Call for Evidence on housing maintenance now open! Respond by 25 October 2024. Submit evidence online.

London Borough of Hillingdon (202222294)

Back to Top

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222294

London Borough of Hillingdon

16 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 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 the resident’s wet room installation and its refusal to offer compensation.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. He has vulnerabilities that affect his mobility.
  2. The resident was assessed on 22 July 2021 by an Occupational Therapist (OT), who found that he was unable to properly use the bathing facilities in his property. The OT recommended that the landlord install a level access shower, with a shower chair. The landlord’s contractor undertook a pre-start meeting on 3 February 2022, and commenced work on 7 February 2022. The resident stopped the works on 10 February 2022, as he did not want the shower chair to be fitted. The landlord referred the issue back to the OT for assessment. It was decided that just handrails and not the chair could be fitted, and works were completed on 21 February 2022.
  3. The contractor informed the landlord that the property was ready to handover on 3 March 2022. The resident has stated that on 4 March 2022, he called to report that the handrails had been fitted incorrectly and so the shower was not usable. He also stated that his home had been covered in dust by the works. The landlord asked the contractor to arrange a deep clean and to remedy the handrails on 17 March 2022. A surveyor attended the property on 11 April 2022, but was unable to sign off the works as the same issues remained outstanding. The resident continued to chase for an update throughout April 2022.
  4. On 19 April 2022, the resident submitted a complaint regarding the landlord’s lack of communication and the quality of the bathroom works. He stated that he had called out an independent plumber, who stated that the waste pipe had not been fitted correctly, the shower tray was unstable, and the grab rails were in the incorrect place. The resident later added that the flooring was not level. The contractor arranged for a deep clean on 21 April 2022, and for a surveyor to attend on 26 April 2022.
  5. The landlord sent its final response on 29 April 2022. It apologised that it had not managed to respond to the resident promptly and stated that it would explain to the relevant teams that they must respond to enquiries as soon as possible. It assured the resident that its contractors would attend to inspect the works.
  6. The landlord has stated that it held a meeting on 24 May 2022, to discuss the flooring. An issue was identified, and the landlord applied for additional funding to change the works to the shower and floor on 4 July 2022. This was approved on 21 July 2022. The resident chased the contractor for an update on 28 July 2022. The landlord arranged an appointment for 19 August 2022, however the resident needed to cancel due to a family emergency. The landlord commenced the works on 15 September 2022 to redo the resident’s floor and move the handrails. The surveyor attended on 23 September 2022 and signed off the works.
  7. The resident escalated his complaint on 2 November 2022. He asked to be compensated for the period of time he needed to live with family, due to having no bathing facilities between February and September 2022. The landlord responded on 5 December 2022. It stated that the initial delay to the works was due to the resident changing his mind about the shower chair. The landlord explained that the delays were due to requiring further grants to make changes to the bathroom. It stated that it could not guarantee the works to the shower unit, as the resident’s plumber had undertaken interim works to it. It stated that it was satisfied that the work was completed as originally planned and where it identified changes were required, these were also undertaken.
  8. In his complaint to this Service, the resident has stated that he moved out of his property from February to September 2022, due to a lack of washing facilities. He was dissatisfied with the landlord response, which he felt blamed him for the poor quality of works, and would like to be compensated accordingly.

Assessment

  1. The landlord’s Disabled Facilities Grant (DFGs) and housing assistance policy states that its primary aim is to provide aids and adaptations to enable people with disabilities to live independently and safely in their own homes. The responsibility for controlling DFGs lies with the landlord. The policy states that there is a duty to consult with the local authority social services on whether the proposed works are required and appropriate to meet the needs of the disabled person. A major adaptations assessment will be carried out by an OT who will determine whether works are ‘necessary’ and ‘appropriate’ to meet the resident’s needs. It is the landlord that must decide on the action that should be taken following the OT’s advice. The landlord must have regard to whether the works would meet the assessed medical and physical needs of the resident. When work is complete the surveyor will visit the property to check the work is satisfactory and complete.
  2. The landlord acted appropriately when the resident contacted it on 10 February 2022, to state that a shower chair would actually be a hindrance. It referred the issue to the OT, who assessed the issue, concluding that just handrails would provide sufficient support. There was a delay of five days, while the landlord made sure that the correct works were undertaken to suit the resident’s needs. This was reasonable, as according to the above policy, the landlord was responsible for ensuring that the works were appropriate for the resident’s needs.
  3. The resident has stated that he complained about the works to the wet room on 4 March 2022. He expressed dissatisfaction about the amount of dust left in the property from the works. The contractors have explained that they were reluctant to take ownership of the cleanliness, as the resident had removed internal doors to paint them during the works and that this was contrary to their advice to wait until the wet room was complete. It is understandable that the contractors felt that this had added to the dust issue, however, in response to the resident’s reports, the landlord agreed to undertake a deep clean on 17 March 2022. The clean was not completed until 21 April 2022, two months after the works were initially completed. This is not a reasonable amount of time to leave the property in a poor state, if the has landlord agreed a responsibility to clean it.
  4. In addition to the dust issue, the resident also reported that the works to the handrails, shower unit and flooring were not to a satisfactory standard. The above DFG policy states that the landlord is responsible for ensuring that the works are appropriate for the resident’s use. However, the landlord did not inspect the works until 26 April 2022, two months after the resident reported the issue. It found that the shower curtain had been fitted so that when closed, it obscured the handrails and half of the shower unit. This meant that the adaptions added were of no use to the resident, as he would not be able to hold onto the rails when accessing the shower. This ultimately made the shower unfit for purpose. The landlord also identified that the anti-slip flooring needed re-working, as it was not level.
  5. The resident has complained that the shower waste pipe was not connected properly when the landlord undertook the initial works in February 2022. He asked for an independent plumber to inspect the shower unit before the landlord attended to inspect this on 21 April 2022. The landlord has stated that it ran the shower when completing the works, without any subsequent leaks. It has also stated that it cannot now ascertain if the pipes were disconnected as it was not able to assess the works before they were attended to by an independent plumber. This is reasonable, as the landlord should have been given the opportunity to attend the property and put right any mistakes before the resident undertook his own inspections or works.
  6. The landlord has stated that it discussed the works internally on 24 May 2022, a month after its inspection of the adaptions. It then asked for a quote for the works on 4 July 2022, another two months after its meeting in May 2022, and a total of five months after the resident reported that the wet room did not function. After the resident chased the landlord in July 2022, the landlord provided a date to commence works on 19 August 2022. The resident cancelled the appointment due to a family emergency. The flooring and handrails were completed in September 2022. While it is understandable that the resident needed to cancel the appointment, the landlord was prepared to attend on that date. It therefore cannot be held responsible for the delay after 19 August 2022, however it can be seen as accountable for the delay to the works between 4 March 2022 and 19 August 2022, a period of five months.
  7. A delay is not always considered a failing, if the landlord was continuing to manage the works and communicating pro-actively with the resident. The landlord should have been in regular contact with the resident, updating him on the steps it was taking to remedy the errors made in the initial works. However, as the landlord has not accounted for the numerous delays and gaps in the timeline in this case, the delay is a failing in the circumstances. Additionally, while it can be seen that the resident repeatedly tried to contact the landlord, it has also failed to provide evidence of any real communication with the resident during this time. This was not appropriate and is also a failing.
  8. In the evidence sent to this Service, the landlord has stated that the resident does not have any vulnerabilities recorded. This case regards the landlord’s installation of a wet-room and adaptions, paid for by a disabled funding grant, following an OT assessment that gives full details of the resident’s disabilities. It is therefore concerning that the landlord has not made a note of this on the resident’s records, as it is part of its responsibilities as a landlord to keep a good record regarding its residents.
  9. When considering works to the resident’s home, the landlord should be assessing what impact the outstanding repairs would have on the resident. If that resident has disabilities, the landlord would be expected to consider if there were any interim solutions available to lessen the impact, or if it can speed up its processes. Despite the wet -room adaptions outstanding for a total of six months, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord considered the significant impact this would have on someone with the resident’s particular mobility issues. This is not appropriate and is a further failing.
  10. According to this Service’s complaint handling code, the landlord should use its complaint procedure to identify any errors, explain why they occurred, acknowledge the impact this had on the resident and aim to put things right. In this case, the landlord’s complaint responses fail to identify its errors in the handling of the resident’s adaptions. The landlord’s stage two response stated that it carried out the works as initially intended, yet it had found that the works to the wet room were not of a good standard and had rectified them in September 2022. The landlord did explain some of the gaps in the repair timeline, however, it did not fully clarify why actions were taken intermittently, and over such an extended period of time. The landlord failed to acknowledge the impact on the resident, who had been without suitable washing facilities for over six months, and had been staying with family. It also did not put things right by offering an apology, compensation, or any changes to its current policies and procedures. This was not appropriate and is a failing in the circumstances.
  11. In-line with the landlord’s compensation policy, if the landlord has caused injustice to the resident, it should consider a remedy if it appears that there has been maladministration. Maladministration includes, for example, an unjustified delay, failure to follow the landlord’s agreed policies, rules or procedures and providing inaccurate or misleading advice. This report has highlighted multiple failings by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s wet room adaptions, including an unreasonable delay, and a failure to check that its works were appropriate for the resident, in-line with its DFG policy. Therefore, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that there was maladministration by the landlord in this case and that compensation should be offered to the resident, to suitably acknowledge the landlord’s failings in this regard, along with any inconvenience caused.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s wet room installation and its refusal to offer compensation.

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report,
    2. Pay the resident £900 compensation, in recognition of the lack of suitable washing facilities within his home and the inconvenience this caused.
    3. Update its records to better record the resident’s vulnerabilities.
    4. Evidence compliance with the above orders.