Citizen Housing Group Limited (202428948)

Background

1. In July 2024 the landlord started work to install a wet room in the property to ensure it was accessible to the resident, who has a disability. In this report, the resident and her husband are both referred to as ‘the resident’.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the installation of the wet room.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the installation of the wet room.
5. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. In summary, we found that the landlord did not:
   1. show it had kept the resident up to date or managed their expectations.
   2. show it had considered the impact of the delay on the resident because of their disability.
   3. clearly outline its position on whether the works were complete and how it had come to this conclusion.
   4. respond to all of the concerns the resident raised in their complaint escalation.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

7. The resident has reported delays in the completion of their wet room and that this caused inconvenience. It is expected that there will be some unavoidable disruption caused when major works are completed in a resident’s home, even if they are completed on time and without issue. In the event of delays, we would expect landlord’s to keep residents up to date on the progress of the work and provide details of when the work will be completed.
8. This is important to manage the resident’s expectations and maintain a positive landlord and resident relationship, especially when a resident is disabled because the impact of a delay is likely to be greater. We cannot see that the landlord provided meaningful updates to the resident or took the resident’s disability into account when managing the delay, which caused them distress.
9. We recognise that the delay was caused by a number of factors including the change in tiles and to the floor. We have seen the installer explained to the landlord that the work was complex as it involved structural changes and the removal of brick walls. They also said the change to the colour of the flooring caused a delay and some fitters had refused the work due to the intricacy of the resident’s choice of tiles. While we do not question the resident’s reasons for making these changes, any delays which occurred solely because of this are beyond the control of the landlord. Similarly, we would not find failings as a result of any delay caused by the fitter being injured because this was also outside the landlord’s control.
10. The evidence suggests that the resident was not told the work would take longer than 10 working days until the stage 1 complaint response. This would have caused frustration to the resident because they were unclear how long the work would take.
11. We understand that the resident raised concerns about the standard of work. Landlords are entitled to rely on the opinions of its qualified staff and contractors when deciding whether a job has been completed satisfactorily. The landlord should clearly communicate its position on any outstanding work to the resident, it is unclear if it has done so in this case.
12. The landlord is expected to keep robust records of the works it and its contractors complete. When there is a disagreement about works, the onus would be on the landlord to provide documentary evidence showing how it satisfied itself that the repair work had been completed to a satisfactory standard. We cannot see that the landlord has done this. The resident was evidently distressed when the landlord said it had completed the work when it had not.
13. After the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, the resident expressed dissatisfaction that it had not discussed the complaint and asked for a face–to–face meeting. We cannot see that this was offered to the resident and the landlord did not respond to this in its stage 2 response. This would have been frustrating for the resident. The landlord missed an opportunity to make sure that the resident felt listened to and to assure itself that it understood the reasons behind the complaint. It did not offer any further redress to reflect this.
14. The landlord’s offer of £150 compensation at stage 1 of its complaints process goes some way to reflect and redress the distress reported, but the evidence shows that there was further failures that have not been accounted for which would have caused likely further inconvenience and frustration. The landlord has not demonstrated that it took the resident’s disability into account, provided meaningful updates, or responded to the resident’s concerns about not feeling heard.
15. Taking this into account, we find maladministration in the landlord’s response to the installation of the wet room. An order has been made to the pay the resident additional compensation of £150 for the impact of its failings outlined above. This is in line with our remedies guidance for a finding of maladministration where the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right, but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

16. The landlord took 9 days to respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint and 20 days to respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint. This was in line with the time frames set out in the Complaint Handling Code (the Code) and was therefore appropriate.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

17. We would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contacts and repairs, yet the evidence has not been comprehensive in this case. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.

Communication

18. Had the landlord managed the resident’s expectations about the time it expected the work to take and provided meaningful updates about the progress of the work, it may have gone some way to maintain the landlord/resident relationship.