B3 Living Limited (202214301)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214301

B3 Living Limited

7 November 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 shower repairs.
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident was an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord, a housing association, between December 2019 and October 2023. The property was a 3 bedroom house and the resident lived there with her 3 children. When the resident moved in to the property, it had a wet room, with a level access shower.
  2. On at least 6 occasions between September 2021 and July 2022, the resident reported problems with the shower, including that the drain was blocked, causing flooding and a bad smell. The landlord attended on multiple occasions and completed works to unblock the drain, altered pipework and replaced the shower pump. On 2 occasions in October 2021 and May 2022, operatives recommended replacing the shower with a bath, and this was completed in July 2022.
  3. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 28 September 2022. She said the repairs to the shower were left unresolved for 2 years, despite repeatedly reporting this to the landlord. On 6 October 2022, the landlord responded to the complaint and apologised for the inconvenience caused.
  4. In December 2022, the resident escalated her complaint, via this Service. She said she was unhappy about the delays in the shower repairs being completed and the landlord’s conduct. She had not received a response to her original complaint. The landlord provided an interim stage 2 response to the resident on 14 April 2023. This said the complaint was upheld and acknowledged that it took some time to replace the shower with a bath. It had hoped to reach an agreement with her on how it could resolve the complaint satisfactorily and had provided an interim response, so that it could have further contact with her to agree a resolution.
  5. On 29 June 2023, the landlord issued its final stage 2 response. This included the same content as the interim response, as well as an offer of £150 compensation. Following contact from this Service, the landlord provided an updated stage 2 response to the resident on 14 February 2024. This included the same content as the response issued in June 2023, as well as an increased offer of £200 compensation. The same month, the resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate her complaint, as she remained dissatisfied with the compensation offered by the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident first reported problems with the shower in 2020. Complaints should be brought to the attention of the landlord within a reasonable time of the problem occurring, usually within 12 months. This is so that the landlord has an opportunity to resolve the issues while they are still ‘live’ and the evidence is available to properly investigate them (reflected at paragraph 42.c of the Scheme).
  2. In this case the resident’s formal complaint was raised, in September 2022, therefore, the scope of this investigation has included events 12 months prior to this. Anything that happened before September 2021, will be considered for context but not assessed or determined as part of this investigation.
  3. The resident has told this Service that these matters have negatively affected her health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments; however, it is beyond the remit of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s ill-health.
  4. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord (reflected at paragraph 42.f of the Scheme). While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord.
  5. The resident raised concerns with the landlord about mice in the property. While the landlord referred to this issue within the complaint responses, this was not a formal complaint response. Therefore, this issue falls outside the scope of this investigation as it has not been responded to as a formal complaint under the landlord’s internal complaints procedure (reflected at paragraph 42.a of the Scheme).

Handling of shower repairs

  1. The landlord was responsible for repairs to the shower under the terms of the tenancy agreement. This said that it was responsible for repairs to installations for sanitation provided by the landlord, which included the shower.
  2. Between September 2021 and June 2022, the landlord raised 6 works orders in relation to the shower drain being blocked. Five of these were raised as routine works orders and 1 was raised as an emergency. The landlord’s website gives an example of an emergency repair as the only shower in the property being blocked, therefore, the landlord should have raised all of these repairs as emergencies. An order has been made below for the landlord to provide training to all staff who raise works orders, on repair categorisation, including the difference between emergency and routine repairs.
  3. The landlord’s website says that it will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours and routine repairs within 20 working days. For the 6 works orders raised, the landlord attended 4 of these the same day, which was within the committed timescale for emergency repairs.
  4. However, on 2 occasions in September and October 2021, the landlord attended in 3 and 5 days. While this was in line with the committed timescale for routine repairs, these jobs had been incorrectly categorised and should have been raised as emergencies for reasons set out above. Therefore, the timescales in which the landlord attended were outside of the target timescale for emergency repairs, and amounts to maladministration. This was particularly upsetting for the resident as she told the landlord she was unable to shower her young children and the blockages had caused flooding in the property.
  5. In October 2021 and May 2022, operatives recommended that the shower was replaced with a bath. While the landlord was under no obligation to do this, it should have considered the recommendations and given feedback to the resident. The evidence provided shows that there were internal emails exchanged by landlord regarding these recommendations at the time. However, there is no record that the landlord communicated with the resident about the outcome of these considerations. This amounts to maladministration and left her feeling that the landlord was ignoring the recommendations.
  6. In recent contact, the landlord has told this Service, that following the recommendations by its operatives, it decided not to replace the level access shower with a bath. This was because it had been installed quite recently, and replacing it would reduce the number of adapted homes available to residents with disabilities in the future. This is a reasonable explanation; however, there is no evidence that the landlord told the resident this.
  7. In addition to the 6 works orders for the blocked shower drain, the landlord raised orders to replace pipework on 17 September 2021 and replace the shower pump on 16 June 2022. This was sensible and showed that it was trying to address the underlying issue, as well as treating the blockages. The landlord raised these jobs as routine, which was reasonable as it had already attended to resolve the blockages. It completed these jobs in 11 and 19 working days, which was within the committed timescale of 20 working days, for routine repairs.
  8. After the landlord replaced the shower pump on 4 July 2022, the resident reported a further blockage the same day. It was at this point that the landlord decided it would replace the shower with a bath. While frustrating for the resident that it took some time for the landlord to agree this, it was reasonable that it tried to address the blockages in other ways before replacing the shower entirely. After these actions failed to resolve the issues, it was sensible that it agreed to replace the shower with a bath.
  9. The landlord raised an emergency works order on 7 July 2022, to get the pump working until it could fit a bath. It attended the same day, which was in line with the committed response time of 24 hours for emergency repairs, and showed that it took the matter seriously. The landlord noted that it could not fix the pump and that the shower needed to be replaced with a bath as soon as possible. While frustrating for the resident that the landlord could not repair the pump on this occasion, this was not a failure by the landlord.
  10. The landlord raised a works order to replace the bath on 8 July 2022. It raised this as a routine job, which was reasonable considering the nature of the works required. It noted that it attended 2 working days later, on 11 July 2022, to complete the job, which was within the 20 working day committed timescale for routine repairs. This quick turnaround showed that it had prioritised the job and wanted to get it done as quickly as possible. This was sensible considering the impact not having a working shower had on the resident and her children.
  11. The resident said she felt the landlord blamed her for the repeated blockages as she was using an inflatable bath. It is noted that the resident disputes this and has provided evidence that she purchased the bath in February 2022, which was several years after she first reported problems with the shower. The Ombudsman is unable to determine whether the use of this contributed to the issues or not. However, where a landlord suspects that a resident’s actions are contributing to disrepair, it is reasonable that it speaks to them about this and gives advice on how to resolve the issue. It is important that any such conversations are handled sensitively, so as not to pass judgement or blame on to the resident.
  12. In this case, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence of these discussions so cannot make an assessment of the landlord’s handling of this, but acknowledges that this caused upset to the resident. The landlord addressed this concern in its stage 2 complaint response and apologised to the resident for any upset caused. This showed that it had taken her concerns seriously. The landlord has also told this Service that it has subsequently provided staff training on difficult conversations, which shows that it has taken onboard learning from the resident’s complaint.
  13. The resident raised concerns about staff conduct as part of her complaint, including that she had been shouted at by staff over the phone and an operative in her home. The landlord was unable to comment on these concerns due to the length of time that had passed, which was understandable. For this reason, the Ombudsman is also unable to comment further on these concerns.
  14. The landlord acknowledged there had been failures in its handling of this issue. It apologised and offered £200 compensation, which was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles to put things right and learn from outcomes. Considering the full circumstances of the case, the amount offered was insufficient. Therefore, a finding of reasonable redress cannot be made and a finding of maladministration is appropriate. In consultation with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, an order has been made below for the landlord to pay the resident £300 compensation, inclusive of the £200 already offered, if not done so already.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time said that it would acknowledge stage 1 and 2 complaints within 5 working days. In this case, there is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 or stage 2 complaint, and this amounts to maladministration.
  2. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 6 October 2022, which was 7 working days after the resident made her complaint, on 28 September 2022. This was in line with the landlord’s committed response time of 10 working days, set out in its complaints policy at the time.
  3. However, the response did not say what stage the complaint was at and did not confirm the outcome or provide escalation details. This meant it was unrecognisable as a complaint response, and resulted in the resident escalating to this Service on 20 December 2022, as she believed the landlord had not responded to the complaint. The poorly constructed stage 1 response amounts to maladministration and resulted in the resident feeling ignored by the landlord.
  4. The landlord provided its final stage 2 response on 29 June 2023, which was 130 working days after the escalation request, on 20 December 2022. This was significantly over the committed response time of 20 working days, set out in its complaints policy at the time and amounts to maladministration. While the landlord provided an interim stage 2 response on 14 April 2023, this was 79 working days after the escalation request and still significantly over the committed response time of 20 working days.
  5. The landlord explained that it provided an interim stage 2 response as it wanted to try and agree a resolution with the resident. This showed that the landlord was committed to providing a resolution that the resident was satisfied with, which was positive. However, its complaints policy did not allow for interim responses and this caused delays and confusion in the overall handling of the complaint.
  6. The issue of contention related to the amount of compensation being offered. The landlord has a compensation policy in place which provides guidance to staff on how to determine the amount of compensation to offer. Therefore, the landlord should have decided on an amount in consultation with its policy, as it did in June 2023, and offered this to the resident rather than making repeated contacts to negotiate an amount. An order has been made below for the landlord to provide training to all complaint handling staff on its complaints and compensation policies, including response times and how to calculate offers, in line with its current complaints and compensation policies.
  7. The landlord offered an increased amount of compensation in February 2024, and while sensible that it did this, it was only done following contact from this Service. Landlords should take action to resolve complaints independently of the Ombudsman, including offering compensation that is fair and reasonable in the circumstances. It is bad practice to offer increased amounts of compensation, solely because a complaint has been escalated to this Service.
  8. The landlord acknowledged there was a delay in its handling of the stage 2 complaint and apologised for this. However, there is no evidence that it considered any other redress for the resident, which would have been appropriate. Therefore, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, an order has been made below for the landlord to pay the resident £400 compensation for its complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Shower repairs.
    2. The formal complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £700 compensation, made up of £300 for its handling of shower repairs (inclusive of the £200 already offered, if not done so already) and £400 for its complaint handling. Evidence of compliance to be provided to this Service, within 4 weeks.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54.g of the Scheme, within 10 weeks, the landlord is ordered to provide training:
    1. To all staff who raise works order on repair categorisation, including the difference between emergency and routine repairs.
    2. To all complaint handling staff on its complaints and compensation policies, including response times and how to calculate offers, in line with its current complaints and compensation policies.
  3. The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders, to this Service, within 10 weeks.