Legal and General Affordable Homes (202205814)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205814

Legal & General Affordable Homes (SO) LLP

27 April 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 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. A repair of the resident’s bath.
    2. The resident’s request for aids and adaptations.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property was a new build and was within the defect period at the start of this case. The resident has several health conditions that affect his mobility. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that these conditions were disclosed to the landlord at the start of his tenancy.
  2. The resident moved into the property on 14 December 2020. On 8 September 2021, the local authority’s occupational therapy department recommended that the landlord should undertake some minor adaptations within the resident’s home. It stated that this was part of an early intervention assessment, which would allow the resident to continue to function in his home.
  3. As an unrelated issue, on 20 October 2021, the resident reported that a leak was coming from his bathtub when it was used, into the room below. Believing this to be a defect which would have been present when the property was built, the landlord sent the report to the developer. The developer has stated that it did not receive the defect report until 20 November 2021, due to an administrative error caused by the landlord.
  4. On 29 October 2021 the landlord approved the minor adaptions works. Yet, due to an IT error, this was not actioned. On 25 November 2021, the landlord attended the property to undertake an end-of-defect period inspection, which would pick up any repairs that would still be the developer’s responsibility to resolve. However, it could not gain access to the property. The developer sent a plumber to the property on 6 December 2021, and again on 17 January 2022. However, they too could not gain access to the property on either visit. The plumber attended again on 25 January 2022, and concluded that the bath tub was not a defect. In response, the landlord contacted the resident on 1 February 2022 and arranged an appointment for 3 February 2022 to inspect the bath.
  5. On 14 February 2022, the resident complained that the adaptions recommended by the local authority had not yet been completed. He also explained that he was registered as disabled and needed the bath tub to be able to live at the property. He advised that due to the outstanding repair, he had been living elsewhere for the previous month. As an outcome, he wanted the repair to be resolved, and to be reimbursed the rent he had paid while being unable to live at the property.
  6. The landlord has stated that it undertook the majority of the adaptions on 2 and 3 March 2022, and replaced the bath on 4 March 2022. It sent its stage one complaint response on 17 March 2022. The landlord acknowledged that due to several errors it had failed to action either the repair or the adaptions appropriately. It stated that the bath repair had been further delayed due to its efforts to ascertain if it was classed as a defect or an ordinary repair. It apologised for the delays and in recognition of its failings, the landlord offered £500 compensation to the resident.
  7. The resident escalated his complaint on 18 March 2022. He stated that the bath which had been installed was too small, and that he was dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered. He also explained that one of the adaptions remained outstanding. The landlord sent its final response on 27 April 2022. It stated that it had installed a larger bathtub at the property on 19 April 2022, and completed all works on 27 April 2022.  The landlord explained that it had not initially been aware of the resident’s disability, or that the resident had vacated the property due to the lack of a bath (the property had an separate shower). It again acknowledged its previous delays, yet stated that this had been contributed to by issues gaining access to the property. It offered to undertake an inspection of the resident’s property and to discuss any additional needs or support that the resident required. However, it maintained that the level of compensation already offered was proportionate.
  8. In his complaint to this Service, the resident has explained that as a result of the delay in replacing his bath tub, he could not live at the property. He stated that he has suffered financial loss by having to pay rent both at the property and elsewhere during this time and would like to be further compensated.

Assessment

  1. The landlord’s tenancy agreement stipulates that it is responsible for keeping the resident’s bath in repair and proper working. Therefore, when the resident reported the leak to his bath, the landlord was obliged to attend and undertake the works necessary to resolve this issue. According to the landlord’s repairs policy, this would be classed as a routine repair, and should be attended to within 15 working days.
  2. In this case, the landlord has not disputed that there were significant delays in completing the repair to the resident’s bath. The resident first reported the leak on 20 October 2021, yet the issue remained un-resolved until 27 April 2022. This was six months after the repair should have been completed, and was well outside of the timescales set out in the landlord’s repair policy. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, it is the Ombudsman’s role to consider whether the landlord has offered sufficient redress to put things right for the resident, and resolved their complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In assessing the landlord’s actions and compensation offer, we also assess any mitigating factors that may be relevant the case.
  3. Although the landlord initially failed to make contact with the developers within the appropriate timescale, there have been additional factors that have subsequently contributed to the overall delays in this case. Despite the developer arranging with the resident that its plumbers would attend the property on 6 December 2021 and 17 January 2022, the resident was not home to provide access. The Ombudsman recognises that there may be legitimate reasons why residents may not allow access for repairs. However, the landlord would not be responsible for delays caused by the lack of access to the property.
  4. After the landlord accepted responsibility for the bath in February 2022, it fitted a working bath on 4 March 2022. However, the resident was unhappy with the size of the bath, as it was 10cm smaller than his previous bath tub. While it is best practice for the landlord to replace items like-for-like within resident’s homes, it was reasonable for it to have replaced the bath tub with stock that it had readily available, as the resident had not previously specified that he required a larger bath. Nevertheless, the landlord responded to the resident’s request and again replaced the bath with a larger tub on 27 April 2022. It was reasonable of the landlord to respond to the resident’s concerns, and to have fit a bath which would meet his needs. However, this change of bath would also have contributed to the delay in resolving the repair.
  5. Although there was also a shower in the property, the resident has explained that due to various medical issues, he was unable to use anything other than the bath to wash in. He has stated that due to this, the loss of his bath had a greater impact on him, as could not live at the property while it was leaking. He has explained that he vacated the property in November/December 2021 to stay with relatives until the issue was resolved.
  6. Although it is clear that the resident has suffered significant inconvenience due to the loss of use of the bath, the landlord needed to have been given notice of the resident’s disabilities, in order to have had the opportunity to alter its response to fit his needs. When moving into the property, the resident attended a pre-tenancy interview, where he was asked to disclose any pre-existing medical conditions or support needs. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the resident stated was registered disabled or that he gave details of his disabilities. The evidence suggests that he explained to the landlord that he had medical vulnerabilities in February 2022, when he stated that he did not have alternative washing facilities within his home. He additionally stated that as a result, he had moved from the property a month previously.
  7. Although the landlord should be proactive and make a note of any known vulnerabilities on its system, it would not be reasonable to expect it to be aware of disability requirements that had not been disclosed. The landlord was not aware that the resident had felt that it was necessary for him to temporarily move out in late 2021, or that he was unable to stay in his home due to a lack of washing facilities as he was unable to use the shower.
  8. In its complaint responses, the landlord acted appropriately by apologising for the delay to the resident’s repairs. The landlord offered a total of £500 compensation to the resident, in recognition of the delay in replacing the bath and for a delay in actioning some minor adaptions (assessed below). On balance, it is the opinion of this Service that the compensation amount offered was proportionate to the level of failings of the landlord. The amount offered is also in-line with our remedies guidance, as published on our website which suggests awards in this range for cases where there have been failings by the landlord which adversely affected the resident, but there may be no permanent impact.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for aids and adaptations.

  1. According to the landlord’s disabled adaptions policy, the landlord will assess the resident’s need and eligibility for adaptions to their home. It will make use of all available evidence, including any occupational therapist report. It is responsible for completing all adaptations in-line with its own procedures. Minor adaptions include (where the costs are below £1000) grab rails, banister rails, handrails, altering doorsteps and adding half steps.
  2. The resident was assessed by a local authority occupational therapist (OT), who wrote to the landlord on 8 September 2021. The OT recommended that the landlord should fit bannisters, lever taps and a half step with rails alongside the patio doors in the resident’s home. The landlord authorised the minor adaptations on 29 October 2021. However, due to an internal issue with its emails, the works were not actioned.
  3. Although the resident chased the works in November 2021, the landlord did not action the works until 25 February 2022. This was after the resident had submitted a formal complaint on 14 February 2022. This was not appropriate, as the works should have been completed in-line with the landlord’s policy timescales for responsive repairs, which is 15 working days. Although a delay to works is not always due to an error by the landlord, the landlord would be expected to continue to manage the repairs. In this case, the adaptions were not completed due to an internal error, despite the resident reminding the landlord of the works and asking for updates. This is a failing in the circumstances.
  4. Once the landlord actioned the repairs on 25 February, it attended the property promptly on 2 March 2022 and undertook the works to the half step and lever taps. It explained to the resident that it was unable to fit the railings due to how his patio doors were situated. It also explained to the resident that he needed to be present at an appointment to fit the bannisters, as it needed to fit them to his height. The resident was reluctant to attend an appointment, due to still living away from the property. The landlord has stated that all adaption work wascompleted by 20 June 2022. Although this is a further delay, the evidence shows that the landlord acted reasonably by continuing to work with the resident to schedule an appointment to fit the bannisters.In its final response, the landlord acted appropriately by offering to inspect the property to discuss any further adaptions or support that the resident may need.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the repair of the resident’s bath satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for aids and adaptation satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider how its staff can be more proactive in identifying vulnerable residents on its system.