Karibu Community Homes Limited (201906579)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201906579

Inquilab Housing Association Limited

17 January 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s request for adaptations to her shower to provide adequate washing facilities and the subsequent installation and maintenance of a water pump.
2. The associated complaints.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began on 12 October 2006. The property is a 3 bedroom house.
The resident has physical disabilities and mobility issues.
The resident has given permission for an advocate to act on her behalf. For the purposes of this report, both the resident and their advocate will be referred to as ‘the resident’.

Policies, procedures and legal obligations

The landlord’s repair and maintenance policy says:
1. It is committed to delivering a high standard repair and maintenance service which meets the diverse needs of local communities and will achieve this by treating people fairly and taking the nine protected characteristics of the Equality Act 2010 into consideration in all aspects of the repair service including access to the service.
2. It will complete repairs within 24 hours if it is an emergency and within an average of 20 working days if not.
The landlord’s offer in relation to adaptations, detailed within the repairs and maintenance policy, says:
1. It is committed to meeting the needs of its residents for independence, privacy and dignity. It aims to help people continue to live independently and comfortably in their homes for as long as possible, with the minimum intrusion or intervention.
2. A budget is allocated for carrying out adaptation works each year and, in addition, grant applications will be made for disabled facilities grants from the local authority wherever possible. This ensures that the maximum possible number of adaptations can be carried out. It will ensure its processes are cost effective and represent value for money.
The landlord’s adaptations policy says it will carry out minor adaptations such as access handrails, taps and bath rails without referral to the council’s occupational therapy team so that tenants can get the adaptations as soon as possible. It will publish a list of works that will be classed as minor adaptations.
The landlord operates a 2 stage formal complaints process. Stage 1 complaints are responded to within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints are responded to within 20 working days.

Summary of events

The resident makes reference throughout the case to an assessment carried out by the landlord’s contractors in December 2018, which the resident says resulted in a recommendation that a pump was required to boost the water pressure to her shower. The landlord has not been able to locate or provide any evidence in relation to the assessment or the outcome of concerns raised in relation to the water pressure.
The resident also makes reference to the landlord’s refusal to install an overhead shower/pump, due to the associated costs, and the subsequent advice given to the resident by the landlord that she should request an occupational therapy assessment for required adaptations to her shower. The landlord has not provided any evidence that shows it considered the resident’s request for a pump, or that it made any recommendations in relation to improving the water pressure/shower.
The resident says that she made contact with the occupational therapy team on an unknown date, and they said that they would not fit a shower/pump due to insufficient water pressure, as it was the landlord’s responsibility to improve the water pressure. They said they would only fit a wet room, under a disabled facilities grant, if deemed necessary. The occupational therapist referred the resident back to the landlord.
The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 11 April 2019 in relation to an ongoing roof leak, which is not part of this investigation, and the landlord’s failure to install a pump to provide adequate water pressure to the shower. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same day and confirmed that the resident would receive a response within 10 working days. The landlord has not provided the Service with a copy of the original complaint.
An occupational therapy assessment took place on 15 August 2019. The resident maintains that the subsequent report made recommendations to the landlord to provide the resident with an overhead shower and a pump to increase the water pressure to her shower. The landlord has not been able to locate or provide a copy of the report or provide any detail associated with the recommendations made.
The resident first contacted the Housing Ombudsman Service (the Service) on 19 August 2019 as the landlord had not provided a response to the complaint raised by the resident on 11 April 2019. The Service contacted the landlord on numerous occasions between August 2019 and January 2020 to request a response to the resident’s complaint.
The landlord sent the resident, and the Service, a complaint response dated 30 January 2020. It was unclear from the letter as to what stage of the landlord’s complaints process it referred to. The landlord offered the resident compensation for the failures relating to the roof repairs. It also confirmed that the resident’s request for a pump to be fitted to the shower, which was a non-standard repair, had been agreed and would be installed as soon as possible. It said it would contact the resident to agree a mutually convenient appointment for the installation of the pump.
The resident responded to the landlord on 6 February 2020. She said she was unhappy with the landlord’s response as the pump to the shower had not yet been fitted, despite the assessment by the landlord’s contractors in December 2018, and the occupational therapist’s assessment on 15 August 2019. She said that, as a result of being left without adequate bathing provision, she had been unable to take care of her personal hygiene needs which had led to an infection. She said she had been severely inconvenienced physically, mentally and financially because of the lack of action by the landlord.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 28 February 2020 following a telephone discussion. The landlord has not provided a transcript or summary of the conversation and it is unclear from the correspondence whether this was deemed to be a stage 2 response. However, the landlord confirmed that the resident had accepted an increased offer of compensation in relation to the roof, which it agreed to pay upon the satisfactory completion of the bathroom works.
The bathroom works were on hold between March 2020 and August 2020 due to the restrictions in place relating to COVID-19. The landlord sent an email to the resident on 17 August 2020 to ask if it could proceed with the work as its contractors were taking the necessary safety precautions. The resident responded on 18 August 2020 and agreed that the work could go ahead.
The resident contacted the landlord on 6 October 2020 to ask someone to contact her as a matter of urgency in relation to the planned bathroom works. The resident said she had been away from home helping a family member, but due to a fall she was back at home and in a poor state of health. She asked for contact by return email with potential dates for works to commence.
The resident contacted the Service again on 15 October 2020, as the works to her bathroom were still outstanding. She said she had tried to contact the landlord by its emergency number. However, it had gone straight to voicemail and the mailbox was full. She said she had also emailed the landlord and received a standard response saying the email address was no longer in use, and that customers should use the online portal. The resident said she was unable to use the portal, although she had signed up to it so her daughter could assist her to report repairs. She said her health had deteriorated and she was struggling with her basic hygiene needs due to the lack of functioning equipment in her bathroom.
The resident provided an update to the Service on 5 November 2020. She said she had still not received a response from the landlord. Her health had deteriorated and she needed to be able to shower. She had suffered a recent mini stroke, fractured her spine, and was physically weak. The resident asked for assistance to get the outstanding work to her bathroom completed.
The Service contacted the landlord on 18 November 2020 and asked it to provide an update on the replacement of the overhead shower and pump.
The resident contacted the landlord on 1 December 2020, as the work to her bathroom was scheduled to take place on 2 December 2020. She wanted to know whether the landlord would provide a new overhead shower with detachable hose in addition to installing the pump under the bath. She also raised concerns that the contractors were fitting the pump under the bath instead of altering the pipe work from downstairs as a “cheap fix” to avoids costs.
The landlord responded on the same day. It said there was no change to the original works specification. The contractors intended to do “a good job” and the resident should “allow them to get on with it” to try and make the bathroom more suitable for her needs.
The resident emailed the landlord on 4 December 2020 to request that an alternative contractor complete the bathroom works as a matter of urgency. She said she was concerned as the operatives had been unable to finish the required work. The resident said she had gone to stay with a family member due to her physical health issues and her need to have access to a functioning toilet. She had been away from home all week whilst the job was supposed to be completed. The resident asked for compensation for the delays, stress and inconvenience caused.
The landlord updated the Service on 10 December 2020. It said its contractors had attended the resident’s property to complete the required works but the resident had not allowed them to continue as she did not agree with the proposed plan. Therefore, its maintenance officers were discussing the best way forward to reach a resolution.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 11 December 2020 to chase a response to her email of 4 December 2020. She said her bathroom was in disarray and the situation was seriously affecting her mental well-being and physical health. She explained that she had only accepted the previous offer of compensation on the understanding that the work to the bathroom would be carried out, but as it remained outstanding, she considered her complaint to be unresolved. The resident also expressed her concern that the contractors were planning to install an electrical pump underneath a bath close to a water supply.
The bathroom works were completed on 17 December 2020.
On 27 March 2021 the resident reported a leak from her bathroom to the landlord. The leak had caused damage to the decoration in the resident’s kitchen below. The landlord attended and found that the leak was from the pump under the bath. The landlord tightened a loose connection and confirmed that the leak had stopped.
The resident reported further leaks from her bathroom causing damage to her kitchen on 4 separate occasions between 31 March 2021 and 20 May 2021.
The resident raised a new stage 1 complaint on 17 June 2021 with the landlord via the resolver website (a free web based complaint tool). She said it had taken 2 years for the landlord to install a pump to make her shower usable, and over that time she had struggled to maintain her personal hygiene. She said the landlord had refused to install an overhead shower, instead opting for a low cost pump to be installed under the bath. The contractors tasked with completing the work had inadequate knowledge and skills which resulted in delays, inconvenience and stress, and despite numerous visits to repair the leaking pump, and to fit a replacement pump, the pump was still not fit for purpose. In addition, the ongoing leak had caused damage to the floor beneath the bath and to the ceiling in the kitchen below.
The resident said she felt stressed, depressed and hopeless trying to get her basic, fundamental need to maintain her personal hygiene met. The resident asked the landlord to remove the pump beneath the bath to stop the water leak as a matter of urgency, and to prioritise the emergency installation of a full unit with overhead shower. The resident also requested that the landlord investigate and repair the damage beneath the bath, the damage to the kitchen ceiling, and compensate the resident for the delays, missed appointments, stress, inconvenience and loss of use of the bath/shower.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 27 June 2021 and 2 July 2021, as she had not received a response to her complaint. The resident said the pump under the bath was still leaking and the damage was deteriorating. The resident asked the landlord to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010 to enable her to access adequate washing facilities. She said the relevant evidence of her disability had been provided by both an occupational therapist and her GP in 2019/2020.
The resident contacted the Service again on 5 August 2021 as the landlord had still not responded to her complaint. The resident said the landlord had sent a contractor to replace the pump, although it was yet to make good the damage caused by the leak. The resident asked the Service to intervene again.
The resident made further contact with the Service on 13 September 2021, and again on 29 January 2022. She explained that she had made a further formal unrelated complaint to the landlord. The landlord had responded to the unrelated complaint but also included information around her outstanding complaint. The resident said she was unhappy with the landlord’s response as the complaints should have been dealt with separately. The resident asked the Service to further assist and request that the landlord formally respond to her outstanding complaint.
The resident confirmed to the Service on 6 April 2022 that the water pump had been replaced and was working. However, the landlord had still not formally responded to her complaint. The resident explained that she had recently undergone a hip replacement, which was affecting her health.
The Service contacted the landlord that day. The landlord responded to the Service on 25 April 2022. The landlord said, as the resident was unwell due to her hip replacement, it had taken some time to arrange to meet with her. It said it had completed a visit and inspection of the outstanding works and it had spoken to the resident that day to confirm some appointments. The landlord said it would contact the resident again that afternoon to book in further appointments for the repairs to be carried out, and then action a full response to the resident and provide a copy to the Service.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 25 April 2022. The landlord apologised for the delay in its response. It confirmed that the resident’s complaint was about the length of time taken for it to replace the pump and the associated loss of bathroom and shower facilities and damage caused by the leaks. The landlord said it had spoken to the resident on 7 April 2022 and completed a home visit on 13 April 2022 to carry out a survey. The landlord confirmed that it had raised appointments to make good damaged decorations and redecorate areas of poor quality caused by the leak.
The landlord also confirmed that the resident had agreed to contact adult social care to request an occupational health assessment in relation to bathroom adaptations and property access ramps. It confirmed it would support the resident’s application. The landlord accepted that the resident had been trying to make contact for some time and it apologised that she had been unable to do so by phone. It said it had since upgraded its systems and was answering calls. It agreed that there were severe delays to the replacement of the water pump and it apologised for the lack of washing facilities during the period of delay. It offered compensation of £250.00 for the delay and for the difficulties in making contact.
The resident responded to the landlord on 26 April 2022. She said she was unhappy with its response. The resident said an occupational therapy review had already taken place and she was waiting for the outcome. The resident said she was not happy with the level of compensation offered due to the length of time the landlord had taken to respond to her complaint, in addition to the loss of use of the bath/shower for several months, and the distress and inconvenience caused.
The landlord escalated the complaint to stage 2 on the same day. The landlord asked the resident to confirm how many days she was without bathing facilities so it could consider whether further compensation was appropriate. The landlord confirmed that it could only carry out minor adaptations, such as handrails for support. Therefore, the resident would need to continue to liaise with the local authority for adaptations to the bathroom. The landlord asked the resident to confirm whether she wanted to add anything else to her complaint.
The resident confirmed to the landlord on 26 April 2022, that the problem with the shower pump was first reported in March 2021, and was not resolved until August 2021. Therefore, she was without adequate bathing facilities for over 5 months.
The landlord responded on 7 May 2022. It said it would check its records against the dates provided by the resident, calculate the loss of usage, and consider additional compensation. The landlord said it wanted to resolve the repair issues before it issued any final compensation.
The resident contacted the landlord on 30 June 2022. She said she had recently chased the outcome of the occupational therapy review and had been told that the occupational therapist had been chasing the landlord for some time and had got no response. The resident said she was confined to her bedroom due to issues with mobility and she asked that the landlord respond to the occupational therapy team.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 21 July 2022 to chase the stage 2 complaint response and the adaptations request. The Service also contacted the landlord on 22 July 2022 to chase the resident’s stage 2 response.
The adult social care team contacted the resident on 25 July 2022. They said they were still waiting for a response from the landlord and were unable to start their processes until the landlord had agreed that the adaptations could be installed and agreed to the service, maintenance and repairs of the adaptations once the warranty had expired.
The resident spoke with the landlord on 28 July 2022, as the landlord had made contact to ask what work was outstanding. The resident told the landlord that it had failed to resolve her outstanding complaint and failed to respond to the adult social care team’s request for permission to complete much needed adaptations. The landlord responded on the same day and said it would provide an update by 5 August 2022.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response on 28 July 2022. It apologised for the delay. It said it had carried out a review of the original complaint, a review of all correspondence from the resident, and a review of the records held in relation to the complaint. The landlord apologised for the unacceptable delays that led to a lack of washing facilities. It said it had reviewed the compensation award and confirmed that the maximum £250 for service failure had been applied. In addition, it had considered the delays in formally responding and had added a further £50 to the offer, bringing the total offer to £300. The landlord said it would rebook the appointment to complete the paintwork in the kitchen and plasterwork that remained outstanding. The landlord also said, although it was not part of the complaint, it could confirm that approval had been given to the local authority for the adaptations works to take place under a disabled facilities grant. It confirmed that it had upheld the resident’s complaint that it should have compensated correctly for the lack of washing facilities and the delays in formally responding.
The local authority completed works to the resident’s bathroom under a disabled facilities grant. They installed a shower cubicle, overhead shower and shower seat.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for adaptations to her shower to provide adequate washing facilities and the subsequent installation and maintenance of a water pump.

The Equality Act 2010 (the Act) provides a legislative framework to protect the rights of individuals with protected characteristics from unfair treatment. Under the Act, the landlord has a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments where there is a provision, criterion or practice which puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled.
As part of this investigation the landlord was asked to provide documents, correspondence, and any other evidence relevant to the resident’s complaint. The landlord was only able to provide limited information, which did not include significant information such as details of its contractor’s assessment of the shower/water pressure in December 2018, information relating to its decision not to install a pump following the assessment, a copy of the original complaint made by the resident in April 2019, or a copy of the occupational therapy report following the assessment in August 2019.
In this case a determination has been made based on the information to hand. However, the landlord’s inability to provide the requested information indicates poor record keeping and information management practices. In addition, throughout the case, the landlord contacted the resident to confirm whether repairs had been carried out or remained outstanding, rather than relying on the information contained within its own systems. This is further evidence of the landlord’s poor approach to record keeping and information management. It is unclear from the information provided whether the data was difficult to extract, unreliable, or whether it was missing. In any event, the landlord should have been able to extract the necessary information in an accessible format without the need to contact the resident.
This was a significant factor in the sequence of events that resulted in severe delays, and a considerable detriment to the resident, given her protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010, which was unreasonable and unacceptable.
It is unclear from the evidence provided why the landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint made on 11 April 2019, for such a significant length of time. It is not acceptable that the resident had to contact this Service, and that this Service had to contact the landlord on numerous occasions before it provided a response. The landlord did not provide any meaningful explanation for the delays, and when it did respond, it gave very little information in relation to the pump. It merely confirmed that the installation of the pump was a “non-standard repair” and that it had agreed to fit a pump at a “mutually convenient time”. The response was unsympathetic and made no reference to the resident’s protected characteristics or its obligation to make reasonable adjustments, which was inappropriate and unreasonable.
The landlord has not provided any evidence to suggest it complied with its own repair and maintenance policy to “treat people fairly” and “take protected characteristics and the Equality Act 2020 into consideration in all aspects of the repair service”. There is no evidence of an Equality Act assessment or any evidence of its consideration of the installation of the pump, or reasons for its refusal, which is unreasonable in the circumstances. It should have been clear to the landlord that it was not the responsibility of the local authority to ensure that the resident had adequate water pressure for a shower, and it should have been aware of its obligations under the Equality Act 2010, to make reasonable adjustments for customers with protected characteristics.
There is also no evidence to suggest that the landlord met the needs of the resident to enable her to “live independently and with dignity”. The resident made it very clear on 6 February 2020, that she had been unable to take care of her personal hygiene needs and that this had led to an infection. This information should have prompted the landlord to fit the pump on an urgent basis, or at the very least to look into its options to improve the facilities for the resident given her disabilities.
It is clear, from the evidence provided, that the landlord’s adaptations budget only covered minor adaptations, and that referrals to the occupational therapy team were required for major adaptations under a disabled facilities grant. It is unclear, from the evidence provided, what the landlord classed as a minor adaptation as it has not provided the relevant list of works referred to in its adaptations policy. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the resident requested a major adaptation, estimated to cost over £1000, which would meet the criteria for a disabled facilities grant via the local authority. This would suggest that the advice given to the resident by the landlord, to contact the local authority, did not reflect her specific circumstances, and that this contributed to the delays in the pump being fitted.
Given the urgency of the situation, as soon as the restrictions relating to COVID-19 were lifted, it should have been a priority for the landlord to fit the pump. However, even though the resident agreed that the work could commence on 18 August 2020, the resident had to contact this Service again on 15 October 2020 for assistance as the landlord had still not completed the work. This was unreasonable and unacceptable, particularly as the landlord was aware of the effect of the poor water pressure on the resident’s ability to look after her personal hygiene due to her disabilities.
The landlord’s response on 2 December 2020, to the resident’s concerns raised on 1 December 2020, was unsympathetic and demeaning in nature. The resident had genuine concerns, and the landlord should have ensured that the resident was fully aware of the work to be carried out to her home and the reasons why it had opted for its chosen method to increase the water pressure, rather than any alternative method.
It is unclear from the information provided why the resident did not have a functioning toilet, or why she had to stay with a family member whilst the work was carried out, given that the work to fit the pump under the bath was not a complex or lengthy process. It is also unclear as to why the landlord informed this Service on 10 December 2020 that the resident had not allowed its contractors to carry out the work, yet the resident had chased the landlord on 11 December 2020 for a response to her email of 4 December 2020. The evidence provided would suggest that the landlord had based its response to this Service solely on the information provided by the contractor without speaking to the resident to gain a more balanced understanding of the situation, which was unreasonable and unfair.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of the pump subsequently leaking, and that it was not fit for purpose, was poor. The landlord was fully aware of the resident’s disabilities and the need for her to have access to a functioning shower to enable her to maintain her personal hygiene. Yet the resident felt that she had to raise a further formal complaint on 17 June 2021 just to get a satisfactory response from the landlord and the required repair/replacement of the pump, which was unreasonable.
There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord acted in line with its repairs and maintenance policy or that it met the resident’s need “for independence, privacy and dignity”. In fact, the evidence suggests that the landlord did not have due regard for its obligations under the Equality Act 2010, and it treated the resident unfairly, unreasonably, and unsympathetically throughout this case.
It is unclear from the evidence provided why the second stage 1 complaint response from the landlord was subject to such a lengthy delay as the landlord did not provide any reasonable explanation. When it did respond, the landlord accepted that the resident had been trying to make contact for some time, and it agreed that there had been “severe delays” to the replacement of the water pump which resulted in a lack of washing facilities. However, the landlord did not recognise its failure to have due regard to its obligations under the Equality Act 2010, or fully address the effect the delays had had on the resident. It also failed to offer adequate compensation.
Following the resident’s escalation of her complaint to stage 2 on 26 April 2022, the landlord agreed to review its compensation offer, given that the resident had been without bathing facilities for around 5 months. However, the resident had to again chase the landlord, and involve this Service, to obtain a response. This was unreasonable.
The landlord’s communication with the resident has been poor throughout this entire case. The resident had to make frequent contact with the landlord, and this Service, for updates and responses over a prolonged period of more than three years. This was unreasonable and is likely to have caused the resident significant frustration, time and effort.
In addition to the delays in responding to the resident, the evidence also shows that the landlord delayed in responding to the occupational therapist’s request for permission to install the adaptations following the second assessment. This was unacceptable and unreasonable given the situation had been ongoing for a significant period of time. The landlord should have been aware of the resident’s needs, and the urgency of the situation, and it should have prioritised a response. The landlord’s delayed response shows a lack of understanding of the resident’s needs, a lack of understanding of its obligations under the Equality Act 2010, and a lack of compassion towards the resident and her situation.
The stage 2 response and the review of the compensation awarded to the resident took the landlord a further 3 months to consider. Although the landlord apologised, it failed to increase its compensation offer in relation to the lack of washing facilities. The landlord failed to offer any reasonable explanation apart from that the “maximum” amount of compensation for service failure had already been applied.
In summary, the landlord’s approach was unsympathetic and unfair. It failed to have due regard to its obligations under the Equality Act 2010, which left the resident unable to care for her personal hygiene for a prolonged period of time and left the resident without bathing facilities for a period of 5 months. It failed to comply with its own repairs and maintenance policy and delayed unreasonably in fitting the water pump. The landlord did not communicate effectively with the resident and failed to provide any reasonable explanation for the delays. The landlord also delayed unnecessarily in providing the local authority with permission to complete the required adaptations. As a result of these failings, and given the detriment suffered by the resident, the Ombudsman finds that there was severe maladministration by the landlord in this case.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

There were multiple failures and delays in the landlord’s handling of the two formal complaints raised by the resident.

Complaint 1

The resident first raised a formal complaint on 11 April 2019. The landlord did not provide a response until 30 January 2020, which was over 9 months from the date of submission. This was significantly outside of the timeframe stated in the landlord’s complaint policy of 10 working days.
There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord kept the resident updated in relation to the progression of the complaint throughout the period of delay, or that it provided a reasonable explanation for the delay. The resident had to contact the Service, and we had to contact the landlord, on multiple occasions between August 2019 and January 2020 in order to obtain a response. This was unreasonable and a significant failure on the part of the landlord to respond within its published timeframes.
The landlord’s response did not recognise its complaint handling failures or offer any compensation to the resident for the unreasonable delays. The landlord did not apologise, or even refer to the delay in its response. This demonstrates a lack of compassion, a lack of understanding of the resident’s situation, and devalues its own complaints process.
The resident contacted to the landlord on 6 February 2020, as she was unhappy with its response. However, it is unclear from the evidence provided, as to whether the landlord escalated the complaint to stage 2.
The landlord did send a further response to the resident on 28 February 2020, which was within the required timescale at stage 2. However, the response did not make it clear as to whether it was a stage 2 final response, or whether it had merely negotiated and amended its stage 1 response. This was unreasonable as, if it had been made clear to the resident, it could have potentially allowed the resident to escalate her case and seek a determination from this Service much sooner.

Complaint 2

The resident raised a second formal complaint on 17 June 2021. The resident did not receive a stage 1 response until 25 April 2022, which was over 10 months from the date of submission. This was, again, significantly outside of the timeframe stated in the landlord’s complaint policy of 10 working days and the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code published in July 2020.
There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord kept the resident updated in relation to the progression of the complaint throughout the period of delay or that it provided the resident with a reasonable explanation for the delay. The resident had to contact this Service again on several occasions to pursue a response from the landlord, and this Service had to request that the landlord formally respond to the resident’s outstanding complaint on several occasions, which was unacceptable, unfair and unreasonable. Particularly as the same issues and delays had been encountered by both the resident and the Service during the first complaint. This demonstrates that the landlord did not recognise, or take on board, any learning from the delays and failures associated with its handling of complaint 1.
The landlord’s stage 1 response did not fully recognise its complaint handling failures or offer any compensation to the resident for the unreasonable delays, which was unreasonable and unfair. Although it did apologise and accept that it should have responded sooner.
The resident did inform the Service on 29 January 2022 that the landlord had dealt with an unrelated complaint and had attempted to include some of the information from her outstanding complaint relating to the pump/leaks. The landlord has not provided copies of the correspondence referred to by the resident. Therefore, it is unclear from the evidence provided why the landlord did this. It is also unclear why, if the landlord had information to feed back at this point, it did not formally respond until 25 April 2022.
The landlord escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 2 on 26 April 2022. At the point of escalation, the landlord asked the resident “to confirm whether she wanted to add anything else to her complaint”. This was unreasonable. It was not appropriate for the landlord to seek to add any further issues at this stage of the complaints process. Particularly, as it would likely cause further delays in the resident receiving the stage 2 response. This would suggest that the landlord did not fully understand the importance of following its complaints process or complying with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
The landlord did not provide a stage 2 response until 28 July 2022. This was 3 months from the date of escalation, and outside of the timeframe stated in the landlord’s complaint policy of 20 working days. It is unclear from the evidence provided as to reasons for the delay in its response. Again, the resident, and this Service, had to chase the landlord for a response, which is unreasonable given the significant delay at stage 1.
In its stage 2 response, although the landlord apologised and offered £50 for the delays in formally responding to the resident’s complaint, it failed to fully recognise or address the delays. It also failed to address the effect the delays had on the resident and failed to offer adequate and reasonable compensation.
In summary, there were significant and unreasonable delays to the stage 1 response in both complaints and further delays to the stage 2 response in the second complaint. The landlord failed to keep the resident updated with the progress of her complaints which resulted in the resident seeking assistance from the Service on several occasions. The landlord failed to comply with its own complaints policy and, in the case of the second complaint, failed to comply with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. The landlord failed to recognise its complaint handling failures, failed to provide adequate compensation, and failed to demonstrate that it had taken any learning from its failures. As a result of these failings, the significance of the failings, and the level of detriment caused to the resident, the Ombudsman finds that there was severe maladministration by the landlord in this case.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for adaptations to her shower to provide adequate washing facilities and the subsequent installation and maintenance of a water pump.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaints.

Reasons

The landlord failed to evidence that it had due regard to its obligations under the Equality Act 2010, which had a significant and detrimental effect on the resident, leaving her without any adequate bathing facilities for a period of 5 months. It failed to adequately communicate with the resident and this Service throughout the case, delayed unreasonably in fitting the water pump, and failed to comply with its own repairs and maintenance policy.
There were significant and unreasonable delays in its handling of the resident’s complaints. The landlord failed to keep the resident updated with the progress of her complaints. It failed to comply with its own complaints policy and failed to comply with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code when relevant. The landlord failed to provide adequate compensation and failed to demonstrate that it had taken any learning from its failures.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks from the date of the report, the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report (the apology should be offered by the landlord’s Chief Executive).
2. Pay the resident £1,400 in recognition of distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for adaptations to her shower to provide adequate washing facilities and the subsequent installation and maintenance of a water pump.
3. Pay the resident £600 in recognition of distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, caused by the landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.
Within eight weeks from the date of the report, the landlord must:
1. Complete a review of this case to determine what went wrong in terms of its response to the resident (specifically in relation to the landlord’s lack of consideration for the resident’s protected characteristics and the significant delays in its complaint responses). The landlord should:
  1. Provide this Service with a copy of the review document.
  2. Use the review as a learning resource to ensure that the issues encountered by the resident do not happen again.
  3. Ensure that its staff are aware of the need to consider residents individual needs and circumstances when making decisions, and make reasonable adjustments where appropriate, in line with its obligations under the Equality Act 2010.
2. Complete a self-assessment and review of its record keeping practices based on the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight on: Knowledge and Information Management document. The landlord should:
  1. Provide this Service with a copy of the review document.
  2. Use the review as a learning resource and ensure its staff are aware of the importance of maintaining accurate records and information.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance within the timescales set out above.