenancy began, when no issues were noted. The landlord’s records show that the resident then contacted it in 2018 to enquire about the installation of mixer taps, but there is no evidence of any further action being taken on the issue at that time.
  2. On 30 January 2020, the resident telephoned the landlord, stating that she was promised works by the previous Neighbourhood Housing Officer as all taps had been scalding hot since 2018. However, an operative who had attended the property had advised that nothing could be done as the boiler was set at the lowest temperature already. In the absence of a response, the resident chased again on 19 February 2020.
  3. An email was sent to Building Services and field managers. On 24 February 2020 the resident called again to book a repair for the tap, a job was raised for a gas engineer, and the resident was advised not to let children use the hot water unsupervised. The resident called half an hour later on the same issue and the landlord advised ‘that if she keeps ringing about it we are not going to entertain it’. A complaint was logged at that stage.
  4. During a telephone call on 5 March 2020, the resident was advised that her call would be returned that afternoon, but no call back was made. In the resident’s email of 25 March 2020, she stated that she had requested mixer taps in the kitchen and bathroom before she moved in in 2015, as she had experienced the same problem at a previous property, and reiterated that request now. She said that she had three children (two with disabilities) and she had been waiting four years for the request to be actioned. She advised that she had burns on her hands caused by hot water from the existing taps, despite the temperature being set as low as possible, and she provided photographs of dry, broken skin on her finger. 
  5. The landlord advised the resident that the issue had been passed to the Repairs Team on 8 April 2020. During a telephone call from the resident on 14 April 2020, she said that she had been told that mixer taps were to be fitted, but the landlord advised that no such job had been raised. The following day, the landlord advised that the resident must contact the local authority Occupational Therapist (OT) for an assessment and, once this was carried out, the OT would contact the landlord to do any necessary work. It confirmed that it would not do the job without a referral from the OT. 
  6. The local authority Housing Standards Department wrote to the landlord on 21 April 2020, outlining various issues at the property, including the temperature of the water. It said that the taps should be investigated, and a number of other unrelated repairs should be completed within 8 weeks. An internal landlord note dated 29 April 2020, in reference to the local authority letter, advised that if the hot water issue was found to be urgent, it should be logged and allocated as soon as possible, and the other items would be inspected after lockdown. A further note confirmed that the landlord had attended the hot water issue and the resident had been advised by a gas engineer.
  7. On 30 April 2020, following a call from the resident, a job was raised for a manager to check if mixer taps were needed. It noted that the local authority letter said that the taps issue should be ‘investigated’ rather than that they needed to be replaced. The landlord noted that the resident had been in her property since 2015 and had been advised on several occasions that installing mixer taps was not something the landlord would do. Engineers had previously inspected the taps and the resident was advised that there was nothing to be done and the taps had already been changed in 2017.
  8. Following further contact from the local authority on 26 May 2020, an emergency repair was logged by the landlord. The resident called on 12 June 2020 chasing the repair to the taps and a survey was arranged for 17 June 2020. Following the survey, the landlord noted that the taps had been tested and the temperature was found to be ‘sufficient’. It explained to the resident that the maintenance team had recently lowered the temperature on the boiler and this temperature would not cause her to be scalded. Whilst the resident was insistent that mixer taps should be installed, the landlord concluded that this was not required as the current taps were fit-for-purpose.
  9. However, on 6 July 2020 the resident called the landlord and said that she was waiting to hear the outcome of the survey. The following day the landlord emailed the local authority and telephoned the resident to advise that no further works would be carried out.
  10. In the local authority’s email of 10 July 2020, it advised that the resident continued to report concerns about the temperature of the water, particularly in view of her children’s particular needs and vulnerabilities. It therefore asked if the landlord would take their medical needs into account and make appropriate adjustments. In the landlord’s response of 13 July 2020, it confirmed that the water had been tested, the temperature was appropriate, a gas engineer had carried out an inspection on 2 March 2020 and a gas service/boiler check was completed on 8 April 2020.
  11. The resident called the landlord on 3 August 2020 seeking an update on the ongoing investigation regarding the temperature of the water, and an internal email was sent to the surveyor. During a further telephone call on 9 September 2020, the landlord and resident had a detailed conversation about the water issue and the resident was again advised to speak to the OT for a referral as the landlord would not do the work without this. The resident stated that the landlord had not told her this previously and had, therefore, wasted her time.
  12. An OT letter was then sent to the resident on 3 November 2020, confirming that a recommendation had been made for the landlord to ‘supply and install mixer taps to the kitchen sink and wash hand basin in the first-floor bathroom’. It stated that the matter was now the responsibility of the Housing Directorate.
  13. The landlord’s notes from November 2020 indicated that it was aware of the OT’s recommendation and an appointment was made to carry out works at that time. However, the attending plumber brought lever taps as he understood the job was to fix these. In response, the resident confirmed that mixer taps were to be installed so her children would not burn themselves, but the plumber said he would not change the whole sink to fit mixer taps.
  14. The landlord’s internal notes dated 25 November 2020 discussed the resident turning the temperature down on the boiler and that the taps would not be changed for mixer taps. It noted that this was a large job involving plumbers and joiners, it would be costly as new sinks would need new pipework and base units, and having a mixer tap would not prevent someone burning themselves (which was the resident’s main reason for the request). The landlord therefore emailed the OT to advise that the taps would not be replaced and telephoned the resident to update her on the same.
  15. A complaint was raised following the call, when the resident reiterated that she had been chasing the matter for years as her neighbours’ had mixer taps but the landlord would not do hers. She stated that her children had learning difficulties and the mixer tap would help to regulate the water temperature. She submitted that the landlord had advised her to go through the OT only to reject the OT’s recommendation to change the taps, and she said that she was unhappy with the operative who had attended and was rude and would not wear a mask or gloves. She was unhappy with the landlord’s overall service regarding the change in taps and its reasons for declining her request.
  16. There was then further contact between the parties throughout November and December 2020, with the resident reiterating her request and dissatisfaction and the landlord explaining its reasons for not replacing the taps. The landlord then issued a Stage 2 response on 18 December 2020, when it detailed the chronology of the complaint and confirmed its position as follows:
    1. The complaint was initially logged on 24 February 2020, when the resident had requested a mixer tap, and this was dealt with by telephone on 5 March 2020;
    2. A gas engineer had visited on 2 March 2020 and confirmed that the water temperature was within normal limits and that no repairs were required. The resident was then advised by telephone that the complaint had been closed;
    3. A further complaint was logged on 25 November 2020 and the landlord telephoned the resident the following day to confirm that it would not supply mixer taps as this was not a repair;
    4. The resident’s boiler had been checked and the water temperature was still within the required limits. The landlord had discussed checking the boiler again, but the resident had refused this and asked for complaint to be escalated instead;
    5. It had done all it could to ensure the water temperature levels were safe, and the complaint had now exhausted its complaints process.
  17. An internal landlord email dated 25 February 2021 discussed whether the installation of new taps could be considered as an ‘Able Living’ perspective, given that it was not a repair. A reply noted that the issue was children scalding themselves, and it reiterated the steps it had taken to investigate and resolve that issue (as detailed in the Stage 2 response). It then noted that the OT report was technically flawed as it failed to mention a safe method of adapting the property to reduce the risk of scalding (changing the taps to mixer taps would not remove the risk as the water could still be up to 60 degrees). The email suggested either reducing the boiler temperature or fitting a thermostatic mixing valve on the feed pipe to each tap and asked whether to proceed with this proposed solution.

Assessment and findings

  1. The tenancy agreement and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 set out that the landlord is obliged to keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the property for the supply of water including basins and sinks, but not other fixtures, fittings and appliances for making use of the supply of water. Therefore, the landlord did not have an express repairing obligation in respect of the taps. Despite this, it attended the property in response to the resident’s requests and found that the taps were in working order (in so far as they dispensed hot and cold water) and established that no standard repairs were required in that regard.
  2. In the same way, the landlord must keep in good repair and proper working order the installations in the property for heating water. With this in mind, the landlord arranged for the boiler to be inspected and ascertained that it was working, the temperature was set to the lowest setting, and the hot water was within normal limits. This demonstrates that the landlord took the complaint seriously and applied appropriate resources to investigating the issues raised by the resident.
  3. No evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the landlord failed to meet its repairing obligations. Therefore, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the outstanding issue was whether the landlord had any responsibilities beyond those obligations, to replace the taps for another reason, such as making ‘reasonable adjustments’ for the occupants of the property. The landlord’s Adaptations Policy states that it will take reasonable steps to provide a fair adaptations service, to support residents and their carers to experience a good quality of life within their homes. It goes on to say that the landlord has a duty to make reasonable adjustments to the property where a resident is at a substantial disadvantage compared to a tenant without a disability. In light of these provisions, it was necessary for the landlord to consider the resident’s request for an adjustment (in the form of mixer taps) and to fully explain its position.
  4. In doing so, the landlord advised that the resident must obtain a referral from an OT before it would consider replacing the taps and, in the absence of any repairs issues, it was appropriate for it to put this requirement in place. OT assessments are commonly used in these situations to ascertain the need for a particular adaptation and to help identify changes which might assist residents. These may then be implemented by a landlord subject to various factors including its resources and other practicalities.
  5. The resident clearly felt misled by the landlord when, having obtained the requisite referral from the OT, it refused to install the mixer taps anyway. It is accepted that this would have been frustrating for the resident and that the landlord could have done more to manage her expectations with regards to the process after the OT became involved. However, there is no evidence that the landlord guaranteed that the work would proceed upon receipt of an OT referral, only that it would not go ahead without one. Once the recommendations had been received by the landlord, it then had to consider their scope and assess whether it was necessary and proportionate to implement them in order to resolve the resident’s concerns.
  6. No evidence has been provided to suggest that the OT tested the water temperature and the basis of their recommendation for mixer taps to be installed was not made clear. Indeed, the landlord highlighted that the OT report failed to address the substantive issue of potential scalding from hot water, or to explain how mixer taps might alleviate or prevent this problem. Whilst it is accepted that mixer taps would allow cold water to be added to dilute the temperature of the hot water supply, this would not prevent the hot water being used on its own and remove the alleged ‘burn-risk’ from the hot water supply. Coupled with the fact that the landlord had investigated that risk on several occasions and found the water temperature to be at acceptable levels, the Ombudsman is satisfied that there was insufficient evidence to support the need for the existing taps to be replaced.
  7. Having conducted appropriate investigations, and relying on the professional opinions of its suitably qualified staff, it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude that the resident and her family, including those with disabilities, had not been disadvantaged by it declining to carry out the requested adaptation, in accordance with the Adaptations Policy. The landlord consistently advised the resident that it would not replace the taps, detailed the steps it had taken to reach that decision, and explained that she was free to replace the taps herself, subject to obtaining its permission.
  8. With regard to the photographs provided by the resident, it should be noted that the Ombudsman is limited in the extent to which it can rely on photographic evidence as it is not possible for this Service to determine the location/circumstances of the photographs, or the validity of the images themselves. As a result, we do not generally place significant reliance on photographs in reaching our decisions. However, having considered the resident’s submissions, there is insufficient evidence to say that the dry and broken skin visible in the images constituted burns, or that the condition was directly attributable to the hot water supply in the property.
  9. This Service appreciates the resident’s concern for her family’s safety and it is clear that the issue of the taps has caused her significant distress. However, whilst she was entitled to express her dissatisfaction and pursue the matter with the landlord through its complaints process, the evidence indicates that her repeated contacts to different members of staff may have contributed to the delays and confusion over how the matter was being addressed. For example, she stated that she had not been told to obtain an OT referral when the evidence indicates to the contrary, she advised that she had not been informed of the outcomes of visits when she had, and she repeatedly stated that mixer taps had been agreed and were due to be installed when there was no evidence to support this.
  10. As a result, the protracted nature of this relatively straight forward complaint cannot be solely attributed to the landlord’s actions. Overall, the landlord has demonstrated that it adequately investigated the resident’s concerns, reached evidence-based conclusions, consistently confirmed its position to the resident and clearly explained the reasons for its decisions. As a result, there is insufficient evidence of any failings on the landlord’s part which might constitute maladministration. 
  11. In the landlord’s internal emails dated 26 February 2021, it is suggested that the boiler temperature could be reduced further (although previously it was said to be at the lowest setting) and/or that fitting a thermostatic mixing valve on the feed pipe to each tap could be a solution to the temperature issue. In the interests of improving the landlord/tenant relationship and moving the matter forward, the landlord may wish to consider these options further and a Recommendation is made in that regard below.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord should, if it has not done so already, consider the suggestions regarding further works to the boiler/pipes made in the email of 26 February 2021 and assess whether these are viable options.