Worthing Homes Limited (202123822)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202123822

Worthing Homes Limited

24 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 repairs at the property;
2. the resident’s request for a shower that meets her medical needs;
3. the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant at the property of the landlord and has lived at the property since July 2021. The property is a one bedroom ground floor flat, and it has a wet room. The landlord is a housing association.
The resident completed a housing application form for this property on 1 July 2021. It said the resident suffered from physical illnesses, mobility and mental health issues. It also said the resident was considered disabled. The housing assessment states that she required no adaptation of the property.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s letting standards document states it will inspect the property before the resident moves in. This is to ensure that it meets the decent homes standard and its own letting standard. It states the resident’s new home will be clean, safe and secure, in a good state of repairs with all services and facilities in working condition.
The landlord’s repairs priorities document sets the time scale to complete repairs based on their nature and their urgency. It states emergency repairs such as loss of water and exposed electric wires will be made safe within 24 hours. It will complete urgent repairs such as roof leaks and containable leaks within 1 week. It describes how routine repairs such as extractor fans and fencing will be repaired within 1 month.
The landlord’s acceptable behaviour policy describes what it considers acceptable behaviour, unreasonable demands and persistence. It explains how it will manage each behaviour. For example, it may restrict a resident’s contact when their conduct impacts on the landlord’s ability to provide its service to others in order to manage the situation. It also states that before putting any measures in place, it would discuss the issue with the resident.
The landlord’s disabled adaptation policy states a resident with a disability can request an adaptation. It describes, a minor adaptation could be for handrails in the bathroom, and a major adaptation could be for an over bath shower or some major bathroom alterations. The landlord’s disabled adaptation procedure outlines the process to request an adaptation. It states that for minor adaptations it will request a referral from a qualified person such as a GP, and for major adaptations a referral from an occupational therapist (OT).
The landlord has a 2 stage complaint policy. It will respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days and a stage 2 complaint within 15 working days. If there are delays responding to a complaint, the landlord will inform the resident of the reasons for this. It will also agree a new date to respond with the resident.

Summary of events

Records provided show on 16 June 2021 and 14 July 2021, the landlord received repair quotes for various works including a new kitchen, replacement of fittings in the bathroom, repairs to walls and stain block the property. The repair log showed that the repair to the kitchen was completed on 9 July 2021. All other repairs were completed after the resident’s tenancy start date.
Between July 2021 and October 2021, there were a large number of communications between the landlord and the resident. These were about repairs the resident had identified at the property. The resident reported the property not being clean and smelling of cigarette smoke, mould on windows, the shower not working, the carbon monoxide detector not installed, cracked asbestos tiles and some cracks in the ceilings. The landlord acknowledged all the repairs reported in a timely manner. It committed to address the repairs reported and it agreed to have the property cleaned, to provide and install laminate flooring, to install a monoxide detector and to have the ceilings re-skimmed. It also provided the resident with regular updates on which repair would be done and when.
During the same period, the communications between the resident and the landlord indicated that when repairs were completed, some repairs required more than one visit to resolve the issue. This was because either the repairs were not fully completed, not completed to standard, or some damage was caused by the contractors. The resident reported feeling frustrated and distressed by the landlord’s failings to do what it said it would do.
On 20 July 2021, the landlord provided an update to the resident on the actions it took to address the various issues. Amongst other things, it said it carried out a second clean of the property, the shower was working and it showed the resident how to switch it on. It also confirmed it installed a carbon monoxide detector. It informed the resident that as a goodwill gesture it had credited one week rent to the resident. It explained it was in recognition of the inconvenience caused to her.
In response to the landlord’s update, the resident listed the original issues and repairs she had identified at the property. Some of the repairs she reported in July 2021 were :
1. the property smelling of cigarette smoke and was not clean. She believed a deep clean was necessary;
2. mould on the windows;
3. cracks in the ceilings;
4. the kitchen door needing adjusting;
5. issues with the boiler;
6. issue with the lintel over the front door;
7. damaged fencing at the back of the property;
8. leak from the shed roof;
9. carbon monoxide detector not installed.
In July 2021, the landlord inspected the cracks in the ceilings. It concluded those were minor cracks. It said it would normally expect the resident to paint over those when redecorating but agreed to skim the ceilings as a goodwill gesture. On 30 July 2021, the landlord skimmed the ceilings in the kitchen and the bedroom.
The landlord inspected the shed roof on 3 August 2021, and found no evidence of a leak. On the same day it laid new laminate flooring.
A new boiler was installed on 13 August 2021. Shortly afterwards, the resident reported the pressure had dropped, the landlord attended to rectify the issue on the same day.
On 23 August 2021, the resident informed the landlord she was dissatisfied. She said most of the repairs reported should have been done before she was handed the keys to the flat. She said the property had not been of lettable standards and she had spent a lot of money to put it right. She also said that it had been “an absolute battle” to get the landlord to carry out any repairs.
The landlord responded on the same day and updated her on the progress in addressing each repair. It explained that it had either completed the repair, further work was planned, or it had booked an inspection. It said it had also undertaken additional work, either where needed or as a goodwill gesture, such as buying and fitting laminate flooring. The landlord said it had responded to all the issues she had raised.
The resident moved into the property on 27 August 2021, she said she had to delay moving in due to the repairs needed at the property.
On 14 September 2021, the resident reported to the landlord that the water pressure on her shower was too low. The landlord inspected the following day and concluded the pressure was normal for an electric shower. This was also confirmed by the landlord’s electrical contractor.
On 9 October 2021, the resident requested for a different type of shower to be installed. The landlord reiterated on 11 October 2021 that after further inspections, it was satisfied that the existing shower was working adequately. It advised the resident to have an occupational therapy (OT) assessment to determine whether any adaptation to the wet room was required to meet her needs.
The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 12 October 2021. The complaint included the following:
1. The outstanding repairs at the property. The resident said she had sent numerous emails to report issues. She acknowledged some repairs had been completed but she said some remained outstanding. She did not provide a list of the outstanding repairs in her complaint but referred the landlord to emails she had previously sent.
2. She said the issues at the property impacted on her physical and mental health and had caused her distress.
3. She requested her shower to be replaced with a shower linked to her boiler.
The landlord inspected the property on 14 September 2021, it agreed the work it would complete such as the repairs to the shed, repairs to the back garden fencing and repairs above the lounge window.
The landlord emailed its acceptable behaviour policy to the resident on the 13 October 2021, raising concerns about the number of contacts the resident was making and her conduct towards staff during a phone call.
On 18 October 2021, the resident reminded the landlord that on 14 September 2021, it had agreed to repair the lintel above the lounge window. The resident said she was concerned because the wood above the window “had gone all rotten”. She also said the repairs were due to be carried out that week but the contractor postponed the repairs until November 2021. The landlord confirmed on 25 October 2021, it had instructed the contractor to cut back any rotten section, replace with new timber batten and then seal with a UPVC trim.
On 19 October 2021, the OT contacted the landlord and explained it had received a referral for the resident. It said the resident’s shower was not in working order and asked the landlord to confirm it had addressed the issue. The landlord clarified it had inspected the shower and it was in working order. It informed the OT that the resident had requested a raised toilet.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 20 October 2021. It provided an update of the upcoming plans to address some of the issues. It said it had previously agreed with the resident that it would refurbish the wet room. It confirmed its contractor would proceed with the necessary work. It acknowledged that the OT did not specify which toilet would be suitable and agreed to clarify this. It noted that the resident was satisfied that the remainder of the repairs were “in hand.”
Between 22 October 2021 and 27 November 2021, the resident reported further repairs, such as moving the kitchen sockets. She also reported water ingress from the wet room into the kitchen. She said there were additional cracks in the ceiling. The landlord carried out an inspection on 12 November 2021, and confirmed the further remedial works required. It also agreed to book an inspection to investigate the water ingress from the wet room. It inspected the cracks in the lounge and bedroom ceilings. It concluded the cracks were small and cosmetic, and clarified that it was the resident’s responsibility to repair those.
On 27 November 2021, the resident said she wanted to make a second complaint to the landlord. She reiterated that some of the repairs were outstanding such as the lintel above the lounge window, repairs to the shed, repointing of the back of the property and removal of the mould around the windows. She provided a list of the repairs she was dissatisfied with, such as the standard of the repairs done in her kitchen. She also added that the shower temperature was not suitable and the shower pressure was too low to meet her needs. She informed the landlord that the issues had impacted on her emotional health, physical health and had jeopardised her studies.
The landlord provided an update to the resident on 30 November 2021. It addressed each point raised by the resident, clarified its position, the actions it had taken to resolve the issues, and the repairs planned. It also confirmed that it had inspected the shower temperature and adjusted it and agreed to inspect the shower pressure again. The landlord said it would write to the resident with the findings to her complaint and would include the dates for each repair.
The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 8 December 2021. It said its response was to both complaints made by the resident in October 2021 and the complaint made in November 2021. Its response was as follows:
1. It upheld the resident’s complaint that the property had not been of a good lettable standard and that additional repairs and works had been required. It recognised that some repairs had not been identified during the void inspection. It said it had since put more emphasis on the technical inspection of voids properties. It also admitted that it could improve its letting service and confirmed that a review of its lettable standard was taking place.
2. It acknowledged that some of the repairs completed did not go as planned, such as the installation of the new boiler and the adjustments of the kitchen worktops. It also recognised that the work carried out to the shed had been of poor standard. It apologised for the inconvenience and distress this caused.
3. It confirmed that in August 2021:
  1. It credited the resident with one month rent in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the poor letting standard of the property. It also reflected that the repairs required to put things right had caused further disruption to the resident.
  2. It agreed to pay the resident’s water charges up to 27 August 2021, to account for the water used for some of the repairs.
  3. As a good will gesture, it gifted laminate flooring for the whole property at a cost of £1,683.90. It also refunded £169.15 to the resident. This was for the materials her own decorator used to remove mould and paint around the windows.
4. It explained that on 22 October 2021, it had agreed with the resident to postpone its stage 1 response. They agreed to wait until the issues with the kitchen worktops were resolved, and until the refurbishment of the wet room was completed.
5. It said in September 2021, the resident reported her shower had low pressure and was not powerful enough. This was inspected by an environmental health officer (EH) who advised that the shower was working as expected. Nevertheless, it agreed to replace the shower as part of the overall refurbishment to the wet room. It explained that following a phone assessment with the resident, the OT recommended a raised toilet and a shower seat. It said the OT did not make recommendations for a high pressure shower.
6. The wet room and work to the kitchen were completed in November 2021.
7. The resident made several reports about the pressure of the new shower being inadequate. The landlord said 2 separate professionals inspected the shower and confirmed the shower pressure was adequate.
8. It had inspected the remedial work it had done to the windows and doors and confirmed there was no evidence of mould.
9. It agreed to carry additional remedial work, which included repairs to the concrete above the front door, repairs to the shed roof, and adjustments of some internal doors.
10. In recognition for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident it offered her £500 compensation.
Between December 2021 and January 2022, there were several communications between the landlord and the resident. These were in relation to the stage 1 complaint response. The communications included the following:
1. On the 15 December 2021, the resident said she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her complaint. She raised 13 issues with the stage 1 response. She provided examples to illustrate that the property had not been to standards when she signed her tenancy. She also disputed the actions and conclusions of the landlord in relation to some of repairs reported such as the cracks in the ceilings being cosmetic. The landlord informed this Service, it considered this a request to escalate her complaint to stage 2.
2. The landlord responded on the same day. It advised that if the resident remained dissatisfied with the stage 1 response, she could escalate her complaint to stage 2. It responded to each point raised by the resident. It reiterated the actions it took to address the repairs and clarified its position.
3. It reminded the resident that if she required a different shower for medical reasons, she would require an OT assessment. It also explained that the OT could outline which model was required to meet her needs and this would enable the landlord to apply for a disabled facilities grant.
4. The landlord explained to the resident that some repairs were weather dependant and it would keep her updated on when those could be completed.
5. The landlord explained to the resident on 19 January 2022, the wet room specialist had inspected the shower and concluded it worked correctly. The landlord confirmed the shower pressure was adequate. It also clarified that it could not fit a pump or and unvented cylinder to the combi-boiler she had.
The repointing to the rear elevation was completed on 25 January 2022. The landlord acknowledged that it was aware of the issue on 11 October 2021. It explained it had requested a quote from its contractor at that point. However, due to concerns about the quality of the work provided by this contractor, it sought someone new to do the job. This caused delays to address the repairs. A new quote was received and the job was booked for January 2022. It kept in communication with the resident about the issue during that period.
On 27 January 2022, the resident informed the landlord that she wished to make a stage 2 complaint, she said the main issue was the shower. She also said she remained dissatisfied with several issues and would share those with the landlord later.
The landlord reminded the resident on 27 January 2022, that it had previously sent it acceptable behaviour policy. It also asked for the resident to restrict her contact with staff to what was necessary and allow reasonable time for a response before following up.
On 31 January 2022, the landlord provided its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint. It did not make clear in its response, whether the stage 2 was a review of the stage 1 response provided in December 2021.However, it did say that the complaint was about the shower pressure not being adequate to meet the resident’s medical needs. It was also about the landlord not taking into account the recommendations of the resident’s GP for a high pressure shower. It response was as follows:
1. It inspected the property and concluded that the water pressure was at a normal level for a domestic shower.
2. It acknowledged that the resident’s GP recommended a high pressure shower. It explained that such adaptations would generally be made following recommendations from an OT. It reiterated that the OT, who made the recommendations for the adaptations to her wet room, did not recommend a shower with higher than normal pressure.
3. It explained that it conducted some research into the ointment the resident reported using for her skin. It found no information that indicated the use of the ointment when showering, required higher than usual water pressure.
4. It concluded that based on the above, it would not change the shower fittings.
5. It clarified its position in regard to the shower curtain and the hairline cracks in the living room and bedroom ceilings. It confirmed it would not take further actions.
6. It said that the repairs to the lintel above the living room window and the front door had been ordered.
On 31 January 2022, the resident raised 44 points of dissatisfaction with the property and the stage 2 response. She reiterated that the shower pressure did not meet her medical needs. She felt that the landlord had not listened to her and ignored her GP’s letter. She listed several repairs she felt were needed to bring the property to standard.
The landlord reiterated to the resident on 31 January 2021, that some repairs were weather dependant. It did not say which repairs this related to.
The repair to the damaged beading between the kitchen and the hallway was completed on 11 February 2022. The landlord explained to this Service that the repair had been identified in November 2021. It further explained that the delays to resolve the issue were partly due to a change of contractor. It also recognised that missed communications between the landlord, the resident, and the contractor further contributed to the delays. The resident chased the repair in January 2022, it was completed shortly afterwards.
On 17 February 2022, the landlord acknowledged that the resident had raised several points of dissatisfaction in the stage 2 complaints she made in December 2022 and in January 2022. It informed the resident that on 31 January 2022,it had provided its stage 2 response regarding the shower pressure. However, it acknowledged that the resident raised the issue again in the stage 2 complaints she made in January 2022. Therefore, it agreed to review its initial stage 2 response about the shower pressure.
On 24 February 2022, the resident reported further areas which needed repointing at the rear elevation.
The landlord issued its final stage 2 response to the resident’s complaints on 2 March 2022. It said it was in response to the resident‘s request to escalate her complaints to stage 2. It said it had identified 41 issues raised by the resident in her escalation request. It said some of the issues had not been raised at her stage 1 complaint. The response included the following:
1. It identified that 31 of the issues raised by the resident had been previously addressed. It said those had been either addressed as part of the stage 1 response. It said it had previously acknowledged and resolved the repairs, or it had already clarified its position. It reiterated what had been agreed and done about each issue raised. It also reminded the resident that it had acknowledged its failings, apologised, and compensated her to reflect their impact. In addition, it agreed to pay for the resident’s council tax up to 26 August 2021
2. It had not previously known about 2 of the issues raised. It had been unaware of an issue with an ant’s nest and explained to the resident products she could use to resolve the issue. It had also been unaware that the resident was still experiencing an issue with the shower temperature. It said it would organise for the contractor to attend the property to resolve this.
3. It confirmed that repairs had been agreed and ordered for 4 of the issues raised: repairs to the shed, lintel above the lounge window, replacement for trims damaged by the contractor, and painting the cracks in the ceiling.
4. The remaining 2 other issues raised required no action.
5. It reiterated its position about the shower. It described the actions it took and inspections it carried out. It confirmed that it concluded that the shower was adequate. It explained its disabled adaptations policy and processes and reiterated the OT’s recommendations had not mentioned adaptions to the shower pressure.
6. It concluded that it was satisfied that the stage 1 investigation had been thorough and in accordance with its complaint policy.
The contractor attended the property to complete the repointing repairs to the rear of the elevation on 22 March 2022. The work was not completed due to confusion on the details of the repair needed. It met the contractor on 13 April 2022 and clarified what needed to be done. The job was completed on 27 April 2022.
Between March 2022 and April 2022, the resident continued to report disrepairs at the property. The landlord acknowledged and addressed all the reports. The resident also reported that some repairs remained outstanding such as the repair to the lintel above the lounge window. The landlord’s repair log noted the lintel above the living room window was completed on 3 March 2022.
On 25 April 2022, the landlord explained to this Service that it received a high volume of communications from the resident. It said different issues would be raised in each email, some already dealt with, some on going, and some new. It recognised that some of the repair requests were missed in the original emails and only picked up when chased by the resident.
The resident met with the landlord in July 2022. They discussed several requests from the resident and agreed on how to proceed. One of the requests was for the landlord to install a bath with a shower attachment to manage her chronic pains. The landlord advised the resident to request an OT assessment via the local authority.
Following reports of water ingress in the resident’s bedroom, the landlord carried out repairs to the cavity tray above the bedroom window on 12 December 2022. It completed the internal work in March 2023, once the wall was dry.
The resident made a further stage 1 complaint on 1 January 2023. The complaint included:
1. The low water pressure in the flat.
2. Damp in the wet room, kitchen wall, and bedroom. The resident believed the damp was caused by water ingress and leaking pipes.
3. The landlord’s refusal to install a bath and high pressure shower. The resident said she required both.
4. The landlord did not inspect work completed. She said if it had, it would have been aware that some work had not be completed fully or to standard.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 17 January 2023. This service requested copies of all complaints and responses; the landlord did not provide a copy of this stage 1 response. However, between 17 January 2023 and 9 February 2023, there are several communications between the landlord and the resident which related to the issues raised in the complaint. These included the following:
1. The landlord reassured the resident that going forward it would monitor all work carried out by its contractors.
2. The resident said that the damp behind the toilet, skirting boards, and stopcock reoccurred every 1 to 2 weeks and was never resolved. She informed the landlord that she had reported the issues of damp and mould several times but the issue had never been resolved properly.
3. The landlord explained that in cases of water ingress and damp, it has to go through a process of elimination to identify the root cause of the problem. It assured the resident that it was committed to resolve the issues.
4. The landlord explained the work carried out to address water ingress and damp in the bedroom. It said it carried out an inspection, took damp meter readings, and confirmed that the internal walls were drying out as expected. It explained that it would return in 4 weeks to inspect the area of concern in the bedroom. If the wall was dry, it would organise for the plastering and decoration of the area to be completed.
5. It confirmed that it had taken damp readings by the kitchen window and the levels were not concerning. It agreed to monitor the area.
6. It carried out further inspection of the cavity trays above both the bedroom and kitchen window and concluded that no further work was required.
7. It had completed the regrouting of the wet room and would return in 4 weeks to check whether water ingress into the kitchen was still an issue. If it was, it would investigate further.
8. It confirmed that it had instructed its contractor to paint the wet room skirting board with suitable paint and to box the pipes using UPVC.
9. The resident reported a possible small leak from a pipe in the wet room on 30 January 2023. The landlord confirmed that its contractor investigated on 9 February 2023 and found no sign of a leak. It said that the droplets on the pipes were due to condensation and it will put insulation on the pipes.
On 24 February 2023, the landlord shared its action plan to resolve the outstanding repairs with the resident. It specified which repairs were required, the actions it would take, and the expected completion date. The resident informed the landlord on 25 March 2023, that it had failed to meet most of the deadlines it set the previous month. On 31 March 2023, the landlord provided an update on the actions it took in regard to each repair and what would happen next.
The landlord said the resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 24 April 2023. It acknowledged the complaint the following day and informed the resident that it had logged it as a new stage 1 complaint. The complaint was about the landlord failing to complete the following repairs within the agreed time frame:
1. replacement of her shower curtain and rail;
2. work on the wet room to resolve the water ingress into the kitchen;
3. repairs to the kitchen fan and the kitchen window;
4. repairs to the fence;
5. repointing work;
6. installation of insulation on the bathroom pipes and replacement of the boxing in the wet room. She said the mould wash on skirting boards and pipes did not resolve the mould issue;
7. replacement of the door threshold.
On 2 May 2023, the landlord informed the resident that it had closed the stage 1 complaint. It said it escalated the complaint to stage 2 to allow for all the points to be reviewed, as requested by the resident and her support provider.
The landlord issued a stage 2 response to the resident on 15 June 2023. The landlord said it also responded to additional issues raised by the resident. Its response included the following:
1. The landlord upheld the complaint and agreed that several of the repairs had taken longer than the target timescale to complete. It acknowledged the inconvenience caused to the resident.
2. It confirmed that some of the repairs had been completed since the complaint was made in April 2023. Those included the fencing, the repointing, and the kitchen window.
3. It explained the remainder of the repairs were linked to the bathroom. Those repairs were no longer relevant following the latest OT recommendations for adaptations. The OT had recommended for the wet room to be replaced with a bath and a shower with higher pressure. The landlord confirmed that it had agreed to make the adaptations. It said that its own team would complete the job, therefore it could monitor the work closely. It expected the work to start in August 2023.
4. It confirmed that after asking for advice, the boiler would not be suitable for the installation of a shower connected to the bath. It said a new boiler with an airing cupboard would need to be installed in her bedroom. It expressed concerns that this would significantly reduce the size of her bedroom and impact on her quality of life. The landlord offered to meet with the resident to explore the options available to meet the recommendations from the OT.
5. It offered to pay the resident £150 to reflect the inconvenience caused by the delays completing the repairs. It also offered to pay £75 in respect of the utensils and herbs the resident had to throw out.

Post the landlord’s internal complaint process

The resident provided this Service with an update on 23 November 2023, which included the following:
1. She was still having issues with damp, which she believed was because the external walls of the property needing repointing. Water ingress in her bedroom had not been resolved and when it rained, water came in.
2. The low water pressure in her bathroom had not been resolved.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident informed this Service in November 2023, she had experienced further issues of disrepairs at her property. However, given that significant time has passed since the internal complaint process was completed, this Service cannot consider this as part of the investigation. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaints. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord in the first instance through its complaints process.
It is noted that there has been a significant and high volume of communication between the resident and the landlord. While the resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord is noted, this report has not addressed each and every specific issue or repair in detail. Instead, the Ombudsman has carefully considered all the available evidence and this report will take a view on the landlord’s overall handling of the matters.

The repairs to the property

The landlord’s letting standards policy outlines what residents can expect from their new home. It states the property will be clean and in a good state of repair. At the start of the tenancy, the resident informed the landlord she was dissatisfied with the standard of the property in terms of cleanliness and repairs. In July 2021, the landlord acknowledged the property had not been of a good lettable standard. It also recognised the cleaning of the property could have been better, not all repairs had been identified and completed during the void period. The landlord inspected the property and proceeded to address the issues, which was the right thing to do.
The evidence seen shows some repairs were identified when the property was void and the landlord received quotes from contractors for those repairs. The evidence also shows most of the repairs were not completed during the void period. It is acceptable for a resident to move into a property with some works outstanding depending on the impact of the works identified. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to discuss the outstanding repairs with the resident and provide the time scale for completion of the work. The resident could have made an informed decision as whether she wished to accept the property as it was or not. This impacted on the resident, who felt unable to move in and delayed doing so by over a month. In this case, no evidence was seen that such discussion took place with the resident prior to her signing for the tenancy.
In the weeks that followed the landlord offered compensation to the resident. It recognised that it failed to complete the repairs required during the void period. As a result, the property had not been of good lettable standard and the resident had to delay moving in. It also recognised that some repairs took more than one visit to resolve, which caused frustration and inconvenience to the resident. She had to re organise her plans several times to be present for the repairs to take place. In recognition of the impact its failings had, it offered a mix of gift and financial compensation. This was reasonable from the landlord. It demonstrated its commitment to doing the right thing and putting things right. It also showed it recognised how its failings impacted on the resident.
The evidence seen shows that overall, the repairs reported were acknowledged quickly and addressed within the repairs policy time scale. For instance, a suspected leak in the shed roof was reported in July 2021 and inspected on 3 August 2021, the carbon monoxide detector was installed within 8 days of being requested. Those repairs were carried out in line with the landlord’s policy.
The landlord’s inspection procedure states it will inspect work carried out when the resident is unhappy with the quality of the work. The evidence seen shows that the landlord carried out several inspections following the resident reporting that she was dissatisfied with the quality of the work. The evidence also shows that when the landlord identified work not completed to standard, it addressed the issue. For example, when it became concerned about the standard of work from one of its contractors, it sought a different contractor to do the remedial work. The landlord demonstrated it had listened to the resident’s feedback and acted accordingly to remedy the issues. It also shows that the landlord was taking actions to rebuild trust with the resident and worked in accordance with its policy.
In October 2021, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord and expressed her dissatisfaction with the standard of the property and the outstanding repairs. In the stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged its failings and apologised to the resident. It recognised the property had not been of good lettable standard and additional repairs had been required. It also said that some repairs did not go to plan and further visits had been necessary. In addition to the compensation, it previously paid, it offered to pay a further £500 to the resident. This was to reflect the impact its failings had and recognise the distress and the inconvenience caused. This was an appropriate and timely response to the issues raised.
In addition, the landlord said it had since put more emphasis on the technical inspection of voids properties to prevent this happening again. It also confirmed that a review of its lettable standard was taking place. The landlord summarised the actions it took to address the repairs and clarified its position and conclusion on some of the issues raised. It also acknowledged the outstanding repairs and informed the resident when it would complete the work. Those were reasonable actions from the landlord. It demonstrated it had reflected and learnt from its mistakes. It had also put measures in place to rectify its failings and prevent repeating those in the future. Those actions were also an opportunity for the landlord to put things right and improve its relationship with the resident. The landlord identified learning from the complaint, this was positive and in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) recommends that landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely. In this case, the resident noticed some issues with leaks, water ingress, and damp in her property and reported the issues to the landlord. The evidence seen shows that the landlord demonstrated a sense of urgency in addressing the issues and immediately investigated the reports. The landlord also took relevant and timely actions to resolve the issues, it carried out remedial work and continued to monitor the level of damp over time. This was good practice from the landlord and shows it was committed to get to the root cause of the problem. The landlord also kept the resident informed on its progress and the actions it took. This was reasonable from the landlord, it showed its commitment to resolve the issues.
The landlord acknowledged that some repairs were delayed because the requests were missed in the prolific amounts of information received. It explained that due to the high volume of communication from the resident, some repairs were only addressed once the resident chased an outcome. The evidence seen shows that the resident sent emails and WhatsApp messages, sometimes several times a day. In her emails she would raise a range of issues, some already dealt with, some on going and some new. It is unfortunate that some issues were missed as this caused a delay in responding to those matters. When considering all of the circumstances, these matters were addressed as soon as the landlord identified them. Overall, the evidence shows that the landlord’s communication had been good.
The evidence seen shows that although the resident often emailed several staff, she also consistently communicated with one staff member. It is unclear whether the landlord had informed the resident this person was her point of contact. Given the amount of contact from the resident it may have been helpful to both parties to have identified a single point of contact. There is no evidence to show if this was considered or put in place by the landlord. The landlord also asked several times for the resident to allow time for the staff to respond to her emails before following up. It also shared it acceptable behaviour policy with the resident. This was reasonable from the landlord. It helped to clarify what it expected from the resident and helped to manage her expectations.
It is noted that the landlord’s communication demonstrates it was sympathetic toward the resident. It also shows that it was sensitive to the resident’s availability when arranging inspections, contractors, and repairs. Nevertheless, the evidence seen also shows that because of the number of repairs, the resident spent considerable time attending to the issues. Understandably, this was frustrating for her, she reported it affected her physical and mental health. She also said it impacted on her studies and caused her distress. The number of repairs required and the number of recalls eroded the resident’s confidence in the landlord’s ability to get things right. This impacted the resident and landlord relationship.
This Service acknowledges that overall, the landlord acted on all the reports of repairs and communicated well with the resident. However, the evidence also shows that some repairs were delayed and the landlord’s communication about those could have been better. This Service understands that some repairs can take time to resolve and be weather dependant. However, it is the landlord’s responsibility to keep the resident informed and updated and do what it can to complete the repairs within a reasonable timeframe. This is especially important when the landlord recognised it had already failed to meet its own repairs policy timescales and was trying to rebuild trust with the resident.
In this case, the evidence shows the landlord was aware of the repair to the lintel above the lounge window in September 2021. The landlord mentioned that some repairs were weather dependant, which might have impacted on this repair. However, it did not specify whether this applied to the lintel. The repair log shows the repair was completed over 5 months later. The evidence seen shows the landlord did not provide a reasonable explanation to the resident for the delay, which would have been expected. In addition, the resident chased the landlord several times for updates on the repair, which was frustrating for her. It would have been reasonable to expect for the landlord to be proactive in updating the resident on when the repair would be completed.
Furthermore, in response to the resident’s complaint in December 2022, the landlord committed to completing the outstanding repairs in January 2022. However, not all repairs were completed within the agreed timeframe. For example, it said it would complete the repointing at the back of the property in January 2022, this was not completed until April 2022. It did not provide an explanation for failing to complete the repair when it said it would. This caused further inconvenience to the resident, who had to complain several times to get this repair done. It would have been reasonable for the resident to expect the landlord to do what it had committed to do following her complaint. It was especially important for the landlord to get things right to rebuild trust with the resident. This failing further impacted on the resident landlord relationship.
In addition, the resident said the landlord failed to carry out the repairs it said it would complete in March 2023. The landlord acknowledged that several of the repairs had taken longer than expected to complete. It apologised and offered to pay the resident £150 to reflect the inconvenience caused by the delays, it also offered to pay £75 in respect of items the resident had to dispose of. The landlord did not explain the delays to the resident, which would have been the right thing to do. This further impacted on the resident, as she had to wait longer for those repairs to be completed. She also had to spent time chasing the repairs.
In summary, it is acknowledged that the landlord responded to every report of disrepair and query it received from the resident. Overall, it also communicated well with the resident and showed it was committed to put thing right when things did not go to plan. Nevertheless, from the landlord’s own admission, mistakes were made. The property had required repairs from the start of the resident’s tenancy. There were delays in addressing some repairs and not all repairs went to plan. It recognised that the resident spent considerable time reporting and monitoring the repairs to her property. This caused frustration, inconvenience and distress to the resident.
It is acknowledged that the landlord paid compensation to the resident which, in the circumstances, was the right thing to do. The offer of compensation shows the landlord recognised the distress and inconvenience its failings caused the resident. It is noted that most of the compensation was offered by December 2021, which was suitable redress at the time. It reflected the poor experience the resident had between July 2021 and December 2021.
It is also acknowledged that the landlord paid further compensation to the resident in June 2023. This was to reflect the delays in completing the repairs it agreed to complete by March 2023. This was reasonable redress in the circumstances and reflected the inconvenience caused to the resident at the time.
Between July 2021 and June 2023, the landlord acknowledged the above failings and apologised to the resident. It offered a range of compensation to the resident:
1. it gifted the resident laminated flooring at a value of £1,683.90;
2. it agreed to pay the resident’s water rates and council tax up to the 27 August 2021;
3. it reimbursed £244.15 to the resident for items she had paid for or had to replace;
4. it paid £650 in compensation to the resident.
It was reasonable for the landlord to pay compensation to the resident for the above failings. However, the landlord did not acknowledge how it failed to carry out some of the repairs it had committed to between December 2021 and February 2023. During that time, it failed to complete some of the repairs within the timeframe it agreed in its complaint response. At times, it also failed to be proactive in updating the resident. It failed to provide reasonable explanation for the delays or to provide a date by which the work would be completed. Furthermore, it failed to carry repairs within the time frame it agreed as part of its responses to the resident’s complaints. It was reasonable to expect the landlord to meet its own timeframes to complete repairs and not repeat previous failings.
As a result of those failings, the resident had to report some issues several times to the landlord and raise several complaints. This cause frustration and inconvenience to the resident. She said it impacted on her mental health and her studies. Therefore, there was service failure on the part of the landlord. In line with the Ombudsman remedies guidelines, which are published on the website, an order is made for the landlord to pay the resident an additional £100. This is to reflect the impact the landlord’s failings had on her.

The resident’s request for a shower that meets her medical needs

The landlord’s disability procedure outlines the process to request an adaptation to a property. It states that for minor adaptations it will request a referral from a GP and for major adaptations a referral from an OT. The resident’s housing application noted that the resident was considered disabled and required no adaptation to the property.
Since September 2021, the resident made several complaints about the shower water pressure being inadequate. She said the shower water pressure was too low and she required a high pressure shower to meet her medical needs. The landlord, its electrical contractor, and EH inspected the shower and the water pressure several times. All said the shower was working as expected and the water pressure was at a normal level for a domestic shower. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to conclude that the shower pressure was adequate.
In October 2021, the landlord said it asked the OT to carry out a phone assessment with the resident. It said this was to speed up the process. It wanted to determine whether the resident required any adaptation before the refurbishment of her wet room. In those circumstances, it was good use of discretion from the landlord to ask advice of an OT. It shows that it was committed to meet the resident’s needs and worked in accordance with its policy. It was also reasonable for the landlord to accept the OT’s recommendations. In this case, that the resident required a seat for the shower and a raised toilet. The OT did not say that a high pressure shower was needed. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to conclude it would not change the shower fittings.
In December 2021, the landlord reminded the resident that if she required a different shower for medical reasons, she would require an OT assessment. It also explained the purpose and benefit of an OT assessment. This was reasonable for the landlord to remind the resident of the actions she could take if she required a different shower to meet her medical needs.
During the complaint process, the resident said the landlord did not consider the GP letter she shared to support her request for a high pressure shower. In January 2022, the landlord explained that it had considered the GP’s letter. It reiterated that in accordance with its disabled adaptations policy it required recommendations from an OT to carry out major adaptations. It said again that in her case, the OT did not recommend a higher pressure shower. This was reasonable from the landlord and in line with its policy.
It is noted that the evidence does not show the OT was specifically asked to consider whether the resident required a higher pressure shower. During its conversation with the OT in October 2021, the landlord could have asked the OT whether it had considered this in her assessment. It could have also advised the resident to discuss her need for a different shower with the OT or request a new assessment. It would have been a good opportunity for the landlord to clarify the OT’s position about the shower at that time. However, while this course of action would have been helpful for both parties, this does not amount to service failure.
In July 2022, the resident asked the landlord to install a bath with shower to help manage her chronic pains. The landlord advised the resident to request an OT assessment. The landlord said in June 2023, the OT had recommended for the wet room to be replaced with a bath and a shower with higher pressure. The evidence shows that the landlord contacted the resident to discuss the options available to meet the OT’s recommendations. This was reasonable from the landlord and in line with its policy and obligations.
This Service acknowledges that it was reasonable for the landlord to act based on the recommendations of the OT. It is also noted that the landlord took steps to make the changes needed to meet the new OT’s recommendations. Therefore, in the Ombudsman opinion, there was no service failure on the part of the landlord.

Complaints handling

The landlord has a 2 stage complaint policy. It will respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days and a stage 2 complaint within 15 working days. If there are delays responding to a complaint, the landlord will inform the resident of the reasons for this. It will also agree a new date to respond. The resident made a complaint in October 2021. The landlord said it had agreed with the resident to postpone the stage 1 response until some of the repairs were completed. The evidence shows that the resident and the landlord remained in contact throughout this period. The landlord sent its response to the complaint shortly after the agreed repairs were completed in December 2021. Therefore, this was reasonable from the landlord and in line with its policy.
The resident made a second complaint to the landlord 34 working days after her initial complaint and before the landlord responded to the first complaint. The landlord said it would address both complaint in its response. Both complaints related to the property standards and repairs. For the purpose of clarity and avoid repetition, it was reasonable to respond to both complaints at the same time. This also prevented the resident experiencing delays in having the issues she raised addressed.
It is acknowledged that the landlord responded to all complaints by addressing each point raised by the resident. It provided a detailed response on each point, clearly describing the actions it had taken, the planned actions or its position on the issue. This was good practice from the landlord and provided the resident with clear outcomes on the issues she raised.
The resident requested her complaint be escalated to stage 2, she said she was dissatisfied with its response to the issue of the shower. The landlord issued its stage 2 response in January 2022, it focused its response on the shower issue. It issued its response 15 working days outside its published time frame. No evidence was seen that it agreed to postpone its response or provide a new date to the resident. This was not reasonable from the landlord or in line with its policy.
The resident informed the landlord, she was dissatisfied with the stage 2 response issued in January 2022. The landlord said it would review its response and provide a final response to the complaint. It said it would include the additional issues she had raised since its initial stage 2 response, in its review. This was reasonable from the landlord and in the spirit of dispute resolution. It enabled the resident to have her complaints answered fully and quickly.
However, it issued the final stage 2 response in March 2022, which was 7 days outside its published time frame. It is unclear why the landlord did not respond within its published time frame. It would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to speak to the resident about the delay.
The resident made a further stage 1 complaint on 1 January 2023. 69 working days after receiving the stage one response, the resident requested to escalate the complaint to stage 2. The landlord acknowledged the complaint and informed the resident it had logged the complaint as a stage 1. Given that significant time has passed since the stage 1 response, this was reasonable from the landlord.
However, a week later the resident requested the landlord to provide a stage 2 response, the landlord agreed. It issued the stage 2 response 31 working days later, which was 16 days outside its published time frame. No evidence was seen that the landlord agreed an extension to respond with the resident.
The landlord informed the resident on 24 February 2023, it was arranging for the £25 compensation offered as part of her complaint to be paid to her. It is unclear when the landlord offered the compensation or its reasons for doing so. Therefore, this Service cannot comment whether it was reasonable or not.
In summary, the landlord failed to meet its published time frame for some of the complaints received and did not respond in accordance with its policy timescales . It is noted that between the landlord’s responses to the complaints, it was in constant communication with the resident. The evidence shows that it was discussing and addressing the issues raised within the complaints with the resident. Therefore, the landlord’s failings had minimal impact on the resident, Nevertheless, those failings delayed the resident receiving formal responses to her complaints, and therefore delayed her opportunity to escalate her complaint to this Service which was not reasonable. Therefore, there was service failure on the part of the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaints.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the repairs at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for a shower that meets her medical needs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

It is noted that the landlord recognised its failing in its handling of the repairs at the property. It acknowledged that the property had been of poor letting standards. It also recognised that there had been delays in completing some of the repairs. It offered the resident compensation which was the right thing to do. However, the compensation did not reflect that it repeated some of its failings after the initial complaint. It also failed to meet the time frame it set in its complaint response to complete the outstanding repairs. This caused further inconvenience, frustration and distress to the resident.
The landlord considered the resident’s request to have a shower that met her medical needs. In doing so, the landlord sought advice from an OT and followed the recommendations made. This was reasonable and in accordance with its policy.
The landlord failed to work in accordance with its policy when it responded to the resident’s complaints. It consistently failed to meet its published time frame.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to:
1. provide a written apology to the resident to reflect the failings identified in this report.
2. To pay directly to the resident £175 in compensation. This is equivalent to:
  1. £100 to reflect its failing in the handling of the repairs and the impact on the resident. (This is in addition to the compensation it has paid so far).
  2. £75 to reflect its failings in the handling of her complaints and inconvenience caused to the resident (The compensation includes the previous offer of £25 made by the landlord. If this has been paid, it should be deducted from this amount).
3. Meet with the resident and agree an action plan to address any outstanding repairs. This should include the detail each repair and the time frame for completion. The action plan is to be shared with this Service.
4. The landlord to carry out a follow up inspection to the property for water ingress, damp and mould now that remedial works have been completed. The landlord is to consider instructing a damp specialist to inspect the property if the water ingress, damp and mould have not been alleviated by the remedial work. The landlord is to share the outcome of its inspection and the actions planned (if any) with this Service.
The landlord is to comply with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of the determination.