Believe Housing Limited (202109733)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202109733

Believe Housing Limited

14 June 2022


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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ongoing leaks in her wet-room and the required repairs.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The resident has a wet-room in place of a standard bathroom and has advised that she has mobility issues. The landlord has advised that it was not aware of any vulnerabilities related to the resident.
  2. The resident initially reported that the shower in her wet room was leaking in November 2020. The landlord attended in December 2020 and established that new shower doors were needed.
  3. The resident raised a complaint during April 2021 and expressed concern about the length of time it was taking to install the doors to her shower. She said that she was unable to use the shower effectively due to the water flooding the room. She had been informed that the doors were in stock on four occasions but there had been a lack of communication and the work had not been carried out. She later added that she was dissatisfied with the standard of work undertaken by the landlord in July 2021 and was still experiencing issues with water leaking under the newly installed screen door.
  4. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord acknowledged that the service it had provided fell below its service standards. It explained that the parts were not ordered following its initial visit in December 2020 and due to Covdi-19, the doors were not ordered until February 2021. Following this, the works were not arranged. It confirmed that it had installed the new shower door on 19 July 2021 but a further part was required and was fitted on 28 July 2021. It acknowledged that the resident had asked for updates on numerous occasions and it had not always responded. It later added that having the wet-room upstairs limited its ability to alter it or carry out work in the same way as it would if the room was on the ground floor. It discussed the possibility of the resident moving to a different property in view of its limitations but added that this was not a requirement. It listed the repair works carried out to the resident’s wet-room and confirmed that it had attended to alter the door in September 2021. It had carried out a further visit to inspect the shower doors on 22 October 2021 and was due to replace the current shower screen with a sliding door. It explained that it could not guarantee that no water would escape but believed that it may alleviate the problem. It offered £200 compensation in view of the time and trouble the resident had spent pursuing the matter and £50 for its lack of clear communication.
  5. The shower door was replaced on 16 December 2021, however, the resident continued to experience issues following this. The landlord’s records show that it continued to investigate the issue and had asked Occupational Health to make a further assessment and provide recommendations. The resident referred her complaint to this Service as she remained dissatisfied that the issue had not been resolved. She considered that the issues had impacted her mental and physical health and was unhappy with the level of service received. She believed that the landlord was using Covid-19 as an excuse for the delays and wanted the issue to be resolved. health.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has said she considers that the issues affecting her property have impacted her health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments.  However, it is beyond the remit of this Service to decide on whether there was a direct link between the leak issue reported and the resident’s health. The resident therefore 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 lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we 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 errors by the landlord.
  2. It is noted that the resident continued to report that the issue was ongoing following the landlord’s final response and the additional repairs carried out in December 2021. The Ombudsman is not able to formally consider any further actions taken by the landlord as it has not had the opportunity to respond to any additional concerns. This is in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which in his opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale’. The resident may wish to raise an additional complaint with the landlord if needed in order to resolve any further concerns. She may then approach this Service for further review if she remains dissatisfied.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ongoing leaks in her wet-room and the required repairs. 

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy confirms that the landlord is responsible for repairs needed to the resident’s shower and wet-room including pipework and flooring. It states that emergency repairs would be responded to within 24 hours. Non-urgent or appointable repairs should be completed within 20 working days. Some repairs, including those where a replacement component is needed would be considered a planned repair and should be completed within 40 working days. in some circumstances a pre-inspection may be needed before a repair can be arranged. Following the inspection, the repair would be diagnosed and planned within the appropriate timescales. Where there is likely to be any delay to the repair, the landlord would be expected to contact the resident, explain the reason for the delay and provide a new repair timescale.
  2. The landlord has advised that its repair service was impacted at stages by the Covid-19 pandemic. From 9 December 2020 it was only completing emergency repairs in line with government guidance. On 21 February 2021 it noted that it attempted to reintroduce non-essential repairs and on 29 March 2021, it confirmed that its service was running as normal.
  3. In this case, it is not disputed that the resident had spent significant time and trouble pursuing the repair needed to her wet-room to prevent flooding. The landlord has acknowledged that the resident spent considerable time and trouble pursuing the matter and that its communication had been poor. The resident initially raised concern that her wet-room shower was leaking on 10 November 2020, a contractor attended on 7 December 2020 in line with the expected response timescales. It was established that a new shower door needed to be fitted and there was a significant delay in installing this until 28 July 2020. There is likely to have been some delay during this timeframe as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic and the landlord was entitled to prioritise emergency and essential repairs during this time. However, the evidence shows that there was a significant delay following the re-introduction of the landlord’s normal repairs service in March 2021. There is no evidence to suggest that the resident was adequately updated on the progress of the repair and it is noted that she had to follow-up with the landlord on multiple occasions which was likely to have been inconvenient.
  4. Following the initial repair in July 2021, the resident initially reported that the shower was no longer leaking and that the repair had been successful. This was short-lived and she said that she continued to experience issues. In some cases, it can take more than one attempt to resolve issues such as leaks as it can be difficult to identify the cause of issue at the outset and in some case different repairs may need to be attempted before the matter is resolved. This would not necessarily constitute a service failure by the landlord. The landlord was entitled to rely on the opinions of its qualified staff and contractors when deciding what work to undertake and the Ombudsman has not seen evidence to suggest that the repairs attempted by the landlord were inappropriate or that other repairs would have been more successful in resolving the issue. The landlord took reasonable steps to manage the resident’s expectations by confirming that it could not guarantee that the shower screen or door would prevent any moisture escaping but hoped that it may alleviate the issue.
  5. As the landlord could not guarantee that any repairs it could reasonably undertake would resolve the issue, it offered to help the resident find an alternative property which might be better suited to her needs. The resident was under no obligation to move, but it was reasonable for the landlord to suggest this as an option in an effort to resolve the situation.
  6. The landlord acted appropriately by arranging for the shower door to be inspected on 27 August 2021 and carrying out additional work to adjust the door on 22 September 2021. It is noted that the resident has raised concern that the landlord had reported having no access to the property around this date and that she had not been made aware of the appointment in advance. This concern was raised following the landlord’s final response so was not addressed, however, the evidence shows that the appointment was rearranged and carried out on the same day and the inconvenience caused to the resident would have been minimal. This repair was not successful and the landlord carried out a further inspection on 4 October 2021 and 22 October 2021. The doors were then replaced again on 16 December 2021 which was within the landlord’s 40 working day timescale for planned repairs.  The landlord has shown a willingness to resolve the issue for the resident and the evidence suggests that it was in the process of contacting Occupational Health which was reasonable as it felt it had exhausted all available options. Occupational Health is able to consider a resident’s medical circumstances and make additional recommendations regarding repairs which would be suitable in light of any vulnerabilities. It is noted that the landlord has advised that it did not have any recorded vulnerabilities for the resident in its communication with this Service. This is of concern as the resident has advised that she has mobility issues. As such, it is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident regarding her health conditions and updates its records with any vulnerabilities if it has not already done so.
  7. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  8. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistakes and apologising to the resident. It put things right by looking at other options to resolve the issue reported and offering £250 compensation in recognition of the time and trouble the resident had spent pursuing the matter and its poor communication. The compensation award was in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (published on our website) which states that amounts in this range are proportionate in instances of considerable service failure or maladministration but where there may be no permanent impact on the resident. This includes circumstances where a resident repeatedly needs to chase responses and seek correction of mistakes which necessitates in an unreasonable level of involvement by that resident. The landlord offered compensation that the Ombudsman considers was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to the landlord’s failings.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it has a two-stage formal complaints process. Initially, the landlord may attempt to resolve the complaint informally at the first point of contact without the need for a formal investigation. Examples of issues dealt with at this stage include missed appointments or a request for information. If the complaint cannot be resolved informally, it should be moved to the landlord’s formal complaints process. At stage one of its forma process, the landlord should respond to the complaint within ten working days. if the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint to stage two. At stage two, the landlord should respond within 20 working days. if, at any stage, there is likely to be a delay, the landlord would be expected to contact the resident, explain the reason for the delay and provide a new complaint response timescale.
  2. In this case, the resident initially asked for a complaint to be raised on 21 April 2021. The evidence shows that the landlord treated this as an informal complaint. Whilst it may be reasonable for the landlord to treat complaints informally in some circumstances, the resident had expressed her dissatisfaction with the level of service provided by the landlord and it would have been appropriate it to have considered her concerns in line with its formal complaints process on this occasion as it was not able to provide a resolution to her complaint right away and it should have been apparent that a more detailed investigation into her concerns was needed. In addition, the resident continued to express dissatisfaction with the delay in completing the repair work through both direct communication with the landlord and her local MP following the initial complaint. As such it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered her concerns formally at an earlier stage.
  3. Following contact from the resident, the Ombudsman asked the landlord to consider the resident’s complaint on 26 July 2021 as she had not received a response. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 10 August 2021. Whilst this was within ten working days of the Ombudsman’s request, it was 77 working days since the resident’s initial request for a complaint to be raised. There is a lack of evidence to demonstrate that the landlord had fully explained its complaints process to the resident at an earlier stage which was likely to have caused her uncertainty and inconvenience.
  4. The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 16 August 2021. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 28 October 2021 which was 53 working days since the resident’s escalation and significantly outside of the landlord’s 20 working day timescale at this stage. It is noted that the resident needed to contact this Service in order to prompt a response form the landlord which was likely to have caused additional inconvenience.
  5. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord had adequately updated the resident regarding any delay in its complaint responses. In addition, the landlord has not acknowledged the impact of its complaint handling on the resident within its complaint responses. in view of the service failures identified, the landlord should offer an additional £150 compensation to the resident in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, as mentioned above which states that amounts in this range are proportionate where there has been service failure which had an impact on the resident but did not change the overall outcome of the complaint. It is recommended that the landlord considers carrying out staff training for complaint handlers to ensure that residents are provided with clear information regarding the complaints process and are provided with updates if there is likely to be any delays.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of ongoing leaks in her wet-room and the required repairs, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders that the following actions are taken within four weeks:

The landlord is to pay the resident £150 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord pays the resident £250 as previously offered in relation to the time and trouble she spent pursuing the matter and its poor communication if it has not already done so. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress was made on the basis that this would be paid.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident regarding her reports of an ongoing issue with leaks from her shower and arrange further repairs if required. The landlord should then write to the resident to clearly confirm the next steps regarding this issue.
  3. It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident and updates its records regarding her vulnerabilities if it has not already done so.
  4. It is recommended that the landlord considers carrying out staff training for complaint handlers to ensure that residents are provided with clear information regarding the complaints process and are provided with updates if there is likely to be any delays.
  5.