Croydon Council (202005025)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202005025

Croydon Council

13 April 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 the landlord’s handling of:

1. the resident’s reports of damp in her property caused by a leak in her bathroom.
2. the resident’s reports of repairs needed to her back door.
3. the resident’s request for an adapted bath.
4. its plan to renew the resident’s bathroom.

Background and summary of events

Background

2.   The resident is a secure tenant living in a three bedroom semi-detached house.
3.   The resident is elderly and has health issues that cause problems with her mobility, she lives with her son who has a mental health condition.
4.   The landlord has a repairs policy which states that it is responsible for keeping in good repair installations provided for heating, sanitation and supply of services which includes:

1. the roof, walls, floors, and ceilings.
2. baths, basins, sinks, toilets, cistern and waste pipes.

5.   Under section 24 of the landlord’s repairs policy, it states that the resident can carry out improvements to the property but must first obtain written permission from the landlord. These improvements can include “alterations to the council’s fixtures and fittings, including kitchens and/or bathrooms.”
6.   The landlord has a “Repair Guide for Tenants” which sets out the maximum time residents should expect to wait in order for repairs to be completed which amongst other things, says the following:

1. Less urgent repairs are those “needed to make sure that your home is safe and to put right anything that seriously interferes with your comfort”. These should be carried out within three working days.
2. Semi-planned repairs are “mostly larger non-urgent repairs necessary to keep the property in a reasonable condition”. These should be carried out within 60 working days.

7.   The landlord has a two-stage complaints policy, at stage one it must acknowledge the complaint within five working days and give its response to the complaint within 20 working days. If the complaint takes longer to resolve the landlord will agree a “reasonable and appropriate timescale” of responding to the complaint, keeping the resident updated. If the resident remains unhappy the complaint can be escalated to stage two where the complaint will be investigated independently by the Corporate Resolution Team. The timescales for handling the complaint are the same as those at stage one.
8.   The landlord has a compensation policy that allows it to pay compensation where other remedies to put the resident back into the position they should have been in, are no longer possible or is not the most appropriate approach.

Summary of Events

9.   On 1 June 2019, the resident reported a faulty back door, a damp wall and an ant infestation in her living room.
10. In the period 3 June 2019 to 8 July 2019, the resident says she made calls to the landlord but nothing was done. The landlord has no records of the calls but did receive emails the resident sent.
11. On 9 July 2019, the landlord called the resident regarding her bathroom. The resident said she wanted her tiles replaced but did not want the bath replaced as she had a large bath and a smaller one would not be able to accommodate her bath chair. She mentioned that she was waiting for a stairlift to be fitted and that she was currently sleeping downstairs to try to avoid having to use the stairs as the stairlift would not be fitted until the bathroom works were completed. The landlord said that it would consider internally whether it was willing to replace the tiles and seals.
12. On 10 July 2019, the landlord carried out works to stop the cause of the damp issue affecting the living room wall which was caused by a bathroom leak. The landlord found a crack in the bath but as the resident said she did not want a new bath, a temporary repair was carried out with taping to act as a temporary seal over the crack.
13. On 17 July 2019, the resident says she called the landlord and was advised that replacement of the bath tub, a higher WC, flooring and the stripping of the wall tiles had been referred to the housing department. The landlord says there are no records of this call.
14. On 25 July 2019, the landlord carried out a stock investment survey, as a result the resident’s bathroom was placed on the landlord’s 2020/21 refurbishment programme. The resident has advised this Service that the landlord also told her that the bathroom and back door needed replacing.
15. On 2 August 2019, the landlord carried out an inspection and raised repairs to fix the damp party wall to the bathroom and renew skirting.
16. The resident says that she also raised a complaint on 2 August 2019, the landlord has no record of this.
17. In the period between 14 August 2019 to 2 September 2019, emails were exchanged between the Occupational Therapist (OT) and the landlord. The OT emailed the landlord to inform it of the repairs she believed were needed to the bathroom, explaining that she had agreed with the resident that “minimal changes” were to be made to the layout. In reply in an email dated 14 August 2019, the landlord explained that the resident currently had a larger than standard bath and it cannot fit one of the same size. It asked the OT whether she would be able to assist with sourcing a larger bath.
18. On 29 August 2019, the landlord instructed for the bath to be replaced on a like for like basis and for work to be done to fix a leak to the hand basin.
19. On 19 September 2019, the landlord replaced the resident’s bath with a regular sized bath; it has since advised that it did this as it had to ensure the resident had working facilities to get the stairlift installed so she did not have to continue sleeping on the downstairs sofa.
20. In November 2019, the resident had her own bathroom works done which included:

1. a replacement bath;
2. replacement bathroom tiles;
3. plastering to the bathroom ceiling;
4. painting the bathroom ceiling;
5. fitting new lights in the bathroom;
6. boxing in pipework;
7. fitting of a new bath panel;
8. new bathroom flooring.

21. On 3 March 2020, the resident complained to the landlord as she was unhappy with the delays in dealing with the damp wall and her back door, the customer service she received from the landlord and the fact she felt that she had to replace the bathroom suite herself.
22. On 19 May 2020, the landlord issued its stage one response saying in summary that:

1. although it did not have records for all resident’s contacts its records show all repairs regarding her property were completed and the service that she received was of a satisfactory standard;
2. a bath was installed but the resident cancelled the appointment for the tiling and boxing and never re-arranged this;
3. it had no record of any conversation where the OT told the resident that the council had run out of money and would not carry out works to the resident’s bathroom.
4. it would not compensate the resident for the cost of re-fitting the bathroom as this was something she undertook herself and, apart from the bath, there were no other items that were in need of refurbishment and the landlord only deals with things that are broken and need repair;
5. the resident’s door repairs were not an emergency and due to COVID restrictions it was only doing emergencies so would complete the repair once the COVID restrictions lifted.

23. On 23 July 2020, the resident escalated the complaint as she was unhappy with the response at stage one.
24. On 13 August 2020, a stage two response was sent essentially restating the landlord’s position set out in its stage one response.
25. As the resident remained unhappy she bought the complaint to this Service on 17 June 2021, stating that she was dissatisfied with the following:

1. the length of time it took the landlord to respond to the issue with a damp wall and associated skirting board damage in her living room;
2. the delay in completing repairs to her back door;
3. the landlord replacing her large bath with a smaller standard size bath which could not accommodate the use of her bath chair;
4. the landlord’s refusal to refund the resident the money she spent on replacing the bathroom suite herself.

Assessment and findings

Damp in the property

26. The resident reported the damp on 1 June 2019, the resident says she made further calls between 3 June 2019 and the 8 July 2019, but the landlord says it has no record of this. It did however have  records of an email and photographs that the resident sent on 3 June 2019, in relation to the damp issues. An inspection was arranged on 8 July 2019, which was carried out the following day and on 10 July 2019, repairs were carried out to stop the leak. Whilst the repairs were being done it was found that a crack in the bath was contributing to the leak, as the resident did not want the bath replaced a temporary repair was carried out to make the bath useable.
27. Whilst the landlord does not have records of the calls the resident says she made between 3 June 2019 and 8 July 2019, it had enough information from the resident’s original report of the issue on 1 June 2019 and the email on 3 June 2019 to start the repairs process. The landlord has a “Repair Guide for Tenants” which sets out the maximum time residents should expect to wait in order for repairs to be completed. For what it classes as “less urgent repairs”, the timescale is 3 working days. The resident waited 28 working days for the landlord to complete its repairs and so was left with water causing damp to her  property for longer than she should have expected. This was not appropriate, especially given that the landlord was aware of the vulnerabilities of members of the household.
28.  The landlord’s repairs to stop the cause of the leak included a temporary repair to the bath which was reasonable as the resident did not want the bath replaced at that time. The landlord then returned on 16 August 2019, to complete repairs to the living room wall and the skirting boards caused by the damp.

Repairs to the back door

29. On 8 July 2019, the landlord confirmed that the resident’s back door needed repair as both the door and the frame were damaged. It said it would deal with this once the leak had been fixed. The resident had requested a new door but the landlord said it would only replace the door if it was beyond repair. The landlord’s records show no further mention of the repairs needed to the door up to the point a complaint was submitted by the resident in March 2020.
30. In its initial response to the complaint on 20 May 2020, the landlord said that due to the government lockdown in relation to COVID-19 it was only undertaking emergency repairs that were needed to ensure its properties remain safe. It said once government guidelines had changed that it would arrange an appointment to carry out the works on the resident’s door.
31. It is understandable that once the government lockdown came into force in March 2020, the landlord decided to only complete urgent repairs required to make a property safe. However, the landlord said that it would complete the repairs to the door once the leak had been fixed, and the landlord’s evidence shows that the leak was fixed on 10 July 2019.
32. In the landlord’s “Repair Guide for Tenants” on page 13, it gives the maximum timescales that a resident should expect to wait for a repair to be carried out. The longest timescale given is 60 days for non-urgent repairs, which the landlord calls “Semi Planed repairs”, which are repairs necessary to keep the property in good condition. In accordance with this and based on the date that the leak was fixed the repair to the back door should have been completed by 9 October 2019, which is approximately five months before the Government’s national lockdown came into effect. Whilst the landlord cannot reasonably be held at fault for the delays caused by the national lockdown it is responsible for the delays from the point the leak was fixed up until 23 March 2020, when the national lockdown began. Therefore, the length of time that the resident has had to wait for the backdoor to be repaired is unreasonable.

Request for an adapted bath

33. As a crack had been found in the bath during the landlord’s attempt to remedy a leak in July 2019, it was concluded that the bath needed to be replaced. At the time the resident declined to have it replaced as her bath was larger than a standard size and accommodated a bath chair that the resident used due to her mobility issues. So, the resident did not want the landlord to fit anything smaller. The landlord undertook a temporary repair whilst the issue of a replacement bath was looked into. In addition to this, the resident was due to have a stairlift fitted by the landlord, but this work was being delayed to allow easy access for the works needed to the bathroom, with work to fit the stairlift to follow afterwards.
34. The landlord’s records indicate that it made enquiries with its contractor to see whether it could obtain a larger bath but, this could not be sourced. It conferred with the Occupational Therapist explaining in an email dated 14 August 2019, that it was unable to source a larger bath and could only fit one of a standard size. It asked if the Occupational Therapist (OT), would be able to help source a larger bath, but says that the OT was unable to assist. Where an OT make recommendations that a particular adaptation is needed we would expect the landlord to demonstrate that it has taken this into consideration and where necessary, that it can explain why a particular recommendation was not followed. However, this Service has seen no comments from the OT where she actually recommended that a larger bath was needed for the resident, or that she suggested any alternative options when a larger bath could not be sourced. On 19 September 2019, the landlord replaced the existing bath with one of a standard size in order to get the works completed so that the stairlift could be installed. The resident said that the bath was not suitable as it was too small to allow her to use her bath chair.
35. In summary, the resident said that she had been sleeping on a downstairs sofa due to the issues with getting up and down the stairs. It is understandable that the landlord wanted to get the bath installed as soon as possible to enable the stairlift to be fitted for the resident’s use. The landlord’s records show that it did check with its contractors and the OT to see if a large bath was obtainable but neither it or the OT was able to source a larger bath. As the OT had not made any recommendations around the need for a larger bath, nor had she suggested any alternative adjustments that needed to be considered the landlord installed a standard sized bath which, given the situation, was a reasonable decision to make.

Renewal of the resident’s bathroom

36.  There was an appointment arranged for 15 October 2019, for the landlord to carry out retiling and boxing in work which the resident cancelled and did not rearrange. Then in November 2019, the resident carried out works herself to renew her bathroom suite and has submitted an invoice showing costs of £3,860 for the works to be completed. The landlord says that the resident’s house was on its 2020–21 schedule for works to renew the bathroom suite and the resident was made aware of this in August 2019. The landlord’s records show an internal email conversation dated 14 August 2019, where it stated that it had a discussion with the resident about her bathroom. It says that in the discussion it informed the resident that it would only be able to fit a standard bath, and that “the rest of the bathroom suite will be renewed by our Stock Investment team next year”.
37. The resident says that she was not told that her bathroom was on the landlord’s list to be renewed. The resident acknowledges that she had not sought the permission of the landlord to carry out the works to her bathroom. But, she says that in a conversation with her son on 2 September 2019, the Occupational Therapist (OT), told him that the landlord had ran out of money and so it would not be able to undertake works to her bathroom. The resident says had she been told that the landlord intended to renew the bathroom, she would not have used the money she had saved for her funeral expenses to have the works done herself. So, the landlord should reimburse her the money she has spent. The landlord says it is only responsible to repair parts of the bathroom that are in need of repair or replacement and the work the resident has done in her bathroom goes beyond this. It also says that the resident did not seek permission before making the changes to the bathroom as per the terms of the tenancy agreement and therefore it will not reimburse her the money she has spent.
38. There are no records of the conversation that the resident says took place between her son and the OT on 2 September 2019. The landlord says the OT has told it that she did not tell the resident that the landlord had run out of money. Even if the alleged conversation happened as the resident has said, it is not within the jurisdiction of this Service to investigate the OT’s actions.
39. The works the resident carried out to the bathroom included improvements. The resident’s tenancy agreement states, under Section 24, that the resident must get written permission from the landlord before carrying out improvements to the property. The resident seems to be aware of this as she stated that she had gotten permission in the past prior to carrying out work on the property. It is reasonable then to expect that regardless of any other conversations she may have had with other people, the resident would have contacted the landlord before carrying out any works herself. Had she done so, it would have given the landlord the opportunity to clarify its intentions regarding the renewal of her bathroom. The resident did not get the landlord’s permission prior to carrying out the works. Therefore, it would not be reasonable to ask it to reimburse her for the costs of the works she undertook to the replace the bathroom suite.

Determination (decision)

40. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp in her property.
41. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs needed to her back door.
42. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for an adapted bath.
43. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of its plan to renew the resident’s bathroom.

Reasons

44. The landlord did not adhere to the timescale set out in its Repair Guide in dealing with the damp in the resident’s property.
45. The landlord did not adhere to the timescale set out in its Repair Guide in dealing with the repair to the resident’s back door.
46. The landlord demonstrated that it attempted to source a large bath in order to meet the resident’s request.
47. The resident did not seek permission from the landlord before undertaking works to renew her bathroom.

Orders

48. The landlord to provide the resident with a written apology for the service failures identified in this report.
49. If it has not already done so the landlord is to arrange an appointment with the resident to repair her back door.
50. The landlord to pay the resident £150 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in dealing with her reports of damp in her property.
51. The landlord to pay the resident £50 for the inconvenience caused by the delay in dealing with the repair to the resident’s back door.

The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.