Muir Group Housing Association Limited (202311425)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311425

Muir Group Housing Association Limited

21 August 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. A request to rewire the property.
    2. Repairs to a footpath.
    3. A request for a wet room.
    4. A request to replace storage heaters.
  2. The Ombudsman has also decided to investigate the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has lived in the property as an assured tenant since March 2016. The property is a 2-bedroom ground floor flat. The resident has disabilities.
  2. The landlord’s record show that on 20 August 2021, the resident said she was getting electric shocks, and the landlord told her the property would be rewired the following year. The resident asked when the rewire would be done on 18 January and 25 April 2022. On 10 October 2022, the resident said she was still waiting for the rewire. She said she had extension cables with plugs that sparked. The landlord responded and said the rewire was scheduled to take place during 2022/23.
  3. On 9 January 2023, the landlord told the resident there was no need to rewire the property. The resident said she wanted to complain as she had been “fobbed off” by the landlord.
  4. On 10 April 2023, the resident said she had previously reported loose pebbles that she considered a slip hazard on a path, and was told repairs would be done, but over a year later nothing had happened. The landlord responded on 19 April 2023 and said the work would be done in the “next week or so”. On 1 June 2023, the resident said she wanted to complain as nothing had been done about the pebbles. On 5 June 2023, the landlord apologised and said it needed to get a quote to remove the pebbles.
  5. On 27 July 2023, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord to say the resident had made a complaint but had not received a response. The resident had told the Ombudsman she had complained about outstanding repairs and was concerned about her electrics and an occupational therapist’s (OT) recommendation for a wet room.
  6. In its complaint response on 11 August 2023, the landlord apologised that it did not communicate with the resident, did not adhere to its repairs policy, and did not provide information about the rewire in a timely manner. It also said it did not log the complaint at the earliest opportunity. It offered £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused and said it would inspect the property on 17 August 2023, to check what had been resolved and raise any new repairs.
  7. On 15 August 2023, the resident said she wanted to escalate her complaint. She said the landlord was not allowing her to have a wet room and it had not resolved the problems with the storage heaters.
  8. In its second complaint response on 9 October 2023, the landlord said it had reviewed its first complaint response and found the details accurate. However, following discussions with the resident, it had decided to alter its approach, and would carry out a further inspection on 10 October 2023:
    1. On the shower it said the current installation complied with the original OT recommendation and the resident needed a new OT referral if she felt the current installation was not suitable.
    2. On the rewire, it apologised that it had said her property needed a rewire when it should have said it would be assessed. It said the electrical installation condition report (EICR) issued on 17 October 2022 confirmed the electrical installation was satisfactory. However, it said following discussions with the resident about her health and the number of extension cables, it would bring forward the date for the rewire.
    3. It said the replacement of a storage heater with a panel heater would be assessed and agreed during a visit on 10 October 2023.
    4. It agreed to tarmac the pebbled area and said a job had been raised and a date would be confirmed.
  9. The resident escalated her complaint to the final stage of the landlord’s complaint process on 12 October 2023. She said she felt she was being ignored as she had reported the issues many times. In its final response on 14 November 2023, the landlord apologised for delays and a lack of communication that had caused distress and inconvenience. It said it did not communicate clearly about the plan to rewire her home, and it could have acted more quickly to support her with an OT referral. It offered a further £100 for delays and a lack of communication since its first response and £150 for not keeping the resident informed about the plan to rewire her home. It also said it would arrange a private OT assessment to assess the bathroom and would carry out a full rewire, including storage heaters, starting on 8 January 2024.
  10. The resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman as she said she would not be happy until all works had been done. She said the landlord had said for several years it was going to do work but never did. She said she had declined the offer of compensation.
  11. In August 2024, the resident told the Ombudsman that she was decanted from the property while the landlord rewired the property and carried out other repairs. She said the property was “a mess” when she moved back, and the landlord had to return to clean the property and carry out further work. She said there were still some outstanding works.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of a request to rewire the property

  1. The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a duty on landlords to ensure that electrical installations are maintained in a safe condition. The landlord’s electrical safety policy says to be compliant with this duty, electrical installations will be periodically inspected. It says the intervals between inspections are not set, but best practice guidance from the Electrical Safety Council says electrical installations should be tested at intervals of no longer than 5 years.
  2. The landlord says it will ensure that all domestic properties owned or managed by it have a valid EICR that is no older than 5 years.
  3. The landlord’s records show the resident reported electric shocks on 20 August 2021. The records show the landlord responded the same day, arranged a repair to a socket, and said the property would be rewired the following year. It is unclear from the records provided whether the landlord investigated the cause of the reported electric shocks at this time.
  4. In response to an enquiry from the resident in January 2022 about when the rewiring work would take place, the landlord said it would happen the following financial year. When the resident told the landlord on 10 October 2022 that she wanted to complain that the rewiring had not been done, the landlord did not provide a complaint response but again confirmed the rewiring was scheduled to take place during 2022/23. It said it would let the resident know once it had more information but would try to get it done before the end of 2022. The Ombudsman has found that in its communications between August 2021 and October 2022, the landlord set clear expectations that a rewire of the property would take place before the end of March 2023.
  5. On 17 October 2022, the landlord carried out an electrical test of the property, and the EICR showed the electrical installation was satisfactory. The report noted that extension cables were being used due to insufficient sockets.
  6. The landlord’s records show that it told the resident on 9 January 2023 that a rewire of the property was not required because of the satisfactory EICR. The landlord noted the resident wanted to make a complaint as she had been promised a rewire. During the conversation, the resident told the landlord she was disabled and was tripping over extension cables, and this was dangerous. Because of this she wanted more sockets.
  7. Looking at the period between August 2021 and January 2023, the Ombudsman has found there were failures by the landlord. It had clearly said several times that the property would be rewired by the end of March 2023. This set the resident’s expectations and caused her frustration when the landlord changed its position in January 2023. In addition, after the property’s electrical installation was tested on 17 October 2022, the landlord did not let the resident know the outcome until 9 January 2023. This added to her frustration and was a failure to communicate clearly in a timely manner.
  8. In response to an email from the resident on 2 June 2023, the landlord said the wiring was in accordance with guidelines and the property did not require a re-wire. It said modern living meant people required more sockets, but it could not accommodate this unless there were exceptional circumstances. It said it would require an OT assessment to support a rewire, or the resident could pay to get extra sockets herself. Based on the outcome of the EICR in October 2022 this was reasonable. However, the ECIR had noted extension leads were being used due to insufficient sockets and the resident had said she was tripping over extension cables. In these circumstances, considering the resident’s vulnerabilities, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to carry out further checks at this time to satisfy itself about the safety of the cables.
  9. The resident contacted the Ombudsman as she had not received a response to her complaint, and on 27 July 2023 the Ombudsman asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint. In its response on 11 August 2023, the landlord apologised that it had not provided information about its position on the rewire in a timely manner. It said the EICR from October 2022 was valid for 5 years and only advisories had been identified and there was no legal requirement to carry out those works. However, it said the resident’s request for a rewire and additional plug sockets would be further assessed at an inspection on 17 August 2023. This was a reasonable position based on the EICR. However, as already noted, the landlord could have arranged an inspection sooner, as the resident had reported trip hazards in January 2023, and the landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities,
  10. The inspection on 17 August 2023 included the local authority’s environmental health department. It found the resident had the correct number of plug sockets in each room. However, it found there were many extension cables due to the number of appliances the resident had. It noted that one cable went across the resident’s bedroom floor. Following the inspection, the local authority told the landlord on 21 August 2023, there were sufficient sockets in all rooms and if there were overloading problems there was protection through circuit breakers. It said it did not require any action on the landlord’s part.
  11. The resident remained dissatisfied and told the landlord she had emails confirming her property would be rewired. In its second complaint response, the landlord apologised that previous correspondence incorrectly said the property would be rewired. It said again that the electrical installation was satisfactory and said the local authority was also satisfied there were sufficient sockets. However, it said following discussions about the resident’s health and the number of extension cables noted on the previous visit, it had decided to bring forward the date for the rewire. It said it would let the resident know when the work would be done. The Ombudsman has found this was a reasonable response to a changed situation following a visit which considered wider issues of vulnerability, but the landlord could have provided the resident with greater clarity on the timescale for the rewire.
  12. The resident escalated her complaint to the final stage of the landlord’s complaints process as she said she felt she was being ignored. In its final response on 14 November 2023, the landlord acknowledged it did not communicate a plan for the work with the resident and said it was sorry this added to the resident’s frustration. It offered £150 compensation for not keeping the resident informed about the plan to rewire her home.
  13. Overall, the Ombudsman has found there was service failure by the landlord in relation to its handling of a request to rewire the property. There was a period of over 2 years between the resident first raising concerns about the electrics in August 2021 until a rewire was carried out in January 2024. Although the landlord met its obligations and carried out an EICR in October 2022, which found the electrical installation was safe, the landlord had clearly communicated between August 2021 and October 2022 that a rewire would be carried out at the property. This set expectations for the resident, which caused frustration when the landlord said a rewire would not be carried out. To compound this, there was a delay of over 2 months after the October EICR before the landlord communicated its decision to the resident.
  14. Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord reasonably arranged a further inspection in August 2023, as it said there were concerns about the resident’s health and the number of extension cables. However, the landlord could have done this sooner, as it was aware on 9 January 2023 of the resident’s concerns about trip hazards. The delay in carrying out a further inspection potentially led to a delay in the landlord agreeing to carry out the rewire.
  15. In its second complaint response, the landlord said it would carry out a rewire but did not say when. The landlord acknowledged this failure in its final response and set out a timetable for the work. It offered £150 compensation for the failure to communicate when it would do the work. It is the Ombudsman’s view that this was reasonable redress for that failure, but the compensation did not take account of the previous failures to communicate clearly.
  16. The Ombudsman has noted that as part of its first complaint response, the landlord offered £200 compensation. The landlord’s response included other issues the resident had complained about, and it did not provide a breakdown of the amount. It said it was for distress and inconvenience caused by not communicating proactively on some repairs, not adhering to the repairs policy, and not logging complaints at the earliest opportunity. It is unclear whether the landlord offered compensation specifically for the frustration caused by its communication failures over the rewire of the property. Because of this, and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance on service failure, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident an additional £100 in compensation for the failure to communicate clearly on whether the property would be rewired.
  17. In August 2024, the resident told the Ombudsman that she had reported a problem with the location of the fuse box following the rewire, which meant because of her disabilities she could not reach the fuse box. She said she had raised this with the landlord, but the problem had not been resolved. Because of this, the Ombudsman recommends the landlord contacts the resident to discuss the feasibility of relocating the fuse box to improve access.
  18. The resident also told the Ombudsman that damage had been caused to a windowsill during the rewire of the property. Because of this, the Ombudsman recommends the landlord contacts the resident to discuss the damage to the windowsill and any necessary repairs.

 

 

The landlord’s handling of repairs to a footpath

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy says urgent repairs are those where repairs are of an ‘urgent nature’ but are not an immediate danger to the health and safety of the occupant. A convenient appointment will be agreed to attend and complete the repair within 3 working days. Routine repairs are non-urgent work where the repair does not cause immediate inconvenience or pose any danger. A mutually convenient appointment will be made to attend and complete the repair within 20 working days. Planned repairs are typically non-urgent and involve the replacement of items such as external brickwork and fencing. The policy says these will be programmed to be delivered within 12 months.
  2. The landlord’s estates management policy says it will keep any road or paths that are its responsibility well maintained.
  3. On 10 April 2023, the resident told the landlord that she had been reporting pebbles on the path since the previous year. She said she kept slipping on the pebbles, and the landlord told her it would sort the problem over a year ago, but nothing had been done. The Ombudsman has not seen a record of the earlier report, so cannot comment on when the issue was first reported.
  4. The landlord responded on 19 April 2023 and said work on the path would be done in the next week or so depending on contractor availability, and it would contact the resident with a date the following week. The Ombudsman has noted that it took the landlord 7 working days to respond to the resident’s report, which was longer than the Ombudsman would expect, as the resident had reported a repair that was a potential health and safety risk.
  5. On 1 June 2023, the resident said she wanted to complain that she had not had an update. She also referred to the effect the pebbles had on her because of her disability. The landlord did not provide a complaint response but responded on 5 June 2023 and apologised for any miscommunication. It said it needed to get a quote to replace the pebbles with tarmac or concrete.
  6. Following contact from the Ombudsman on 27 July 2023, the landlord sent a complaint response on 11 August 2023. It acknowledged the resident had raised concerns about the pebbles on several occasions and accepted it had not sought a resolution. It said it would assess the path during a visit on 17 August 2023. It apologised that it did not communicate, acknowledged it did not adhere to its repairs policy, and offered £200 compensation.
  7. The Ombudsman has found it was reasonable for the landlord to apologise, offer compensation, and arrange an inspection. However, the inspection was 4 months after the resident reported a problem with pebbles on the path. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord inspected the path before 17 August 2023 to assess whether there was a health and safety risk. In addition, the Ombudsman has noted that the £200 compensation included other issues the resident had complained about, and the landlord did not provide a breakdown of the amount. It is unclear whether the landlord offered compensation specifically for the delay in repairing the path.
  8. In its second complaint response on 9 October 2023, the landlord said a job had been raised to tarmac the pebbled area and the contractor would contact the resident to confirm a date. The resident escalated her complaint on 12 October 2023. She said she had reported the path “over and over again” and “nothing gets done”.
  9. In its final response on 14 November 2023, the landlord said the path needed improvement works. It said it had reviewed the plan to tarmac the pebbled area and would install edging to level the kerb and install knee high fencing along the edging in December 2023. It said in 2024/25, it would review the path as part of a wider review of the neighbourhood. It offered £100 for the further delays and lack of communication since its stage one response.
  10. The Ombudsman has found there was failure by the landlord. It told the resident on 19 April 2023 that it would repair the path “within a week or so”. On this basis, the landlord classed the works as a routine repair, which should have been completed within 20 working days. However, the work was not completed until December 2023, 8 months after the resident had reported the pebbles and after she had gone through the landlord’s complaints process.
  11. The Ombudsman has found the landlord failed to follow its repairs policy, which caused inconvenience to the resident, who had to chase the repairs, which she said were a risk to her. However, the Ombudsman has noted the landlord revised its plans as part of the final response, and carried out improvement works that were beyond its original intention. It also said it would carry out further improvements the following year and offered additional compensation in recognition of the delays and lack of communication. It is the Ombudsman’s view that this was reasonable redress in the circumstances.
  12. In August 2024, the resident informed the Ombudsman that further work to the path had not been carried out. Because of this, the Ombudsman recommends the landlord provides the resident with information on what its plan are to complete improvement works on the footpath.

The landlord’s handling of a request for a wet room

  1. The landlord’s adaptations policy says it will ensure the needs of disabled residents are prioritised and met accordingly, subject to available funding and the feasibility of the adaptations required. It says all major adaptation work will only be carried out following an assessment by an OT. It says if the referral time for an OT is going to be detrimental to the resident, it can refer the resident for a private assessment. It also says that in some cases, the structure and layout of the property may not allow for adaptations to be carried out.
  2. Records provided by the landlord show the first reference to a wet room was on 27 July 2023, when the Ombudsman contacted the landlord to request a response to a complaint. This included the resident’s concerns about whether the landlord had complied with a recommendation from an OT.
  3. In its complaint response on 11 August 2023, the landlord said it could not find any specific requests from the resident to install a wet room. It said to consider any adaptations it would require a further OT referral, but it would discuss this with the resident at the inspection of the property on 17 August 2023. The Ombudsman has found that the position set out by the landlord at this time was reasonable, as it was in line with its adaptations policy that work would only be carried out following an assessment by an OT.
  4. However, in her complaint escalation on 15 August 2023, the resident said a shower was fitted over the bath following a previous OT recommendation, but her health issues had got worse, and this was no longer suitable.
  5. The landlord’s notes from the inspection on 17 August 2023, say it generally did not allow wet rooms above ground floor. It also noted that in 2016, the OT had recommended a shower over the bath, which had been fitted by the local authority. It noted that the resident said she now needed a level access shower.
  6. In its second complaint response on 9 October 2023, the landlord said the current shower installation complied with the original recommendation from the OT, and it required a new OT referral report before it did any further work. The Ombudsman has not seen the original OT referral and because of this cannot comment on whether the installation was compliant with the OT recommendation. The Ombudsman has noted that there is nothing in building regulations that prevents the installation of a wet room in a first floor flat. However, the landlord would need to consider the funding available to carry out the work and the feasibility of the adaptations at the specific property, including ventilation and potential for leaks, when making a decision. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to take these considerations into account, alongside the resident’s needs, rather than having a rigid policy.
  7. The resident escalated her complaint and referred to the deterioration of her health. In its final response on 14 November 2023, the landlord said it should have arranged a private OT referral when the resident raised concerns about her health. It said it had arranged a private OT assessment, which would take place on 16 November 2023. The OT assessment found that for the resident to independently meet her hygiene needs, she would benefit from a bathroom adaptation, with either a wet room or a shower cubical. The landlord agreed to install a shower cubicle.
  8. The Ombudsman has found that the landlord acted reasonably in response to the request for a wet room. The need for a wet room was first raised as part of a complaint on 27 July 2023. The landlord initially advised the resident that it would require an OT assessment before it could consider what work would be done. This was reasonable and in line with the landlord’s adaptations policy. However, when the resident raised concerns about the deterioration in her health, and ability to use the shower over the bath, the landlord reconsidered its position and arranged a private OT assessment. It then accepted the findings and arranged for a walk-in shower to be fitted, which met the recommendations of the OT assessment. The landlord accepted in its final response that it could have arranged the private OT assessment sooner. However, the period between the resident requesting a wet room and the OT assessment being carried out was under 4 months, which was reasonable in the circumstances. Because of this the Ombudsman has found there was reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of its handling of the request for a wet room.
  9. In August 2024, the resident told the Ombudsman that she was experiencing problems with the shower drainage. She said she had raised this with the landlord, but the problem had not been resolved. Because of this, the Ombudsman recommends the landlord contacts the resident to arrange to investigate the reported problem with the drainage.

The landlord’s handling of a request to replace storage heaters

  1. Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair and proper working order the installations for space heating. This means the landlord has a general obligation to repair and maintain heaters. The landlord accepted it was responsible for the repairs.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy says routine repairs are non-urgent work where the repair does not cause immediate inconvenience or pose any danger. It will complete the repair within 20 working days.
  3. The landlord’s records say that on 9 June 2023, an issue with the storage heaters was reported. The records provided are unclear on what the fault being reported was. However, the Ombudsman has noted that this was reported during the summer months and because of this would not have been classed as an urgent repair. An inspection was carried out on 6 July 2023. This identified a service was required on 4 storage heaters, and a new heater was required in the living room.
  4. On 27 July 2023, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord about the resident’s complaint, which she said included issues with the heaters. In its complaint response on 11 August 2023, the landlord said it did not have any specific reports of issues with the storage heater until 9 June 2023, and following the inspection, it attended on 3 August 2023 and all heaters were working correctly. It said the resident asked it not to install the new heater, as she wanted it moved. It said the surveyor would assess this at the inspection on 17 August 2023. The Ombudsman has found that the landlord’s response at this time was reasonable. The fault was first reported on 9 June, and there was a short delay until the inspection took place on 6 July, which identified what work was required. It was a further 4 weeks until the work was completed. Although this was outside the landlord’s response time for routine repairs, the fault was reported during the summer months and so the detriment to the resident of the delay was likely to be negligible.
  5. Notes from the inspection on 17 August 2023, say there was no heater in the living room as it had been removed because the resident was not happy with the location. The notes say the landlord discussed options, which were to replace the storage heater that had been removed or have a panel heater fitted to another wall. The landlord noted that the resident decided on a panel heater. She also wanted the storage heater in the kitchen moving, which the landlord agreed.
  6. In its second complaint response on 9 October 2023, the landlord said work on the heaters in the lounge and kitchen had been completed. It noted the resident had now requested that the bedroom storage heater be replaced with a panel heater. It said this would be assessed and agreed during a visit on 10 October 2023. In its final response the landlord confirmed the storage heaters would be replaced during the rewire of the property.
  7. The Ombudsman has found there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the request to replace the storage heaters. The Ombudsman has noted that the landlord responded in a reasonable time to the reports of faults with the heating. It then responded reasonably to the resident’s requests that specific heaters be moved or replaced. Because of this there was no fault on the part of the landlord.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The Ombudsman has noted that at the time the resident raised her complaints, the landlord had a 3 stage complaints process. The landlord’s complaints policy was updated in March 2024, and now has 2 stages.
  2. At the time the resident made her complaint, the landlord’s complaints policy said it would respond at stage 1 within 10 working days, and at stages 2 and 3 within 20 working days. The policy says a “complaint is where a customer is unhappy with the service provided. The customer does not have to use the word ‘complaint’ for it to be treated as such”.
  3. On 10 October 2022, the resident told the landlord she “would like to complain yet again about property being rewired”. The landlord responded but did not treat this as a complaint.
  4. On 9 January 2023, the landlord’s records say the resident wanted to make a complaint as no one told her the property would not be rewired. The landlord told the resident that it would log a complaint. The landlord did not send a complaint response.
  5. On 1 June 2023, the resident said she wanted to complain about a member of staff who she said had not progressed work on the path. The landlord responded but did not treat this as a complaint.
  6. On 27 June 2023, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord to say the resident had not received a response to her complaints. The landlord responded on 11 August 2023 and apologised for not logging the complaint at the earliest opportunity. It offered £200 compensation. As already noted, the £200 compensation included other issues the resident had complained about, and it did not provide a breakdown of the amount.
  7. The Ombudsman has found that the failure to adhere to the complaints policy on 3 occasions was maladministration. This caused inconvenience for the resident, who had to chase responses and contact the Ombudsman. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, maladministration is found when there has been a significant failure. Because of this, the Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay the resident a further £150 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the failure to follow its complaints policy.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. Service failure by the landlord in respect of a request to rewire the property.
    2. No maladministration by the landlord in respect of a request to replace the storage heaters.
    3. Maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of:
    1. Handling of repairs to the footpath.
    2. Handling of a request for a wet room.

Orders and recommendations

Order

  1. The landlord is to pay the resident £250 compensation in recognition of the failures identified in this report. The compensation should be paid directly to the resident within 4 weeks of the date of this report and not offset against any arrears.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord reoffers the £450 compensation offered at stage 1 and 3 of its complaints process, if not already paid.
  2. It is recommended the landlord contacts the resident to discuss the feasibility of relocating the fuse box to improve access.
  3. It is recommended the landlord contacts the resident to discuss the damage to the windowsill and any necessary repairs.
  4. It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to provide information on what the plan is to complete improvement works on the footpath.
  5. It is recommended the landlord contacts the resident to arrange to investigate the reported problem with drainage from the shower.