Orbit Housing Association Limited (202322831)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322831

Orbit Housing Association Limited

28 January 2025

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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the wetroom floor.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The landlord is a housing association. The property is a 2-bedroom bungalow. The resident has been living in the property since 4 July 2016 as on a fixed term tenancy with an assured shorthold tenancy agreement. He is a wheelchair user.
Records show the landlord fitted some new flooring and new toilet around the summer of 2021. The landlord has also referred to a new drain being installed around the summer of 2022.
While it is unclear from the records when the resident first raised the issue of the wetroom floor, in October 2022 the landlord raised a major works repair to handle a ‘dip’ in the flooring which was causing water drainage issues and water to overflow.
On 13 October 2022 a contractor attended to replace the flooring of the wetroom. The resident reported to the landlord that a contractor spilled concrete over the carpet outside the bedroom and did not tell him about this, however, the resident subsequently found out about the damage. The landlord raised an internal investigation and the operative admitted to causing this damage. The operative’s supervisor called the resident to discuss two options: they could arrange to clean the carpet or replace it. They would also speak with the operative to let them know they should have admitted to and communicated the damage when it happened.
The contractor spoke with the resident on 18 October 2022 and agreed to pay for the costs of replacing the carpet once the resident forwarded a quote from the carpet supplier.
On 24 October 2022 the resident wrote to the landlord to say the contractor was proposing to install barriers on top of the floor next to the toilet to stop the water overflowing from the shower. He stated this would cause him problems as he was a wheelchair user and this would only hold back more water rather than resolving the drainage issues. He also complained that the contractor had ‘backtracked’ about the compensation for the carpet and was only offering to clean it rather than replace it.
The landlord’s records from 26 October 2022 show they were requesting a pro forma invoice from the carpet supplier and had obtained measurements for the carpet.
The resident repeated his complaint on 8 November and 16 November 2022 respectively that the floor of the wetroom was lower than the drain. He stated this was causing pooling of the water which potentially would leak into the hallway and he would not agree to installing barriers, which would be a trip hazard for him as he was a wheelchair user. He also repeated his dissatisfaction about the contractor not offering to replace the carpet.
The landlord raised this internally and asked the contractor for an alternative option to fix the drainage and overflow issue. It also queried internally whether the barriers would be a health and safety hazard to wheelchair users.
The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 24 November 2022 summarised as follows:
1. It apologised for the inconvenience caused to the resident.
2. The resident should contact the Occupational Therapist to assess his needs and ‘reconcile any discrepancy’ in relation to the health and safety risks of having barriers inside the wetroom.
3. The contractor was still committed to replacing the damaged carpet; it was still waiting for the carpet supplier to send them a pro forma invoice and would pay the supplier directly on receipt of this document.
The resident asked for an escalation of his complaint in late November 2022. The landlord acknowledged this on 30 November 2022 and stated it expected there would be a delay due to a high number of enquiries it was dealing with.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 2 December 2022 with an update to say the carpet supplier had informed it the invoice was in the post and it would undertake to pay the costs on receipt. Regarding the wetroom flooring, it said the resident’s bathroom was currently on the planned replacement programme and the planning team was trying to move some works around to prioritise his property.
The landlord arranged an inspection by its operative on 19 January 2023. The inspector noted:
1. The resident stated the newly installed drain was higher than the floor around it and was not draining efficiently. The contractor had attempted to correct the flooring levels before but without success.
2. When he used the shower the water flowed towards the door and he was concerned about flooding in the hallway.
3. The flooring was ordered incorrectly, resulting in the floor being in ‘patches’ of different colours.
4. There had been no plasterwork fixes or redecoration.
5. There was a large area of mould growth near the toilet.
6. The boxing to the pipework had been removed for repairs but not replaced.
7. The old pull cord switch for the shower had not been removed.
The landlord later stated to this Service in January 2025 that apart from the flooring, it had passed these issues onto the planned works team as it planned to renew the bathroom.
The contractor attended near end of March 2023 (exact date unclear) for repairs and reported that they had taken up the original flooring, applied latex and renewed the floor. They stated that in contradiction to the resident’s reports, the drainage was working properly. They sent a video to the landlord as evidence.
The landlord called the resident on 1 April 2023 and the resident repeated his concerns about the floor gradient leading to the wetroom not draining properly.
The landlord’s operative from the planned works team visited the resident at the property on 18 April 2023. The resident repeated his concerns about drainage. He further raised that he was unhappy about the sink and the shaver unit being too high or inaccessible and asked for them to be replaced. The operative noted that the resident was reporting these issues for the first time since these facilities were installed in 2022.
On 5 June 2023 the landlord sent a contractor to measure the gradient of the flooring. The contractor reported back to the landlord that the floor needed to be re-done.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 12 June 2023 to ask for an extension to provide a stage 2 complaint response.
The landlord then carried out major works on 21 June 2023. The contractor reported to the landlord that they took up the flooring and re-screed the floor on the toilet side, however if that did not resolve the situation, they would need to dig out the fitted drain and remove the floor to re-create the necessary gradient.
The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response on 23 June 2023, summarised as follows:
1. It acknowledged there had been delays to the major works in the wetroom which were frustrating to the resident. It calculated that there had been a 204-day delay exceeding the expected 90-day timescale for major works completion.
2. It had scheduled further works for 24 July 2023.
3. It said its property manager and repair supervisor had attended to inspect the wetroom flooring and its contractor had reported there was no issue with the drainage, however, it would complete the floor works without installing barriers.
4. It said input from the Occupational Therapist (as it advised at stage 1) was not necessary and apologised for inaccurate information given.
5. It apologised for the confusion and also for the delay in complaint handling.
6. It offered £574 to the resident (broken down as: £204 for the 204-day delay in major repairs, £200 for poor complaint handling, £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused, £70 for the service failure in rectifying the issue within the timescales in its policy).

Events after the completion of the internal complaints process

Records show the landlord tried to arrange works to fix the drainage in July 2023, however, on one occasion, the resident cancelled the appointment. The landlord noted at the time that the resident would contact again when he was ready.
The landlord scheduled in further works from 13 to 14 September 2023 to take up the floor and re-scree the floor on one side of the toilet to adjust the floor gradient for better drainage.
The resident sought assistance from this Service in November 2023. In December 2023 he stated in response to our enquiries that the flooring and drainage issues had not been resolved and was having an impact on his mental health. He was also concerned that he could not put in any new carpet until the drainage issues were resolved.
In early July 2024 the landlord carried out a re-inspection and internally noted that:
1. The floor covering still needed to be removed and the concrete dug up around the drain area.
2. A new shallow gulley that was lower than the existing one needed to be fitted.
3. The shower for the area needed to be extended and ‘feathered’ down to the new gulley.
4. Latex needed to be applied to the rest of the floor.
5. The boxing under the basin needed to be removed and the pipework needed to be re-done.
6. The basin needed to be lowered and the wall with the new splashback and mirror also needed height adjustment.
7. 1 square metre of tiles needed to be added under the window.
8. The shaver light needed to be moved around the basin for the resident’s convenience of use.
9. An old pull cord needed to be removed.
The landlord completed works in July 2024 and arranged a post-inspection on 1 October 2024. The resident signed off on the post-inspection form to confirm he was satisfied with the works done.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman noted the resident has said the water accumulating on the wetroom floor due to improper drainage has caused him to slip and injure his left knee. The Ombudsman is not able to determine the cause of the injury. This type of personal injury claim is better suited to the courts, where the judge would benefit from an independent medical expert confirming the diagnosis, cause and prognosis of the injury. It is usually only the courts that can say if legal liability arises. The Ombudsman can, however, consider if the resident was likely to have been caused distress and inconvenience by the landlord’s actions or omissions.
The resident has explained to this Service that some of the facilities in the bathroom, including the toilet, the sink, the vanity mirror and shaving unit are no longer accessible to him as a wheelchair user. The records do not show the resident has previously raised these specific issues with the landlord during the internal complaints process.
In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is focused on the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. 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 and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.
Although the resident had not raised a complaint about the issues about accessibility of the facilities (including the toilet, the sink, vanity mirror, and shaving unit), the landlord should take the opportunity to facilitate a discussion and an on-site check by the Occupational Therapist about this and assess the resident’s situation. The landlord should consider any adjustments that are recommended by the Occupational Therapist. A recommendation has been made below.

Relevant policies and guidance

Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for maintaining and keeping in proper working order the bathroom fixtures including installations for the supply of water and sanitation including basins, sinks, baths and sanitary conveniences. The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms this.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that it aimed to complete any routine repairs within 28 calendar days. It has also stated in its complaints response that its expected timescale for completion of major works would be 90 working days.
The landlord’s complaints policy provides for a two-stage complaints procedure. At stage 1, it should acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days and then respond to the complaint within 10 working days; at stage 2 (the final stage) it should acknowledge the escalation request within 5 working days and then respond within 20 working days. These timeframes mirror those set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The landlord’s compensation guidance states that payments of up to £400 may be made in recognition of time, distress and inconvenience of a service failure depending on the severity of the impact and how much time and effort the resident had to spend on pursuing a resolution.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the wetroom floor

The landlord carried out repeated attempts to inspect and fix the flooring including on at least 3 occasions in October 2022, April 2023 and September 2023, however, these attempts were not effective. As of early July 2024, there were still issues with the flooring which required extensive works, including digging up the concrete, fitting a new gulley and more level adjustments. The landlord carried out works to fix these issues in July 2024. It was not until October 2024 during post-inspection when it was agreed between the landlord and the resident that the wetroom drainage issues had been fixed. It has taken no less than 21 months (October 2022 to July 2024) to diagnose and resolve these issues in full, which is well outside the timeframe for completion of major works.
The landlord attempted to carry out works in July 2023 as per its commitment in its stage 2 response. It explained to this Service the resident cancelled an appointment which was part of the reason for the delay. The landlord later arranged further works in September 2023. The Ombudsman has taken this into account. However, the delays in resolving the issues from that point on until July 2024 remained unreasonable.
As of November 2022, the resident had already informed the landlord that the drain was higher than the surrounding floor and he suspected this was why the water could not drain properly. In April 2023 a contractor reported there was no issue with the drainage. As of June 2023, the contractor (possibly a different contractor) seemed to have contradicted this and reported that the floor needed to be re-done. While they had tried to adjust the gradient of the floor, they also reported that if this did not resolve the situation they would need to dig out the drain to reposition it relative to the floor. This would suggest that the earlier diagnosis of there being no drainage issue was inaccurate. As of July 2024 the landlord confirmed again that it needed to dig out the concrete and create a new gulley and this was actioned in July 2024.
These events indicated a persistent issue with the quality or a lack of thoroughness with the inspection and repair works. The repeated ineffective efforts to resolve the situation would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
There was also an issue with the proposal in October 2022 to install barriers to trap the water preventing overflow. The resident was unhappy with this proposal as barriers would constitute a tripping hazard, and asked for alternative resolutions. The landlord’s response as of November 2022 was that the resident should ask the Occupational Therapist for input to ‘reconcile’ any issues.
The Ombudsman considers this was not a customer-focused approach to resolve the matter, as it is reasonably clear without expert input that barriers would be a concern to wheelchair users, and in any event may not resolve matters satisfactorily for the resident. If the landlord wished to seek internal guidance, it could have referred this internally to a qualified surveyor, risk assessor or Occupational Therapist, instead of asking the resident to do so himself, which caused more inconvenience for him. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord did attempt to seek internal guidance and explore alternative repair options at the time, however, it did not make this clear to the resident in November 2022 and did not inform the resident until June 2023 that it would not pursue this option further.
There are a number of other issues that the landlord observed during its inspection of 19 January 2023. These include the flooring being in patches of different colours, a large area of mould growth next to the toilet, the old pull cord not being removed and the boxing around the pipework not having been replaced. While these are not the focus of the resident’s complaint, the landlord has been aware of these issues for some time. Some of them were again identified during inspection in July 2024. In the interests of thoroughly dealing with the matter and re-establishing good relations with the resident, the landlord should confirm with the resident which of these issues remain outstanding and agree on an action plan to deal with these issues as well. A recommendation has been made below.
The landlord made an offer of £374 to the resident about this (not including the £200 for complaint handling), to be offset against rent arrears. The resident has experienced prolonged distress and inconvenience from October 2022 to July 2024 (about 21 months) over this matter due to repeated failures in resolving the issue. This impact is particularly significant due to the resident’s disability. The Ombudsman considers the landlord has not offered sufficient redress to reflect the full extent of the impact of distress and inconvenience caused.
Regarding the carpet which was damaged by a contractor in October 2022, it is positive that the landlord investigated promptly, held the responsible operative accountable and offered redress options to the resident soon afterwards. The resident has told us the contractor has paid for the carpet to be replaced although there was initially some confusion over whether the contractor had only offered to clean the carpet. The Ombudsman considers that paying to replace the carpet was a fair and proportionate offer of redress for this aspect of the complaint.
Due to the reasons set out above, there is maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the wetroom floor.

The landlord’s complaint handling

There is no dispute that the landlord has delayed in providing complaint responses. The landlord has acknowledged this in its stage 2 letter of response.
Although it is unclear from the records on which exact date the resident raised a complaint, from the timeline of events, this would have been around October 2022. The landlord responded to this on 24 November 2022.
The resident asked for an escalation on 30 November 2022. Although the landlord stated in its acknowledgment that its responses would be delayed, it was not made clear at the time how long it expected the delay to be. It sought an extension only on 12 June 2023 and issued the stage 2 response on 23 June 2023. There was excessive delay in providing this response.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord had been attempting to progress repairs from November 2022 to June 2023 and had kept the resident informed on appointments. This partially mitigated the impact to the resident about delays to providing a stage 2 response.
The landlord has offered £200 to recognise the impact of delays in providing complaint responses. The Ombudsman considers this was a reasonable offer in line with the landlord’s compensation guidance to reflect the impact of distress and frustration caused by not receiving a formal complaint response earlier.
Based on the reasons set out above, the Ombudsman finds the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress to the resident in recognition of its failings in its complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the wetroom floor.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman finds the landlord has provided reasonable redress for its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide evidence that it has complied with the following orders:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report and acknowledge the impact its handling of the wet room repairs has caused to the resident.
2. Pay the resident total compensation of £500 (inclusive of the £374 which was previously offered), in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the repairs to the wetroom floor. The compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any rent arrears.

Recommendations

The landlord should contact the resident to follow up on the issues identified in its inspections of 19 January 2023 and July 2024, including the old pull cord not being removed and the boxing around the pipework not having been replaced. It should raise repairs accordingly, agree on an action plan with the resident, and complete the repairs within the timescales stipulated in its repairs policy and procedure.
The landlord should contact the resident to follow up on the issues he had reported about the toilet, vanity mirror, sink and shaving unit not being easily accessible for him anymore. The landlord should arrange for an Occupational Therapist to discuss with the resident and carry out an on-site check to assess the resident’s situation. The landlord should then consider any adjustments that are recommended by the Occupational Therapist.