Irwell Valley Housing Association Limited (202414917)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202414917

Irwell Valley Housing Association Limited

6 August 2025

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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The fitting of handrails to the resident’s property.
2. The resident’s reports of a leak from the lever tap in her kitchen and request for compensation for damaged belongings.
3. The resident’s reports of repair to her bathroom tiles.
4. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy commenced on 22 May 2017. The property is a 2-bedroom house. The landlord has confirmed it is aware the resident has a visual impairment, anxiety, depression, mobility, and other health issues.
On 11 June 2024, the resident logged a formal complaint with the landlord about:
1. A delay in the landlord installing adaptations in her property. The resident said she had an OT assessment in October 2023. This recommended that she would need a handrail and lever taps fitted in her bathroom and kitchen. The resident said prior to the assessment being carried out the landlord told her to contact the council about what adaptations she needed, and gave her the wrong phone number to do this. The resident said the handrails were not fitted for 3 months and she had had 2 falls whilst waiting for these to be installed.
2. Its response to her report of a ‘heavy leak’ to her kitchen mixer tap and that she was unable to turn the stop tap because of her disabilities. The resident said the landlord:
  1. Did not attend until 5pm the following day.
  2. Decided to fit a push-fit stop button to make isolating the water easier in the future. The resident said she received a card saying she had missed an appointment but she had not left her house. The resident said she called the landlord and was told someone would return later that day. However, at 4pm the plumber rang and asked if he could come the next morning, a Saturday, instead.
3. Due to the leak, her flooring was ruined, and she had to pay for replacement as her insurance would not cover this. The resident said the state of the flooring meant her washing machine broke, as it rattled when in use, and she had to buy a new one.
4. A delay in the landlord addressing the tiles in her bathroom. The resident said these had lifted from the wall and were sharp. The resident said she was worried about using the bath in case she cut herself as she took blood thinning medication. The resident said it took the landlord over a month to resolve this and had not taken her disability into consideration.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 9 July 2024 in which it:
1. Apologised for any inconvenience caused by the delay in the handrail works being completed, following the OT referral in October 2023. The landlord acknowledged this should have been addressed with more urgency given the resident’s needs and situation.
2. Acknowledged:
  1. The resident’s report of an uncontrollable leak in her kitchen was not assessed as urgent by its Out of Hours Provider and repairs colleagues.
  2. The resident’s disability was not taken into consideration, referring to her not being able to safely close off the stop tap to prevent damage.
  3. The resident experienced a further repair delay due to its failure to carry out the correct calling procedures on 26 April 2024. The landlord also acknowledged it had informed the resident a return visit would be arranged that day but this was pushed back to the following day. The landlord said this was the result of a ‘misjudgement’ by its Out of Hours plumbing operative.
3. Acknowledged the works to replace the bathroom wall tiles took longer to complete than the 28-day timeframe for routine repairs. The work order made no mention of sharp edges, just cracked tiling. This resulted in the repair being raised as a general repair. The landlord said it appreciated that due to the resident’s medical condition she felt unable to use the bath over this period.
4. Offered the resident £500 compensation for its multiple repair failures in the previous 8 months, a delay in its complaint handling, the major inconvenience, damage to her flooring and washing machine which she replaced herself and the distress caused.
The resident escalated her complaint on 17 July 2024, in which she said:
1. The landlord had not fully acknowledged the delay in the installation of the handrails stating this started in September and not October 2023.
2. The compensation did not reflect her out-of-pocket expenses nor the distress and inconvenience. It also did not reflect the ‘humiliation’ of the delay and missed appointments in relation to the leak between 21 April and 26 May 2024, let alone the ‘other 2 incidents’. The resident said she would like a breakdown of how the landlord came to the amount offered.
3. The landlord also failed to acknowledge the adaptations needed were mainly a stair rail to allow her to access the downstairs of her property. The resident said this affected her exit during a fire, her ability to wash soiled bedding and access cooking facilities.
The landlord issued its final response on 8 November 2024, in which it said:
1. With regards to the grab rails:
  1. The email from the councils’ community assessment officer, received on 5 October 2023, confirmed no details of what was required. It also did not say that a banister or stair rail was required.
  2. It fitted another handrail to the stairs and a grab rail next to the toilet on the 3 November 2023. This was completed within the 28 working day timeframe set out in its repairs policy. As such it did not uphold the findings in its stage 1 response.
  3. It was noted that a further grab rail was required. However, it was not possible for this to be fitted due to the limited space and layout in the resident’s bathroom. The resident agreed at the time to discuss a ‘clip on’ type of support rail with her OT to ensure its suitability.
2. With regards to the uncontrollable leak in the resident’s kitchen:
  1. It acknowledged it had communicated poorly with the resident in regard to this matter, for which it offered her £100 compensation. However, the repair was completed within the required timescale.
  2. It offered her £300 to cover repairs to her washing machine, replacement flooring and any other further out-of-pocket expenditure. The landlord said this was based on a ‘reasonableness amount’ as it had not seen any receipts for this expenditure.
3. With regards to the repairs to the tiles in the resident’s bathroom:
  1. The repair took around 5 weeks, which it said was ‘slightly beyond’ its 28 working days timeframe.
  2. It offered the resident £100 compensation, noting it considered the impact to be moderate. The landlord said this was because it was only partially responsible as it was ‘unaware’ of the reason for the resident’s request.
4. It acknowledged the delay in its stage 2 response, for which it offered a further £25.

Assessment and findings

Relevant obligations, policies, and procedures

Once a landlord is informed of some damage or deterioration in a property, for which it is responsible, it is ‘on notice’ to carry out a reasonable enquiry to determine the cause and complete a repair. What is a reasonable time will depend on all the circumstances of a case.
The landlord’s repairs policy has 3 categories of repairs:
1. Emergency, which it commits to complete within 24 hours.
2. Routine, which it commits to complete within 28 working days.
3. Non-urgent and major repairs, which it commits to complete in 60 working days.
The landlord’s repairs policy recognises its obligations under the Equality Act 2010, stating it will:
1. Use the data it holds about the diverse needs of its customers to make appropriate service adjustments.
2. Ask customers how the repair is impacting their safety and security to assess if the repair is having a disproportionate effect due to protected characteristic(s), including physical disabilities, and needs to be completed quickly.
The landlord’s adaptations policy defines minor adaptations as non-structural alterations or additions to a home (such as grab rails). It goes on to state that, unless specialist work is required, it will carry out minor adaptations in accordance with its usual day-to-day repairs process.

Fitting of handrails to the resident’s property.

On 31 August 2023, the resident had her needs assessed by a local authority OT. The resident contacted the landlord on 26 September 2023 advising her OT had recommended grab rails.
The landlord’s Asset and Sustainability Manager advised the resident her OT paperwork had not been received and asked that she chase this. It is noted that the landlord’s adaptations policy states ‘whenever possible, minor aids or adaptations will be provided without the need for specialist (OT) advice’. However, as the resident had had an OT assessment it was reasonable for the landlord to ask for this to be sent to it before it carried out any works.
The council’s Early Intervention Team emailed the landlord’s Asset and Sustainability Manager on 5 October 2023, 7 working days later. They told the landlord the resident ‘would like some grab rails and handrails around her home.’ The landlord was asked if it could assist. On 10 October 2023, the Asset and Sustainability Manager forwarded the council’s Early Intervention Team’s request to the landlord’s customer services team for action.
On 11 October 2023, the landlord’s Customer Service Manager emailed the council’s Early Intervention Team to ask for the completed adaptations form, including placement/location and size of the rails to be fitted. We have seen no evidence of this being provided.
The landlord fitted hand and stair rails, as well as lever style taps to the resident’s kitchen and bathroom, on 3 November 2023. This was 29 working days after the council’s Early Intervention Team’s email of 5 October 2023 and 1 working day outside of the 28 working day timeframe.
Whilst we acknowledge the resident’s first contact with the landlord was on 26 September 2023, as the landlord was not provided with confirmation by the council until 5 October 2023, we are satisfied there was no maladministration on its part with regards to this element of the resident’s complaint.

Reports of a leak from the lever tap in the resident’s kitchen and her request for compensation for damaged belongings

In this case, the resident reported a leak from the lever mixer tap in her kitchen on 21 April 2024. The following day, 22 April 2024, the resident contacted the landlord again to chase up the repair saying the leak could not be contained. The resident explained this was because she was unable to turn off the ‘stop-tap’ due to her disabilities. It was not until this point that an emergency repair was raised and an operative attended. The resident told us the operative refitted the tap and made arrangements for further works. This is consistent with what the landlord told us on 17 February 2025.
Three days later, on 25 April 2024, the resident again reported her kitchen mixer taps would not shut off and that she was unable to use the ‘stop tap’. A further emergency repair was raised that day. The landlord confirmed to us on 17 February 2025, that the description for this job was the kitchen mixer tap would not shut off, the resident could not use the stop tap and she needed a push button stop tap.
The landlord’s operative left a ‘no access card’ at the resident’s property the following day, 26 April 2024. The resident challenged this saying she did not leave her house on that day. The resident also said she called the landlord to make it aware and was told someone would come back later that day but they did not.
The resident told us the installation of the ‘stop tap’ was not then completed for a month. This is consistent with the landlord’s position that the Sure Stop tap was fitted on 24 May 2024.
The landlord does not dispute there were failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of the leak from the lever tap in her kitchen.
Where the landlord admits failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether it resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances and offered appropriate redress. In considering this, we assess whether the landlord’s actions were in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
In its stage 2 response the landlord apologised for its communication failures and delays in arranging appointments and it offered the resident £100 compensation. This figure being the minimum suggested in the landlord’s compensation policy where it considers the loss or inconvenience to be moderate.
However, given the following, which were acknowledged by the landlord in its stage 1 response, we are not satisfied that £100 was sufficient to provide redress to the resident:
1. The leak was not assessed as urgent and her disability was not taken into consideration.
2. It had no proof of its operative calling at the resident’s address to install the ‘sure stop isolation tap’ on 26 April 2024.
3. It had informed the resident that a return visit would be arranged that day (26 April 2024) but that appointment was pushed back to the following day. The landlord said this was a ‘misjudgement’ by its Out of Hours plumbing operative.
We have therefore made a finding of maladministration in respect of this element of the resident’s complaint. To put things right, the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident an additional £150 compensation. This brings the compensation payable for the impact on the resident to £250, the maximum allowed for in the landlord’s compensation policy in circumstances where the impact of its failures was moderate.
It has also been ordered to pay, in accordance with its compensation policy, £20 for the missed appointment on 26 April 2024.
With regard to the £300 offered to cover repairs to the resident’s washing machine, replacement flooring and any other out-of-pocket expenditure. The landlord has been ordered to now pay this to the resident if this has not already been paid.
The landlord said in its final response this was based on a ‘reasonableness amount’ as it had not seen any receipts for this expenditure. This was a reasonable approach for the landlord to take. This is because its compensation policy states that any claims should be accompanied by relevant receipts, where possible. Nevertheless, it has been recommended, if the resident is able to provide it with relevant receipts within 2 weeks of the date of this report, that the landlord consider whether any additional payment might be appropriate.

Reports of repair to the resident’s bathroom tiles

On 19 March 2024, the resident reported a repair to the tiles in her bathroom. The landlord sent the resident a text the same date confirming a tiler appointment had been scheduled for 18 April 2024. The 28 working day timeframe for the repair to be completed would have been 26 April 2024.
The appointment was attended as planned on 18 April 2024. The operative that attended said more time was required. They also noted the tiles in the bathroom were ‘loose’ and needed to be replaced with an ‘aqua panel’ or re-tiled.
A new ‘aqua panel’ was fitted, and the bath re sealed, on 8 May 2024. This was 36 working days after this was first reported by the resident and 8 working days outside of the landlords 28 working days timeframe for routine repairs.
The resident asked if she could be compensated for the loss of use of the bath from the initial visit on 18 April 2024 until 8 May 2024, the date the landlord completed the works.
In its stage 1 response the landlord acknowledged the repair had been completed outside of its routine repair timescale. It acknowledged an issue with its repair notes meant this was raised as a ‘general repair.’ It also acknowledged the resident felt unable to use the bath until the repair was completed, due to her disabilities.
However, by the time of its stage 2 response, the landlord had changed its position. In this response the landlord said the repair had been completed only ‘slightly beyond’ its 28 working days timeframe for routine repairs. The landlord offered the resident £100 compensation saying it had arrived at this amount as it believed itself to be ‘only partially responsible’ as it was ‘unaware of the reasoning’ behind the resident’s request. This was not a reasonable position for the landlord to take. This is because:
1. At the point the resident had raised the repair in March 2024, it was clearly aware that she had disabilities. As such, and in accordance with its repairs policy it should have asked the resident from the start how the repair was impacting her. However, we have seen no evidence the landlord did this.
2. On 19 April 2024, the resident contacted the landlord and said she was unable to use the bath as the lift she had in place to assist with access was “unfeasible with the current tiles in the bathroom.” The landlord also noted the resident had said she was taking blood thinning medication and was concerned for her safety when attempting to access the bath. Despite this it took the landlord a further 13 working days to complete the repair.
Given these failures, a finding of maladministration has been made with regards to this element of the resident’s complaint. To put this right, the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident an additional £150 compensation. This brings the compensation payable for the impact on the resident to £250, the maximum allowed for in the landlord’s compensation policy in circumstances where the impact of its failure was moderate.

Handling of the associated complaint.

The resident logged her formal complaint with the landlord on 11 June 2024.
In accordance with its complaints policy the landlord should have issued its stage 1 response within 20 working days, which it did. The stage 1 response being issued on 9 July 2024.
The resident escalated her complaint on 17 July 2024. In accordance with its complaints policy the landlord should have issued its stage 2 response within 20 working days. However, it did not do so until 8 November 2024, 82 working days later.
The landlord acknowledged the delay in its stage 2 response for which it offered the resident £25 compensation.
Given the excessive delay in its providing its stage 2 response, the £25 offered fell significantly below the amount we would expect to be offered. As a result, a finding of maladministration has been made in respect of the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
To put this right the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident an additional £175, bringing the total payable for this element of her complaint to £200. This figure being in line with amounts suggested in our Remedies guidance in situations where the landlord has acknowledged failings, and made some attempt to put things right, but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the fitting of handrails to the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from the lever tap in her kitchen and request for compensation for damaged belongings.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to her bathroom tiles.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a total of £1,020. This is made up of:
  1. £250 for the impact on the resident of its failures with regards to her reports of a leak from the lever tap in her kitchen. This includes the £100 previously offered, if this has not already been paid. If it has the landlord need only pay the resident the additional £150 ordered by us.
  2. £20 for its missed appointment on 26 April 2024.
  3. The £300 offered to cover repairs to her washing machine, replacement flooring and any other further out-of-pocket expenditure, if this has not already been paid.
  4. £250 for the impact on the resident of its failures with regards to her reports of repairs to her bathroom tiles. This includes the £100 previously offered, if this has not already been paid. If it has the landlord need only pay the resident the additional £150 ordered by us.
  5. £200 for the excessive delay in it issuing its stage 2 response. This includes the £25 previously offered, if this has not already been paid. If it has the landlord need only pay the resident the additional £175 ordered by us.
3. Review its handling of both the resident’s report of the leak and the repairs to her bathroom tiles. This review is to consider:
  1. The shortfalls in its consideration of the impact the situation had on the resident, and her vulnerabilities.
  2. Its staff training and whether steps need to be taken to ensure all relevant officers understand their responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010, and its own repairs policy, with regard to meeting the needs of individual residents when providing a service to them.
4. Confirm compliance with the above orders.

Recommendation

If the resident is able to provide it relevant receipts within 2 weeks of the date of this report, is recommended that the landlord consider whether any additional payment might be appropriate in relation to repairs to her washing machine, replacement flooring and any other further out-of-pocket expenditure.