Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited (202015295)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202015295

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited

27 September 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 resident complains about how the landlord handled her reports of repairs needed to the wet room.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is an assured tenant of a two-bedroom bungalow (the property). The resident is 70 years old and disabled.
3. Between 24 August (the start of the tenancy) and 7 October 2020, the resident reported issues with how the water was draining to the wet room. The landlord has said that it attended several times and a final repair was completed on 7 October 2020.
4. On 29 September 2020, the resident raised a complaint about repairs done to the shower.
5. The landlord has provided an internal email dated 29 September 2020 which refers to it having spoken to an Occupational Therapist (OT) who had said the bathroom was adequate, they felt it was the positioning of the seat that was causing the bathroom to flood and they did not make any recommendation for a “shower basin/gate”. The landlord had sent the OT photos of the bathroom as they were not carrying out home visits at that time.
6. On 22 October 2020, the OT informed the landlord that she had written to it the previous week. The landlord requested the OT email it instead.
7. On 30 October 2020, the resident reported that the bathroom was still flooding and not just when the chair was in use.
8. On 10 November 2020, the landlord responded to a complaint from the resident. The landlord said that it partially upheld the complaint noting that there had been repeated visits to resolve the issues with the bathroom flooring. The landlord said its staff and the OT had concluded that the flooding issues were in part due to the position of the shower seat when in use therefore it was unable to agree that there had been a service failure. The landlord also said that the OT had listed required changes but the OT had refused to send this to a particular member of staff. Once correspondence was received, it could address this. The landlord apologised for the length of time it had taken and offered the resident £75 for time and trouble.
9. On 10 November 2020, the OT wrote to the landlord stating that the shower requires “doors/screens as the whole room floods”. She said this was based on a video she had been sent by the resident. The OT said that “there is obviously an issue with the design of the LAS/flooring or drainage that is causing this problem”. In response to the landlord’s assertion that the flooring issues were in part due to the positioning of the shower seat when in use, the OT said that this was denied by the resident and “Proven by the video. Based on this video I recommend a screen/door be installed to see if this will alleviate the problem.” She stated further that “Although repairs staff have revisited the property on several occasions in my opinion there is still a fault for the water not sufficiently draining away”.
10. The OT also responded to the landlord’s assertion that she had refused to send recommendations to a particular member of staff stating that she had sent it to the team she was requested to.
11. On 11 November 2020, the resident escalated the complaint stating that the shower was still leaking even though she wasn’t using the seat. She informed the landlord that she could no longer use the shower and she had been going to her daughter’s home to shower but could no longer do so due to the Covid 19 lockdown.
12. On 15 December 2020, the landlord provided a Stage two response to the complaint. The landlord acknowledged that several visits were required to complete works to the drainage system in the bathroom but said that the works were now complete and the bathroom met an “acceptable standard”. The landlord apologised for the delays in completing repairs to the drain system between 24 August and 7 October 2020. It said that its voids team had confirmed that it had rectified the issue with the flooring.
13. The landlord noted that the resident had said that water was still leaking when the resident used the shower however it had been concluded by its staff and the resident’s OT that the flooring issues were in part due to the positioning of the shower seat when in use. The landlord apologised for the delay in contacting the resident about the complaint noting there had been a delay in correspondence due to the COVID 19 pandemic. The landlord concluded that no further works were required and it recommended she following the OT’s advice in relation to the positioning of the seat. The landlord repeated its earlier offer of £75 compensation for the time and trouble caused to the resident and said it would use her complaint as a case study to improve its services.
14. The landlord has provided comments from its Void delivery manager stating that they visited the property on 23 December 2020 with the Voids Contract Manager and noted that the “fall to the shower is correct, however the resident is using a shower chair and placing this outside the fall area resulting in the bathroom being flooded. The shower rail is in incorrect position, which isn’t helping. [The landlord] have made several attempts to move this shower curtain however the resident refuses”. The landlord’s internal correspondence states that it ran the shower so that the water fell inside the drop zone and there was no issue with the water flooding the rest of the bathroom.
15. In January 2021, the landlord corresponded with the OT stating that it had checked the wet room several times and it was fully functional. It said it had cleared the drains and re-laid a new floor elevating it in areas to help the water flow back to the drain. It said it would not install doors as the wet room was adequate and fully functional therefore this would require a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) to meet the needs of the tenant.
16. The OT responded stating that they had spoken to a Senior Practitioner and the Renewals and Adaptions Agency and “between us the amount of excess water shown in the attached video shows that there is fault. We have looked at all the information provided and in our professional opinion the actual design of the bathroom as in the way the position/actual incline towards the drain why it is not draining away quickly and causing flooding of the bathroom. Based on the above, the citizen is at high risk of falling and my final recommendations are that doors are installed in the shower area to reduce the amount of water that spreads around the bathroom…As you can see the video length is 1 minute and 8 seconds and it would not be expected that someone can manage their personal hygiene needs in such a short time frame. If citizen was to have a shower on an average of 10 minutes the amount of water would likely result in it rising above the door threshold into the hallway and her “wading through” water to leave the bathroom. In my opinion this is unacceptable. To install the doors would be expected to come out of [landlord] minor adaptations budget as it is below the DFG threshold.” Finally, she noted that the resident had said she had had a fall in the bathroom a few months ago and the concern was that it could happen again.
17. In response, the landlord said that its decision had not changed. It had been to the property a number of times, there was no flooding when it was there and the bathroom was adequate.
18. The landlord’s internal correspondence refers to the OT being sent a video from before the works it had completed.
19. The resident has informed the Ombudsman that there are ongoing issues with the shower in that when she runs the shower, the water goes around the back of the toilet and down the wall towards the door. She considers the floor should be sloping. She considers the shower is not safe to use. She says she has fallen in the bathroom. The resident has provided a video which shows water spreading throughout the bathroom when the shower is turned on. It is unclear when this video was taken.
20. During the Ombudsman’s mediation process, the landlord refused further work stating that the shower drains adequately. It also said that its surveyor had noted that it had moved the shower rail and curtain at the resident’s request and it believed this was not helping the issue. The landlord offered to move this slightly.
21. The resident refused this offer stating that the problem was with the uneven floor. She said that neighbours had had to have doors put on their showers and she would agree to the same. She said that it was the landlord who had suggested moving the shower curtain to give her more space. She considered the shower unsafe and said she was using the leisure centre and paying for a shower.

Assessment and findings

Tenancy terms and landlord policies

22. Under the terms of the tenancy, the landlord is responsible for maintaining any installations that it provides for space heating, water heating, sanitation and supplying water, gas and electricity. This includes basins, sinks, baths, toilets, flushing systems, waste pipes and water storage facilities.
23. The landlord’s Repairs policy includes the following timescales for repairs:
    1. Emergency repairs should be completed within 24 hours.
    2. Routine repairs should be completed within 28 calendar days.

Assessment

24. It is not in dispute that the landlord is responsible for carrying our repairs to the wet room where these are required. The parties disagree as to whether any further repairs are required. While it is not the role of this service to assess the condition of the wet room itself, we have considered how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports and the evidence available in order to consider whether the landlord’s response to the complaint was fair and reasonable.
25. In response to the resident’s initial reports of repairs needed to the wet room, the landlord attended and completed repairs, which was appropriate. When the resident complained that there were still issues with the wet room, the landlord re-attended the property and relied on its findings from inspections in reaching a conclusion as to whether further works were required. Again, this was appropriate.
26. However, in November 2020 and January 2021 the OT informed the landlord that there was still a fault to the shower and they recommended that the landlord install a screen or doors to the shower area. In its first complaint response, the landlord incorrectly said the OT had refused to provide her recommendations, and the final complaint response did not refer to the recommendations the OT had made. Instead, the landlord relied on the initial advice it had received from the OT from September 2020. This was inappropriate and the landlord should have considered the more recent up-to-date advice from the OT.
27. It is acknowledged that the landlord disagreed with the OT’s assessment and in internal correspondence the landlord has expressed the opinion that the OT had viewed and based her opinion on a video from prior to the works it had completed in October 2020. However, there is no evidence to confirm whether this was the case and there is no evidence of the landlord investigating this issue, which it should have done. The landlord did not do enough to understand the OT’s view to establish if this should have changed its position.
28. In response to the OT’s advice, the landlord should have engaged with the OT and investigated the issue further to clarify how the OT had reached an opinion that was so different from its own, in order to be sure that its position was reasonable. To dismiss the OT’s opinion without further investigation as to what evidence the OT had relied on and without discussing the issue further with the OT was unreasonable. This is particularly of concern given that the OT referred to the health and safety risk of the resident falling due to the leaking water and given that the resident’s vulnerabilities.

Determination (decision)

29. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the complaint about how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of repairs needed to the wet room.

Reasons

30. The landlord acted appropriately in inspecting the wet room and carrying out the repairs it considered were required. However, the landlord should have fully considered and engaged with the opinion and recommendations of the OT before deciding whether to complete further works and there is no evidence to confirm that it did so.

Orders

31. The landlord to apologise to the resident and pay her compensation of £300 (in addition to the £75 previously offered for time and trouble) for the distress and inconvenience caused by its shortcomings in relation to the repairs to the wet room (within four weeks of the date of this Order).
32. The landlord to take steps to investigate the condition of the wet room further, including:
    1. Contacting the OT to discuss their recommendations and the evidence the OT relied on when reaching their previous decision.
    2. Arranging a joint visit with the OT to the property to jointly investigate the condition of the wet room to determine whether further repairs are required.
    3. Reporting back to the resident and the Ombudsman with the conclusions of the above within eight weeks of the date of this Order.