London Borough of Enfield (202215268)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215268

Enfield Council

29 February 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 improvement works to a bathroom.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. He lives in a flat in a block (the block). His tenancy started in July 2013. He has several vulnerabilities, including arthritis in his hands that the landlord has been made aware of.
The landlord wrote to the resident in January 2021. It said it was scheduling planned improvement works for the block. The works would include the renewal of the bathroom in the property. During an inspection on 17 February 2021 the details of the works were agreed. The landlord wrote an agreement that was co-signed by the resident and included the following:
1. Bath to be replaced and fitted in the same position/direction.
2. Pillar lever taps to be installed on the bath, with a shower hose attachment.
3. Pillar lever taps to be installed on the wash hand basin.
4. Tiling to ceiling around the tap end and along the length of the bath.
5. Renew low level toilet.
The resident asked the landlord to install a shower as part of the improvement works. The landlord recorded in its internal correspondence in August 2021 that there were records from its aids and adaptations team saying that there could be mixer taps fitted to the bath. Based on the recommendation, the landlord determined that it could install mixer taps with a shower attachment for the resident.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 16 August 2021. It said he had been visited by an occupational therapist (OT), but no report had been sent to the landlord because the resident disagreed with their recommendations. It said he could have work done in the bathroom without an OT report if he signed to confirm his decision.
The landlord visited the resident on 20 October 2021. The records show he told the landlord that he wanted to be able to stand underneath a shower. The landlord noted it would be complicated to install a shower due to the layout of the bath. It felt the bath could be turned around so the taps were at the other end. This would allow a shower hose to be fixed to the wall. It recorded that there was sufficient water pressure to do this. The resident was happy with this design.
There was further discussion between the parties on 22 October 2021. The landlord amended the agreement to reflect changes to the tiling around the bath. The resident sent images of a shower design that he wanted the landlord to consider. The landlord’s internal correspondence shows that it considered the shower design and determined that too many adjustments would be required to enclose the plumbing. It decided that it could only install mixer taps and a shower hose on the bath.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 11 November 2021 with a copy of the agreement. The points set out were the same as those set out in October 2021 and referred to the visit on 20 October 2021. The landlord asked the resident to review this agreement, sign it, and return so it could begin the works.
There was more correspondence between the parties in December 2021. The landlord’s internal correspondence shows that it spoke to the resident and he wanted to keep the bath facing the same direction (as set out in the agreement). The landlord would not install a thermostatic shower. The resident was given the option of a mixer tap with a shower head and hose.
On 11 January 2022 the resident asked for a start date for the works. He said that the last agreement sent by the landlord did not include “all the points” that had been agreed during the last visit. He listed the changes he expected to see on the agreement. These included:
1. He wanted the old taps and mixer from the bath and sink returned to him.
2. The landlord to plaster the bathroom walls during the works.
The landlord replied to the resident the same day and said that its contractor would confirm the start date. It needed the resident to agree to the terms in its agreement.
In an email to the landlord on 12 February 2022 the resident said:
1. He wanted the landlord to tile the whole bathroom and install an overhead shower.
2. He felt the landlord was giving him conflicting advice. He did not know what the landlord wanted from him.
3. The contractor had visited him recently and damaged the floor and walls in the bathroom. He wanted the landlord to fix the damage.
4. He wanted the landlord to call him to discuss this and agree works.
5. The issues with the works were impacting his health.
6. He did not want to have another OT assessment.
The landlord responded on 16 February 2022. It said that the contractor had cut into the flooring to take a sample. It also took a sample from the wall to check for asbestos. It should have discussed this with the resident beforehand. It said that it would be unable to install an over bath shower, or fully tile the walls without an OT assessment. In the absence of an OT assessment, it would only be able to complete like for like replacements. It gave the resident the following options to consider:
1. The landlord could ask its contractor to repair the flooring with the same type the resident had previously and fill the holes in the walls. The resident should provide photographs of the damage and details of where the original flooring was purchased. He should also sign an opt out form to say he no longer wished for the bathroom to be replaced.
2. The landlord could continue with the like for like replacement. This would include flooring provided by the landlord and its contractors.
3. The resident could obtain an updated OT assessment and the landlord would act on its recommendations.
The resident replied to the landlord the following day. He was unhappy with some of the comments made by the landlord. He wanted the landlord to complete the actions set out in option “a” but continue to complete the other works in the bathroom. He did not want to have an updated OT assessment. He referenced historical reports from 2015 and 2019.
The landlord’s internal correspondence shows that on 24 February 2022 it planned to begin the works in the next 3-4 weeks. It asked the contractor to inform the resident and for extra consideration to be given to him. It wanted to ensure that there was no mess left in or around the property and he knew when contractors were due to visit.
On 9 March 2022, there was correspondence between the parties about the terms of the agreement for the works. The resident was questioning whether the landlord had accounted for a few items and asked it to call him to discuss. The landlord replied to say it was unable to call him. The resident said that he did not want the works to start until the agreement was amended.
There was more correspondence between the parties the following day. The landlord said:
1. The resident may have misunderstood its previous emails.
2. It would not sign a new agreement.
3. It was trying to accommodate his requests where possible.
4. It was concerned the works would be delayed.
The resident replied to say:
1. He felt the landlord had misunderstood him.
2. He would allow the contractor the conduct the work after the terms of the agreement were updated.
3. He was concerned that he would be “messed around” during the work.
The resident asked the landlord to arrange a face to face meeting to resolve this dispute on 15 March 2022. The landlord visited the resident on 22 March 2022 and there was a discussion around the types of showers that could be installed in the bathroom. The landlord recorded that the resident agreed to have the shower hose and taps offered by the landlord.
There was correspondence between the parties on 24 and 30 March 2022. It related to the size of the sink and type of tap being planned for the bathroom. The resident was concerned the landlord intended to install a smaller sink. The landlord sought to clarify its term “like for like”. It said that it did not mean that it would use the exact same products as was installed already. It then set out a list of the terms the resident had requested and how it had accommodated each request.
The resident asked the landlord to visit the property to resolve the shower dispute on 17 June 2022. The landlord’s records show the resident wanted it to supply and fit a shower mixer he had chosen. The landlord said it would only fit the resident’s preferred shower if he signed a disclaimer. It was concerned about future delays to the works. It told the resident he could decline the bathroom works if he felt they were not meeting his wishes. The resident said he was happy with the terms of the original agreement. He asked the landlord to fully tile the bathroom, which it refused. The landlord told the resident that if he did not agree or allow works to commence, it would omit him from the list.
On 6 September 2022, the resident asked the landlord to update him regarding the start date for the works. There was correspondence between the parties on 8 September 2022. The landlord said that it would not supply and fit the resident’s preferred shower. It offered to supply its standard over the bath shower or fit the resident’s own shower if he bought it himself. The resident felt that the landlord was ignoring his emails. He was unhappy with the quality of materials the contractor was using. He said he would buy a shower, but needed some advice regarding the type, fixtures, and fittings he would require.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 13 September 2022. It said that it would not buy the shower or fittings that the resident was requesting. It would supply and fit a shower that met its own specifications. If the resident provided his own shower he would be responsible for its future maintenance.
On 15 September 2022, the landlord gave the resident 2 options to resolve matters. It said that it could either:
1. Supply and fit a standard mixer tap and shower attachment. The landlord would retain responsibility for the repair and maintenance.
2. Install the resident’s own shower, attachment, and fittings, provided they were compatible with the landlord’s mixer tap. Or the resident could purchase his own mixer tap that was compatible with the above and the bath. The resident would be responsible for the repair and maintenance of the items he supplied.
On 27 September 2022, the resident asked the landlord to provide him with the specifications for the things being installed in the bathroom. The landlord replied on 29 September 2022 with a list of specifications. It said the shower head he wanted was incompatible with its mixer taps. It asked the resident for more details regarding his medical history.
The resident replied to the landlord on 1 October 2022. He said:
1. He did not agree with the landlord’s options to install the shower.
2. The landlord had agreed the showerhead could be fitted to the bathroom mixer.
3. If he brought his own shower the landlord agreed to install it. Now it was saying he needed to buy everything (including the taps).
4. He was upset that the landlord had taken 3 months to reply to him. Its reply was to say the overhead shower he selected would not fit the landlord’s mixer taps.
5. He did not want a new OT assessment. He did not want a wet room. He wanted to keep his bath.
On 4 October 2022, the landlord said that it was putting the works on hold until an agreement could be reached between the parties. It set out a list of options for the resident to consider:
1. It would complete the bathroom renewal in accordance with its standard specifications.
2. As above, but it would also install a shower provided by the resident. If the shower provided did not fit the mixer taps it installed, then the resident would need to purchase new fittings. The resident would be responsible for the maintenance of any items he provided.
3. The resident could have a new OT assessment. The landlord would complete works set out in the OT recommendations.
The resident complained on 12 October 2022. He said:
1. He had been waiting for 10 years for the landlord to complete major works. The landlord had agreed to complete the works in 2019, but it was still outstanding.
2. He was a “disabled person” with “a lot of health issues”. The bathroom was not suitable for his needs. The landlord had not considered his health.
3. He agreed to buy an overhead shower and the landlord would fit its mixer tap for the bath in June 2022. It did not update him for 3 months and then changed to say that he needed to buy all parts (including the tap).
4. The sink was in a poor condition.
5. He did not want another OT assessment.
On 17 October 2022, the landlord emailed the resident and reiterated its previous points. It also said that it had decided to put the works on hold. It was unable to deviate from the standard specifications. It described the process to assess medical needs and the reliance on a new OT assessment. It recommended that the resident agreed to a new OT report. It suggested that if there were repairs outstanding in the bathroom, that they be reported separately so they too were not placed on hold.
The resident replied on 20 October 2022. He said a misunderstanding between the parties was causing confusion. He referred to the home visit when he showed a picture of an overhead shower. He told the landlord that he needed something like the one in the picture. He did not mean that it had to be the exact model. He offered to purchase a similar shower that “does the job” and would fit to the mixer taps supplied by the landlord. He said he wanted to be independent from family support and the shower would help him.
The landlord’s internal records show that on 22 October 2022 there was a discussion around the installation of a shower in the property. It noted some technical difficulties to install the type of shower sought by the resident. It determined that it should only install its standard bath with mixer taps and shower hose.
The landlord considered the issue/matters again on 3 November 2022. It explored other options to install the type of shower requested by the resident. It found there were technical issues with fitting bespoke bathroom fixtures. It determined that an OT normally recommended specialist equipment. It said the resident should pay for one of its surveyors to consider feasibility and get his own contractor to fit a shower. There was concern that if the landlord installed the resident’s shower, it would set a precedent for other residents.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman in November 2022 asking for assistance as the landlord had not responded to his complaint. We wrote to the landlord on 15 November 2022 asking it to issue a response. The next day the landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint. It considered the complaint to be about the planned works and the request for the resident to purchase a shower.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 24 November 2022. This was around 31 working days after the complaint was made. It said:
1. There was a verbal agreement in June 2022 that the resident would supply his own over bath shower hose and head. It was “still offering this” but the resident’s chosen shower hose and head were incompatible with its bath mixer taps.
2. The resident would need to supply suitable mixer taps to use the shower hose and head he supplied.
3. The landlord could supply and fit mixer taps with a shower hose and head in line with its standard specification.
4. The landlord did not offer bespoke installations for individual properties. It would install a standard bathroom suite or wet room, whichever was in line with its standard specifications. It did not offer “like for like” replacements for fixtures and fittings. This was because many were no longer available.
5. The landlord reiterated its previous list of 3 options from 4 October 2022.
6. The landlord recognised that the resident felt the bathroom was not supporting his medical needs. It recommended that he choose the third option to ensure the bathroom met his needs. Although, if he was happy with option 1 or 2 it would deliver the bathroom as agreed and hoped this would support his requirements.
The resident was unhappy with the stage 1 response and asked for his complaint to be escalated on 29 November 2022. He said that he was wasting his time trying to get the bathroom done. He felt that the landlord was making his health worse. He was considering legal action against the landlord and said that he “can’t keep doing this over and over again I just have enough”.
The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 24 February 2023. This was 60 working days after the resident asked it to escalate his complaint. The landlord noted that the resident was dissatisfied with its handling of a replacement bathroom. It said:
1. The landlord could offer a bathroom to its standard specifications, or with a shower supplied by the resident.
2. The resident should work with the landlord to have an OT assessment to ensure the bathroom adequately met his medical needs.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 8 March 2023. He said that he disagreed with the final response by the landlord.
The resident had an OT assessment on 23 August 2023. The report considered the resident’s vulnerabilities and made the following recommendations to the landlord:
1. Install wash hand basin (same size as existing one) same height as existing one, with wide/lever mixer taps due to limited hand grip.
2. Install shower mixer and overhead shower head.
3. Install tiles on all the walls as there were issues with mould that affected the resident’s asthma.
4. Install a bath with wide mixer taps hand grips to promote safety during bath transfers.
After seeking further clarification, the landlord met the resident on 20 February 2024. It agreed a plan of works with the resident and sent a copy the Ombudsman on 21 February 2024. The plan included the recommendations made by the OT and actions agreed in previous plans, with the following exceptions.
1. It would install a mixer tap without a shower attachment and a separate overhead shower.
2. It would tile most, but not all the room.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or award damages. As a result, the Ombudsman cannot determine whether the improvement works have impacted the resident’s health. However, we will consider the overall distress and inconvenience that the issues in this case have caused. A determination relating to damages caused to the resident’s health is more appropriate for the courts and the resident may wish to pursue this in a legal setting

Policies and Procedures

The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will acknowledge a complaint within 3 working days and issue a response in 10 working days. It will acknowledge a request for final review within 5 working days and issue a response within 30 working days of the acknowledgement.
The landlord’s disabled adaptations policy from March 2023 says that residents must be assessed by an OT before any works can be carried out. The OT will decide what works are “necessary and appropriate” to meet the needs of the resident. The referral is then passed to the landlord who decides if the works are “reasonable and practicable”. This decision is made regarding the age and condition of the property and considering all circumstances of each case.

The landlord’s handling of improvement works to a bathroom

The landlord’s handling of improvement works to the bathroom was broadly reasonable. However, there were a few missed opportunities and prolonged decision making that caused confusion to the resident and protracted this issue.
The landlord set out a list of works in line with its planned maintenance programme in January 2021. This plan was made as the landlord determined the bathroom did not meet the ‘Decent Homes’ standard. The plan was first amended after the resident requested a shower be installed over the bath in October 2021. The landlord revised the plan, sent a new copy, and sought agreement from the resident.
A ‘decent home’ is one that meets the standards set out by the UK government. The requirements of this standard relevant in this case are for homes to be in a reasonable state of repair and have reasonably modern facilities and services. There is a minimum standard that will need to be maintained. For example, it ensures that works undertaken do not make the home more difficult to use for a person with disabilities.
The ‘Decent Homes’ standard ensures that all social tenants have access to a minimum standard of housing. However, tenants may have other priorities and these need to be considered. Where an individual tenant does not want work carried out on their home to bring it up to the standard, then the home can remain below the standard until the property is vacated. Exceptions to this are where works are required to maintain the structural integrity of the dwelling or to prevent other components within the dwelling from deteriorating.
The records do not show that the bathroom was in so poor a condition that it impacts the structural integratory of the dwelling. There are no records showing the presence of any category 1 hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS).
The landlord agreed works to the bathroom in January 2021. The list of works was reasonable and were common works to take place under these programmes. The landlord inspected the property before scheduling the works. It allowed the resident the right to refuse nonessential works. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in this aspect.
It was reasonable for the landlord to seek to clarify the type of works required throughout the complaint journey. Landlords have an obligation to act within a budget. They have limited resources that they must use to benefit all residents. It was reasonable to decide in this case that it would complete works in line with its standard procedures. Once it identified that additional works were required it was reasonable to refer the resident to an OT for assessment.
Following the resident’s request, the landlord acted appropriately by recommending he undergo an up to date OT assessment in August 2021. He refused this request and directed the landlord to previous assessments he had. The landlord reviewed previous assessments and used this to inform its plans. It offered to install a shower hose and head attached to a mixer tap on the bath in December 2021. Although it made this decision in the absence of an up to date OT assessment, it demonstrated the landlord’s intention to resolve the issue and manage the resident’s expectations.
Once the resident disagreed with the terms provided by the landlord, both parties attempted to resolve the dispute. The resident sought to meet with the landlord in person, both in March and June 2022. The landlord agreed to the visits and there was consideration given to the resident supplying his own shower for the landlord to install. This was a reasonable attempt to resolve the issue, without additional assessments at the request of the resident.
In September 2022 the landlord said the shower the resident wanted to purchase was incompatible with the fittings it was using in the property. This was nearly 3 months after the visit where it had been agreed the landlord would install a shower if he provided one. The resident sought to clarify this discussion in his emails in October 2022. Although the landlord quickly responded with the technical specifications for the items it planned to install, the communication between the parties reduced.
The landlord’s decision to put the works on hold in October 2022 was reasonable. It was clear with the resident around its decision making in this regard.
However, the landlord did not respond to the resident’s requests between 20 October 2022 and the stage 1 response on 24 November 2022. There was then a further unreasonable delay between 29 November 2022 and the final response on 24 February 2023. The resident became frustrated by the lack of response from the landlord. The landlord could have provided more assistance to the resident, which may have enabled them to come to an agreement sooner.
There was a breakdown in the landlord/tenant relationship because of the confusion this disagreement caused. The resident described having multiple assessments, plans, and visits setting out works the landlord would complete. He said that the plans would change after the meetings. The records show that the landlord did send updated plans to the resident after its meetings. Although it was reasonable for the landlord to clarify mutual understanding and the options were clear, the resident became increasingly frustrated by the process. He saw the changes to the agreement as an attempt to cut back spending and provide him with a poorer service.
The resident made other requests from the landlord. These included a request to tile the whole bathroom while it was completing the works. The landlord said that it would not fully tile the walls without an OT assessment. This set the expectation that the landlord could do this work if an OT made the recommendation.
The landlord’s final response reiterated the same options it had given previously and directed the resident to undergo a further OT assessment. Around 6 months later the resident had an updated OT assessment. This recommended that the landlord install an overhead shower and tile the full bathroom. When the OT made this recommendation in August 2023, the landlord determined that it was not reasonable and practicable to carry out all the recommendations. The landlord’s policy states that it can review the recommendation and decide whether work the suggested was reasonable. Although it was compliant with its policy, it unfairly raised the resident’s expectations about the works.
The landlord met with the resident and another OT in January and February 2024. Together they sent a plan to the resident regarding the works it would complete. It is clear, concise and shows consideration of the resident’s vulnerabilities. Most of the recommendations correlate to those set out in the original agreement. It was reasonable to share the details in writing with the resident to assist with the clarity.
The Ombudsman finds that due primarily to the protracted timescales involved in this case, there was service failure by the landlord. It did broadly seek to manage the residents expectations throughout the complaint journey. It was clear with its proposals in most instances. However, there were delays in its decision making and some of its responses that caused unnecessary distress and inconvenience to the resident. It should pay the resident £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. It should arrange a stakeholder meeting with the resident, to include an Occupational Therapist and officers from its Major Works department to draft a plan to agree works.

Complaint handling

It is important for the landlord to ensure that it maintains its complaint handling commitments, and that it complies with the timeframes set out in its policy. Its responses to both stage 1 and 2 were considerably outside those timeframes. It was unfair to the resident and delayed the outcome, which could have an impact on the overall landlord/tenant relationship.
The landlord’s stage 1 response was issued around 31 working days after the complaint was made. This was more than 3 times the timescales set out in its policy. In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. The landlord did not acknowledge the delay or offer any redress in its response.
The resident’s request to escalate his complaint showed that he was discouraged by the landlord’s procedures. His statement that he “can’t keep doing this over and over again I just have enough” was demonstrative of a breakdown in the landlord/tenant relationship. He did not chase the landlord for a response when it did not issue one within 30 working days, because of the breakdown in the relationship.
The landlord’s stage 2 response was issued substantially outside of its published timescales. There was around 60 working days to issue the response. This was double the published timescales of 30 working days. There was no acknowledgement of the delay, or any offer to put things right in the circumstances. It lacked detail and did not demonstrate an intention to resolve the substantive issue with the resident.
The timeline points to combined complaint handling delays of around 51 working days in total. This was inappropriate. Given the duration of the delays, the landlord should have awarded compensation to put things right for the resident. Its failure to do this was also inappropriate. The landlord should have considered its own complaint handling during its investigation.
The Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord did not comply with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies. There were unreasonable delays to both stages of the complaint investigation. There was no acknowledgement of the delays or redress to put things right. The landlord should pay the resident £300 in compensation for his time and trouble in pursuing his complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of improvement works to the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write an apology to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay compensation of £400. This sum includes:
  1. £100 for distress and inconvenience.
  2. £300 for time and trouble.
3. Arrange a stakeholder meeting with the resident, to include an Occupational Therapist and officers from its major works department. It should discuss the schedule of works from February 2024 with both its adaptions and major works departments. Provide details of the outcome of this meeting to Ombudsman.
4. Provide evidence of compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

Following the stakeholder meeting with the resident, the landlord should clearly explain its final decision regarding the works to the bathroom.