Guinness Housing Association Limited (202207316)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207316

Guinness Housing Association Limited

30 June 2023

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 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 drainage issues in her shower and her request for it to install a wet room.
   2. The associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a flat in an assisted living scheme. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
3. The resident initially reported that the shower was not draining properly in August 2021, which led the landlord to replace the pump. Following this, there were no issues reported until March 2022, when the resident raised a further report of drainage issues. She explained that wastewater was not draining, causing it to overflow the tray and this led to hygiene issues. She also questioned why she had a different shower installation than other residents, and she questioned the need for a pump. The resident raised a further report of this on 7 April, 31 May, 7 June and 5 July 2022.
4. In addition to this, in March 2022 the resident’s occupational therapist contacted the landlord and informed it of the drainage issues which was causing her bathroom to flood and led to the resident experiencing difficulties. They also advised it that while she was able to meet her personal care needs in the current shower, the drainage issues should be addressed to reduce stress and exertion to her.
5. The resident complained to the landlord on 5 July 2022 using its online complaint form, but received no response after her complaint had been acknowledged. The complaint was about the drainage issues and that there was mould in her plug that was having an impact on her health. She raised a further complaint on 26 July 2022 concerning the drainage issues, requested a wet room be installed, and explained that her previous complaint had been “ignored”. She also complained to this Service, and we referred her complaint to the landlord on 28 July 2022.
6. The landlord’s stage one complaint response of 11 August 2022 did not uphold her complaint because it did not identify any failings in its service. It explained that it had investigated her reports of the issues in her shower within its timeframes, and explained that it had agreed to replace her shower tray and pump as a gesture of goodwill. This repair was organised for 15 August 2022, but was rescheduled until 9 September 2022, as per the resident’s request.
7. The resident escalated her complaint because she was dissatisfied that the shower pump, that had been replaced in August 2021, was noisier than the previous one, and questioned the need for it. She also requested that the landlord install a wet room to replace the shower in view of her health conditions and like the other flats in the sheltered accommodation.
8. The landlord’s final stage complaint response of 26 August 2022 maintained its previous decision. It also explained that it was unable to provide a wet room since it relied on the advice of occupational therapy services to install these, and her occupational therapist had advised that the current facilities were appropriate for her needs. It further explained the need for the pump, and that the noise was unavoidable. It apologised that this was not the outcome that she was seeking, but reiterated that it was replacing her shower tray and the pump. She rearranged the installation of the replacement shower tray and pump again, to the 19 September 2022, and it has been confirmed to this Service that this installation was completed.
9. The resident complained to this Service, because she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her request for a wet room, and stated that it was refusing to recognise her struggles, and she explained the effect the issue was having on her health. She sought for it to install a wet room in property, or for it to convert the shower cubicle to a bath.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

10. It is of concern that the resident has reported the issues with her shower affected her existing health conditions. While we do not doubt her comments about the effect of the case on her health, this Service is unable to determine liability or award damages for ill-health because we do not have the authority or expertise to do so, and so this is outside the scope of this investigation to consider. However, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation has caused the resident.

The resident’s reports of drainage issues in her shower and her request for it to install a wet room

11. The landlord’s aids and adaptations policy defines a major adaptation as works that significantly alter the facilities at a property. The policy outlines that when it receives a request for an adaptation, it will consider whether the work is necessary and appropriate to meet the needs of the resident, taking into account any assessment made by a professional, such as an occupational therapist.
12. In this case, the installation of a wet room would alter the facilities at the property, and in accordance with its aids and adaptations policy, be classed as a major adaptation. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord declined the resident’s request to install a wet room in her property, after her occupational therapist had advised that the current installation was suitable for her needs. The landlord clearly communicated its decision in its final stage complaint response, and gave a clear explanation to the resident on its reasons for these decisions, which was reasonable as it ensured the resident’s understanding on the matter.
13. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy outlines that a routine repair should be fixed within 28 calendar days. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord attended the resident’s property on 10 March, 13 April, 7 June and 11 July 2022 after her reports on 8 March, 7 April, 31 May and 5 June 2022, respectively. It attended within its published timescales which was appropriate and was unable to identify any faults at these visits.
14. In response to her concerns about the drainage, the landlord’s stage one response offered to replace the resident’s shower tray, cubicle and pump. This simultaneously addressed her ongoing concerns of the shower’s drainage, but also of mould that she reported was present in the drain of the shower. The landlord had no obligation to replace this installation as it stated that there were no faults identified; however, by doing so, it acted beyond its obligations to address her concerns. This replacement also acted on the advice provided to it by her occupational therapist, who suggested the drainage matter be rectified, to reduce exertion to the resident, in view of her health needs.
15. Its final stage complaint response also responded to the resident’s concerns over the noise of the pump, and whether it was able to be removed. It once again explained clearly to her that it was unable to remove the pump due to the configuration of the shower, and its need to drain the water, and that the noise was an “unavoidable by-product of an essential feature”. It recognised that this was not the outcome that she was seeking and apologised to her for this, which was reasonable as it showed it sympathised with her concerns. Overall, the landlord acted fairly, reasonably, and in accordance with its policies.

The associated complaint

16. In line with its corporate complaints policy, a complaint is defined as any expression of dissatisfaction made about the standard of service of the landlord. The policy also states that, if the landlord decides not to accept a complaint, the resident should be told why.
17. It was appropriate that on 5 July 2022 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint to it, that she had made the same day. This was both in line with its complaints policy, which states that stage one complaints are to be acknowledged within two working days, and also appropriate for the resident to be aware that the landlord had received her complaint.
18. It was not reasonable that following this acknowledgement, which informed the resident she would be contacted within a further two working days, she was not contacted about the complaint. It did not provide a response to her complaint, which was a failing in its complaint handling. As per its complaints policy, it should have informed her if it was unable to accept her request, which it failed to do. This caused the resident time and trouble as she had to raise a further complaint to the landlord on 26 July 2022, and contact this Service, who referred her complaint to the landlord on 28 July 2022. It also led to a 23-day delay in raising and resolving her complaint, which will have caused further inconvenience to her.
19. On 2 August 2022, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint five working days after she raised this to it again on 26 July 2022. This was outside of its complaints policy two-working-day timeframe for acknowledgement. It was appropriate that in its acknowledgement, it apologised for the delay in its response and for her difficulty in raising a complaint. It explained that it had reviewed her account and that she had a stage one complaint open, in response to the request to it by this Service, and that it had added her complaint of 26 July 2022 to the one which was being investigated.
20. It is a concern that when the landlord provided its stage one complaint response to this Service on 11 August 2022, it stated that no complaint had been raised previously, despite the evidence that was provided showing that the resident had submitted two prior complaints. Landlords are expected to keep a robust record of contacts and complaints, and while the landlord has these records, its handling of the complaint did not showcase that it reviewed all of the information available to it.
21. When a landlord is at fault, it needs to put things right by acknowledging its mistakes and apologising for them, explaining why things went wrong and what it will do to prevent the same mistake from happening again. The landlord appropriately apologised to the resident for the delay in acknowledging her complaint, but failed to apologise for its lack of response to her previous complaint. It also failed to show how it would prevent similar future mistakes. It has therefore been recommended below for the landlord to review its staff’s training needs regarding the application of its complaints policy, and of this Service’s complaint handling code, in order to ensure that these are followed to prevent its complaint handling failings in this case from occurring again in the future.
22. In light of the failings identified above, the landlord has also been ordered below to pay £100 compensation to the resident. This is in recognition her time, trouble and inconvenience caused by its failure to respond to her initial stage one complaint, and its delay to acknowledge her further stage one complaint. This is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance’s suggestion of compensation from up to £100 for a failing of its service which has a short duration and adversely affected the resident.

Determination

23. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of drainage issues in her shower and her request for it to install a wet room.
24. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Order and recommendation

25. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 compensation within four weeks, in recognition of her time, trouble and inconvenience caused by its failure to respond to her initial stage one complaint, and its delay to acknowledge her further stage one complaint.
26. It is recommended that the landlord review its staff’s training needs regarding their application of its complaints policy, and of this Service’s complaint handling code, in order to ensure that these are followed to prevent its complaint handling failings in the resident’s case from occurring again in the future.
27. The landlord is recommended to contact the resident to arrange an appointment for the issues she is experiencing with the new shower installations, specifically, it not draining correctly.
28. The landlord shall contact this Service within four weeks to confirm it has complied with the above order, and whether it will follow the above recommendation.