Citizen Housing (202009563)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202009563

Citizen Housing

12 May 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 resident complained of delay and poor-quality work by the landlord in its installation of a level access shower.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord and is registered disabled. She has been represented throughout her complaint by her son, to which both are referred to here as ‘the resident’.

Shower adaptation works

3. The resident needed a level access shower installed at her property, as recommended by an occupational therapist (OT). Being a major adaptation, the landlord would carry out the work but it would be paid for by her local council through its award of a disabled facilities grant (DFG). By August 2020 the landlord had obtained costings from its contractor for the works. Along with the installation of the shower, the scheduled work included replacing tiling in the shower area only, and renewal of the toilet and sink.
4. Work started at the beginning of September 2020 but by November 2020 the resident had raised a formal complaint with the landlord that work remained outstanding despite understanding the work would take 7-10 days to complete. She said she had also expected the installation of a ramp and widened access to the property to be completed. [This work is not the subject of this investigation.]  She said she was unhappy with the quality of the work, and specifically pointed to the sink not having been correctly plumbed; there being no shower pull cord; an inadequate window cill; and grout staining to the tiles. She said she no longer wanted the original contractors involved.
5. To resolve the complaint, the landlord visited the property, and agreed with the resident a snagging list of items for completion. The snagging list included the above items, as well as securing the WC to the wall; some replastering; and the removal of rubbish left by contractors.
6. Between agreeing and completing these snagging items the resident says she also obtained agreement from the landlord’s surveyor to the fitting of a toilet roll holder and hand towel rail. However, this surveyor then left the landlord’s employment on 18 December 2020 leaving, it seems, no note of this agreement.
7. When, on the day of the works completion on 22 December 2020, the resident asked for these items to be fitted, the landlord’s senior surveyor declined on the grounds that they were not part of the original works, had not been authorised, and were non-standard items that would ordinarily be authorised. At that point the resident escalated her formal complaint. She felt the landlord was being unreasonable in not honouring the previous oral agreement and refusing on that last day of works to instruct its in-house team to fit them while they were still on site. The resident considered it “a very minor action to have the whole matter conclude(d).” She was also unhappy the landlord had not checked the completion of the work, describing the whole process a “mockery”, and landlord staff as “ignorant and unhelpful”.
8. By the time of its final formal response to the complaint in January 2021 the landlord had, in response to the complaint, inspected the works to identify outstanding items about which the resident had been unhappy, had agreed with her a snagging list and had completed those items. This had included:  to fit a shower pull cord; to remove visible grout on tile surfaces; the renewal of a PVC window shelf; fit a waste and overflow pipe to the sink; fit a drawer; secure the WC; some replastering; and to remove rubbish left by contractors. This has been carried out by its in-house team – as the resident no longer wanted the original contractors involved – and had been completed within two weeks and to her satisfaction. Completion of the works were subsequently signed off as complete and satisfactory by both the landlord and the council. But the landlord maintained in its final complaint response that it would not fit the toilet roll holder and towel rail as they were not included in the schedule of works for completion.
9. In coming to the Ombudsman the resident sought the fitting of these items and compensation for the distress and inconvenience she experienced during the process of the works.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

10. In bringing her complaint to the Ombudsman the resident has also explained her unhappiness with the progress being made with regard to the installation of ramp and widened access to her property (a house). The resident has been pursuing this adaptation with both the landlord and her local council and it has been the subject of ongoing dialogue between the parties. It did not, however, form part of her formal complaint to the landlord beyond stating in her initial complaint that she was unhappy works had yet to start. The landlord confirmed it had explained to the resident what she needed to do to progress her application and it appears she then proceeded to do so and matters are ongoing. There is no evidence the resident pursued the ramp complaint beyond this initial mention, instead focusing the landlord on her complaint regarding the shower works. It is therefore that complaint, about which the landlord has had an opportunity to respond and which has exhausted the landlord’s complaint process, which falls to be considered by the Ombudsman.

Shower adaptation works

11. It is neither possible nor appropriate for the Ombudsman to form a view as to the quality of the works undertaken. The role of the Ombudsman in such cases is to consider the landlord’s response to any issue of quality once the resident had raised it and the action then specifically taken by the landlord to address this. The resident first raised her concern with the landlord on 31 October 2020 as a ‘formal complaint’ but appears at that point to have been concerned primarily with the time being taken to complete the works, as opposed to the quality of the work itself. This complaint was dealt with initially by way of what the landlord, under its complaints procedure, refers to as a ‘quick resolution’. It was proportionate and pragmatic that it does so at that stage but it is unclear what specific action the landlord took at that stage. Despite its records noting it considered the matter dealt with, whatever action it took it clearly failed to reassure the resident and a few weeks later she formally complained, specifically about the sink; shower cord; window cill; and grout staining
12. The landlord responded by having its surveyors speak directly with the resident to ascertain the particulars of the complaint and then visit the property to survey the outstanding work. Through internal enquiries prompted by the complaint the landlord found that a member of staff (the previous surveyor) had agreed, without requisite authorisation, to the fitting of a non-standard sink and drawer, and the fitting of non-standard tiles to a larger surface area than originally planned. It also found incorrect ordering of some parts and that the delayed receipt of materials had contributed to the overall time taken.
13. The Ombudsman considers those actions, together with the drawing up of the subsequently agreed snagging list constituted a reasonable response from the landlord which was appropriately aimed at completing the job to the resident’s satisfaction. It is clear from the landlord’s internal records the snagging list included both scheduled work (overlooked by the contractors), such as the fitting of the PVC shelf and pull cord, securing the WC cistern and rubbish removal. But also the non-standard work not originally on the schedule, such as the fitting of a non-standard wash basin and pedestal drawer, non-standard WC, radiator, and tiling of a more extensive area using the resident’s choice of tiles. All but the satisfactory removal of grout staining and the securing of the toilet cistern were completed within the following two weeks, by 22 December 2020, to the resident’s satisfaction. [It transpired the toilet was not of a wall-mounted design and so could be be wall-secured.]
14. In its investigation of the complaint the landlord found it was the completion of these works which had become protracted and more costly than originally planned, and this was due to its previous surveyor having agreed with the resident, outside official channels, to a modification of the original planned works.
15. As the Ombudsman sees it, the landlord was right to agree to the completion of these non-standard works. It had previously agreed to their installation and had only partially completed the work involved. Leaving the job partially completed would have been unjust and unreasonable. Furthermore, the landlord’s aids and adaptations policy allows for the landlord to extend its work: “where a DFG has provided a partial bathroom refurbishment through the installation of a level access shower and it would make sense to upgrade the remaining bathroom fittings where they are close to the end of their anticipated lifespan.” Ostensibly, the previous surveyor’s agreement to this additional work was in view of that discretion, albeit done without necessary senior management approval. [Under the landlord’s aids and adaptations policy such additional items as part of a refurbishment must be approved at director level.]
16. The Ombudsman also considers the landlord’s agreement at that stage to replaster the bathroom ceiling to remedy defects it considered, as indicated by its internal records, to have predated the adaptation works demonstrated its willingness to resolve the resident’s overall dissatisfaction. Furthermore, its agreement to bring the completion works in-house indicate it was similarly sensitive to the resident’s evident loss of confidence in the original contractors, despite noting the majority of works had been completed “albeit not to our standard specification”.
17. But resolution of the resident’s dissatisfaction stalled when, during the final day of completion of the snagging works, the resident sought the fitting of the towel rail and toilet roll holder. The landlord’s internal records indicate the landlord’s surveyor (who had on 18 December 2020 left the landlord’s employment) had previously agreed in conversation with the resident, but without requisite senior line management authority, to these additional items. The resident therefore had an expectation of the fitting of these items as a direct result of the previous surveyor having agreed to something for which he had no authority to agree.
18. It appears the landlord has not maintained its dispute of the resident’s account of having been previously told, during the course of a telephone conversation with the earlier surveyor, that these two items could be fitted. (The resident offered to submit the record of the telephone call in question.) But equally, it appears that as a result of not having been properly authorised the fitting of the items was neither included at the time in the schedule of works for which approval had been granted or subsequently on the snagging list. Consequently, their fitting would not have been covered by the DFG and the evidence indicates they would likely have had to be paid for by the landlord.
19. It is evident from the landlord’s internal records that, by this stage, the landlord had become increasingly concerned with the escalating cost of the adaptation beyond that which was original agreed and approved by the council. And it saw this escalating cost the result of it subsequently having agreed with the resident the inclusion of a number of non-standard items and additional work. The evidence indicates it recognised by this stage that it would likely have to cover the cost of the non-standard works which had already been completed, but that it now needed to draw a line, be honest with the resident about what work could not be done, while noting: “This is not a great outcome but lessons to be learned.”
20. The Ombudsman recognises the landlord is responsible for managing its resources. The shower adaptation was a major adaptation, hence the resident’s eligibility for a DFG. The landlord’s aids and adaptations policy notes that it can cover the cost of some minor adaptations but that its funds to do so are not unlimited. This policy in turn indicates that the landlord’s budget for works outside a DFG are finite. Accordingly, having already effectively over-spent on the works, the Ombudsman considers the landlord was ultimately entitled to seek to limit its scope of works, albeit late in the day, to that originally scheduled. In so doing it was not bound by the oral agreement of its previous surveyor to include additional items for which he had no authority and to which the landlord has indicated it would not normally agree.
21. It must equally be recognised, however, that the landlord had by that stage already honoured its previous unauthorised agreement to the earlier additional non-standard items. Consequently, the Ombudsman considers the resident had by that stage an understandable expectation that the landlord would do likewise with the towel rail and toilet roll holder. In light of this, the Ombudsman can understand the resident’s exasperation and frustration at the landlord’s refusal at effectively the eleventh hour, and while contractors were at the property, to the fitting of the items. And so while the landlord was not ultimately obliged to fit the rail and holder it would have been appropriate that it at least recognise it had misled the resident and provide her with some tangible recognition of this. The place to do so, having received her further complaint on this point, was in its final complaint response in January 2021. But instead of directly addressing her disappointment, it simply explained that the items had not been fitted because they had not been on the list of works for completion on 22 December 2020. While a statement of fact, it would have been helpful for the landlord to have shared with the resident at that point the fuller explanation – as revealed by its internal enquiries – as to what had transpired but why that could not change its position regard to the fitting of the items. Although this would not have been the ultimate outcome she was seeking, in doing so the landlord would have at least have provided the resident with recognition and acknowledgement of the fact that mishandling on its part had given rise to her disappointment.
22. Turning now to the resident’s dissatisfaction with the time taken to complete the works, it took approximately six months in entirety for completion of the works – from the point at which the resident withdrew their Right to Buy application (a prerequisite for DFG eligibility) at the end of June 2020, to 22 December 2020 when the snagging list and overall works were completed to both the landlord and council’s satisfaction. Of that time, the first few months were taken up with the resident, the council and the landlord between them processing the DFG application; drawing up a schedule of works and costings; and obtaining the necessary building notice approval and permissions. The evidence indicates that the time taken for this stage was intrinsic to the nature of the process itself and not the result of service failure or undue delay on the part of the landlord.
23. It was not until the beginning of September that work appears to have properly started and the Ombudsman has not been provided with evidence from either party to indicate the progress of the works during this time. Nevertheless, the resident was of the view that the works ought to have taken 7 – 10 days to complete. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence of where the resident obtained this timeframe. The landlord’s aids and adaptations policy says it aims to complete minor adaptations within 10 working days. But the shower room was a major, not minor adaptation, for which no set timeframes are given.
24. What is apparent from subsequent events and the resident’s complaint, however, is that by the end of October 2020 the shower adaptation works remained unfinished. There appears to have been a breakdown in relations between the resident and the contractors, which led to her requesting the landlord bring matters in-house. There is also evidence that the original works had become considerably protracted as a result of their modification to include non-standard, additional items at the resident’s request. The landlord has also said that although there was delay as a result of some parts having been incorrectly ordered, the pandemic had adversely effected supplies of materials and labour. While it is not possible from the available evidence for the Ombudsman to attribute any specific periods of delay to this, it is reasonable to expect that as the work was being undertaken during the first year of the pandemic this would have had some impact on progress.
25. Nevertheless, it is evident from the landlord’s internal records that once the resident complained, the landlord itself appeared unaware of certain incomplete work items and the reasons for this. For example, it was unclear why the window cill, pull cord and securing the WC cistern had not been done (as they were included on the original schedule), or what the issue was with the plumbing for the sink.  On points such as these the landlord appears to have sought information directly from the resident. Not only would this have understandably failed to instil confidence that the landlord had matters in hand. But this evidence also indicates to the Ombudsman that the landlord had been maintaining insufficient oversight of the work of its contractors up to this point. As a result of which the above overlooked items ultimately took longer to address than they might otherwise have done.
26. Once the landlord had taken the works back in-house as a result of the complaint, however, the evidence shows it took appropriate and timely action to ascertain the extent and nature of the resident’s dissatisfaction with the outstanding works. Its surveyors spoke with the resident, inspected the property and agreed with the resident a snagging list for completion. The Ombudsman considers the two weeks it then took – from agreeing the snagging list to its completion – to have been reasonable (noting the resident confirmed with the landlord that everything but the towel rail and toilet roll holder had by 22 December 2020 been completed). The Ombudsman further notes that the subsequently delayed sign-off of the completed works was the direct result of the resident refusing access to both the landlord and the council for this. Consequently, in so doing if there remained any items at that point with which the resident remained dissatisfied she was effectively preventing their resolution.
27. In summary, therefore, the Ombudsman finds the overall time taken to complete the works was the result of a number of factors outside the landlord’s control, including the expansion of the original scheduled works to include additional and non-standard items; the resident’s loss of confidence in the contractors and her request that completion of works be brought in-house; and labour and materials issues during the pandemic. Nevertheless, there was evidence of a lack of sufficient oversight by the landlord of the process. This is evidenced by the unauthorised inclusion of non-standard additional items of which senior landlord staff were seemingly unaware; and its being unaware of works not satisfactorily completed and the reasons for this. This insufficient oversight of the process was a service failure by the landlord which caused the resident inconvenience and loss of confidence as a result of the delayed completion of outstanding items and in having to pursue a complaint for their resolution. It was also the cause of disappointment for the resident when she was wrongly led to believe a toilet roll holder and towel rail would also be fitted.

Determination (decision)

28. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in its work to install a level access shower at the resident’s property.

Orders

29. The Ombudsman orders the landlord, within four weeks of the date of this determination, to:
    1. Pay the resident £200 compensation for the inconvenience, loss of confidence and delay as a result of its failure to provide effective oversight of the works progression.
    2. Pay the resident £100 compensation for her disappointment as a result of having mismanaged her expectations regarding the fitting of the toilet roll holder and towel rail.
    3. Review the lessons to be learnt from this case. This review should include a review of its handling of the works in this case in order to identify the steps necessary to ensure its staff are clear of the requirement and the process for pre-authorisation of additional/non-standard works; and the need to maintain effective oversight of the progress of works to ensure timely completion. The landlord is ordered to write to the Ombudsman, within four weeks of this determination, with details of the lessons learnt and the action it will take to address these (including dates for action).