Manchester City Council (202101585)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202101585

Northwards Housing

14 December 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

The resident complains about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Reports of problems with the wet room at the property, and;
2. kitchen repairs
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord must keep in repair and proper working order installations for supplying water and sanitation.
The tenancy agreement also sets out that the landlord would not maintain items installed by a resident without prior agreement.
The landlord’s service standards document set out that the landlord would attended within five working days to repair things like a broken toilet, and three weeks to repair things like roof slates or a blocked gutter.
The landlord’s complaints policy set out a three stage process. At stage one complaints would be acknowledged within five working days, and a full response provided within 10 working days. If a response within 10 working days was not possible the customer should be contacted to explain the reason for the delay and wherever possible be given a date when they can expect a final response. If the resident was unhappy with the response, they could request a review at stage two (with same response times as stage one) If they were still unhappy with the response the resident could appeal against the decision or the way their complaint has been handled to a Director.

Scope

Generally, and in line with the terms of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman will only consider matters that have completed a landlord’s formal complaint process. This is because a landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and formally respond to complaints before the Ombudsman makes a determination. In this case, the wet room and kitchen repair issues were ongoing after the date of the final response (August 2021), but as the landlord would not have been able to consider these events as part of its complaint process, they fall outside the scope of this investigation to assess. Details of these events are included below in the summary of events by way of background only.

Summary of events

A new wet room was installed at the resident’ property in early 2020 to assist her son. The records (and the resident’s own account) indicate that on 22 July 2020 the resident first raised concerns about the wet room and an insufficient slope not allowing the shower to drain, and then again in August 2020, chasing the landlord for a resolution. She explained that the wet room had been installed for her disabled son who experienced frequent seizures, but he had slipped multiple times because the water did not drain. The water also leaked out into the hallway. She noted that surveyors had attended and said that the slope was not deep enough, and so she asked that this be addressed.
The landlord has stated in an account provided to the Ombudsman that when the resident first reported the wet room issue, an engineer visited and advised that a shower screen be installed, as this would prevent the water spilling onto the floor. However the resident felt that this would be hazardous to her son, as a screen could break if he had a seizure and fell against it, so she did not agree to this. The landlord has said, ‘We continued to have a dialogue with Ms Gordon about the issue and one of our surveyors…was due to visit in early September to see what other option there was to the shower screen.’
Emails from early September 2020 between the surveyor and the resident show the surveyor arranging to visit the property, along with the Local Authority (the department that originally assessed the resident’s son’s needs), ‘to obtain a solution seeing as there are no major concerns over workmanship but rather the size of the bathroom etc.’ It was noted that when the surveyor tested the wet room, the water did not penetrate outside of the shower enclosure, and the issue appeared to arise when the resident’s son was showering and the curtain moved around. The surveyor asked the resident to get back in touch when she was able to rearrange the appointment.
Around this same time, the resident reported a leak from her roof. The resident has explained that as part of a remedy to concerns she raised about the handling of this repair, the landlord agreed to provide new kitchen cupboard doors and drawer fronts. Conversely, the landlord has stated that it has no record of this agreement.
From both the resident’s and the landlord’s description of events, there was no further contact about the wet room for sometime. The next documented contact in the landlord’s records is 7 April 2021, when the resident called to say that the wet room was not draining water. The record of the call states, ‘She said she has been sorting it out herself but it is getting out of hand. She has to clear this 2-3 times a week.’ A job was raised and attended, but a week later the resident called to say this had not resolved the issue.
On 19 April 2021 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. She said, ‘I am still now having issues with this wet room, so many issues that so far I have gone 5 days without the wet room working. My son has to be cleaned with wet wipes when he’s finished his seizure. I have rang the council many times, workmen have come out and jokingly said I’ll be here soon again because this won’t stop happening. I need something sorting permanently. I have sent numerous emails to northwards, I think the shower has been temporarily fixed in the past week about 3 times. I’m constantly told something will be done, however nothing ever is.’ The landlord attended and replaced the pump in the wet room that same month.
Also in April 2021, the resident contacted the Ombudsman, raising concerns about a number of repair issues, including the wet room, and kitchen cupboard door and drawer repairs. In May 2021 the Ombudsman contacted the landlord and asked it to address these complaints.
In relation to the kitchen cupboard door/drawer repairs, the landlord has explained to the Ombudsman that as it had no record of an agreement to replace these, it inspected the kitchen on 24 April 2021. It was noted that the resident had installed her own kitchen which had begun to show wear and tear, and landlord agreed to replace the doors to some cupboards and add additional units. This work was raised with an expected completion of 29 June 2021, but was dependent on the kitchen units arriving in stock.
On 14 May 2021 the resident contacted the landlord and advised that the issue with the wet room had not been resolved.
On 25 May 2021 the landlord sent a stage one complaint response to the resident, stating that the kitchen cupboards and doors were being replaced, with some additional units added, but these works may be delayed due to parts being required. It said that the issue with the wet room had been passed onto the Adaptations team to deal with.
On 6 June 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to state that the problem with the wet room had not been resolved, and this had caused her son to slip and injure himself. She said, ‘This wet room was built for the purpose of protection and ease of his day to day life. This has not been achieved, since this wet room has been built I have reported numerous issues and had constant phone calls to get something sorted. Almost 1 year I have been making complaints and sending emails.’ She said that the shower did not drain, which made the bathroom slippery and dangerous to use, and was affecting the flooring and carpets in the property. She said, ‘I have been told that it has not been built properly and the slope is not steep enough…A proper slope needs to be installed’.
On 24 June 2021 the resident emailed the landlord again, setting out her complaint about the wet room. She said that since its installation there had been numerous issues, and this was now ‘the final straw’ before she took the matter to her MP and the Ombudsman. The resident said that the slope was not sufficient enough to allow water to drain, which meant that water leaked into the hallway, and her son had fallen numerous times due to the water not draining properly causing the floor to become slippery. She stated, ‘My 23 year old disabled son has to have me clean him with a water bowl in my kitchen…You are subjecting him to embarrassment, which is effecting his mental health.’ On 25 June 2021 the resident said that she would like the slope to be made steeper. If this was not possible, the wet room replaced with a bathroom suite, and the downstairs toilet turned into a shower room for her son.
The landlord has said that around this time an adapted bathroom specialist reviewed the wet room (there is no record of this but appears to have been in early July 2021).
On 21 July 2021 the landlord met with the resident to discuss options, and then emailed her to confirm this. It set out the options as:
1. Utilising space downstairs and installing a shower area only.
2. A bathroom extension.
3. Rehousing.
4. ‘Rip out existing shower area and re-do.’
The resident discussed these options with the landlord on 26 July 2021, and the landlord sent a stage two complaint response that day. It said that the adapted bathroom specialist had reviewed the wet room installation and to address the issues, recommended that the shower curtain be re-positioned more into the shower area, with a gap of 10mm left between the bottom of the shower curtain and the floor. The landlord noted that this had been relayed to the resident on 15 July 2021 who was very dissatisfied with the proposal. The landlord had therefore arranged a meeting with its own staff members that led on adaptation installations and assessments, who visited the property on 21 July 2021 and identified a number of options that may suit the family’s needs. The landlord said, ‘We are in the process of exploring those options to identify a mutually agreeable solution and…will be in touch.’
Regarding the kitchen, the landlord said that a delivery of kitchen units was expected at the end of July 2021 and when in stock, its contractor would make contact to arrange an appointment to carry out the kitchen unit repairs.
On 27 July 2021 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm that she no longer wished to consider the option of an extension as she would be too far away from her son if he was on the ground floor in the event of a seizure. The landlord said that the family had been awarded a B1 medical priority for a rehousing application, but could not advise on timescales for an appropriate offer due to the lack of social stock available and the type of property needed.
The Ombudsman understands that sometime over the next few weeks (although it is not clear when or how) it was agreed that the landlord would remove the wet room and re-install a bathroom. This was to address the problems that the family was experiencing with the wet room and provide bathing facilities that they could use while options and adaptations to the ground floor of the property were explored.
The landlord sent a stage two update letter on 25 August 2021, in which it referred to a discussion it had with the resident the previous day. It confirmed that it would re-instate a bathroom, with a new standard electric shower at the end of the bath on the wall. The timescale for this was yet to be confirmed. The resident would be contacted to make an appointment for the surveyor to visit that week. It also said that as discussed, it would be replacing seven pink kitchen unit doors and two drawer fronts with plain white doors and drawer fronts. The timescale for this was yet to be confirmed.

Post – complaint process

The landlord notes that it visited the resident at home on 1 September 2021 and discussed further adaptions to the ground floor of the property, to remove the current wet room and install a bath, and then create a separate wet room facility, which the resident agreed to. A job was raised to reinstate the bathroom on 6 September 2021. The works to the kitchen units would be carried out once the adaptation was completed.
The landlord reports that on 17 September 2021 the resident made contact and advised that she no longer wanted to go ahead with the agreed adaptation works to the property, and instead wanted to look at either moving, or to look again at the option of an extension. The landlord notes that it identified a property which already had some of the adaptations needed, which the resident viewed, but did not accept, and asked the landlord to consider an extension to her current property.
The Ombudsman understands that following this, an extension to the ground floor of the property was agreed, and that the landlord would wait for the adaptions works to be carried out before it undertook the kitchen unit works. In the meantime, the work to reinstate the bathroom was completed in early October 2021.
On 13 October 2021 the landlord confirmed to this Service that it was in the process of implementing the actions that were agreed in its stage two response. It said that until it could fully appraise the feasibility of a ground floor extension it would not carry out the work to the kitchen. It explained that it would receive the plans and budget for the extension which would then need to go to an adaptations panel for approval.
The resident informed this Service in November 2021 that the landlord had offered her £1000 in compensation, which she would accept but believed to be insufficient. She said, ‘I have to pay for new carpets and new floors because of northwards housing negligence… I have to pay for items to be installed/ removed. This would not have occurred if it wasn’t for northwards housing being negligent.’
The Ombudsman understands that this compensation was broken down as £600 for damage to carpets, £250 for time and trouble relating to the wet room issue, and £150 for an unrelated repair.
The evidence available suggests that the kitchen works were carried out in January/February 2022. The landlord has recently confirmed that, ‘following extensive difficulties with the planning application’ the construction of a rear ground floor extension forming a wet room and adjacent bedroom commenced on 5 October 202, and will be completed by mid-January 2023.

Assessment and findings

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes;
2. Put things right, and;
3. learn from outcomes.
The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse affect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.

The wet room

In her complaint to this Service, the resident has explained that she has made over 50 telephone calls to the landlord to try and resolve the issue with the wet room. She says, ‘Constantly I have had council workers come out and just use a plunger to remove water from the pump, with them joking saying this won’t be the last time we’ll be here. In one week, my shower broke around 5 times. Not once was it resolved for the long term; just short term fixed with the same result in the end of no actual resolution.’
She said that the stress of the situation caused her son to have more seizures, and he was injured ‘multiple times’ due to slipping on the wet room floor, and the water leaking from the wet room ruined carpets. The resident reports that at one time the family did not have access to a shower for five days, and eventually she had to send her son to a relatives in a taxi to access shower facilities, which had led to a distressing incident with a taxi driver who had made comments about her son. The resident has said that she begged and cried during calls to the landlord to resolve the situation, to be told ‘well it’s been reported to adaptations, and they should pick it up and sort it’. The resident is seeking £8,500 for emotional stress, the length of time it was taking to complete repairs, damage to carpets, and taxi costs.
As part of this investigation the Ombudsman requested evidence from the landlord, such as copies of any survey or inspection reports and the repairs records. While some records have been provided there is little in the way of contemporaneous evidence of events such as surveyor visits or the adapted bathroom specialist inspection, although the landlord has provided a detailed chronology. It is therefore somewhat unclear whether the landlord agreed with the resident’s assertion that the problem with the shower was due to the slope being inadequate to drain water away. Neither are there records of the multiple visits from contractors that the resident has referred to.
In line with its repairs policy, when the resident reported an issue with the wet room in July 2020, the landlord was obliged to attend and address this. The landlord has said that its contractor attended in early August 2020 and recommended a shower screen, and that it was found that the slope was adequate and rather the issue was ‘the size of the bathroom and the proximity the tray is to the door’. However, as noted above, there is no contemporaneous record of this visit. The resident declined the shower screen, and the matter was later passed to a surveyor. From this account, the landlord would seem to have responded to the resident’s concerns reasonably up to this point, albeit with a lack of recorded evidence of events.
The evidence that is available shows that some seven weeks later, in September 2020, the surveyor made arrangements to visit the property along with the Local Authority to try and find a solution. The evidence also indicates that the surveyor had inspected the wet room at some point prior to this (there is no record of this so the date is unclear) and had not found that the water penetrated outside of the shower enclosure. A surveyor attending to inspect, and a further visit with the Local Authority were reasonable courses of action to take, and demonstrate that the landlord was taking steps to identify and resolve the problem, despite no repair related issue having been found. However, these actions perhaps could have happened sooner, and there is also an indication that the resident had to chase up the landlord to progress the matter during this period.
The email from the surveyor to the resident shows that, when the resident was unable to facilitate this visit, the surveyor asked her to get in touch to rearrange it when she was able to. From the account of both parties, the resident did not rearrange the appointment at that time. While the landlord could have proactively followed this up itself when it did not hear back from the resident, this was not so serious a shortcoming as to warrant a finding of maladministration.
When the resident next contacted the landlord about the issue in April 2021, it attended and replaced the pump in the wet room within three weeks. The repair records do not indicate under what priority this repair was raised, but referring to the examples given in the landlord’s service standards document, a repair to a shower could reasonably be said to have come under ‘five working days’, and so there was a delay here (apparently caused by the wrong part being ordered). Having said this, replacing the pump was a reasonable action to take to try and alleviate the issues that the resident was experiencing.
On 14 May 2021 the resident reported that the issue with the wet room had not been resolved, and in its stage one response of 25 May 2021, the landlord said that the matter had been passed on to the adaptations team to address. Given that the new pump had not resolved the issue, and that the resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s subsequent suggestion relating to a shower curtain/screen, it was reasonable that the landlord referred the matter to the adaptations team, who would have been best placed to assess the family’s needs. However, there is then little evidence of the landlord taking action or otherwise keeping the resident updated until the visit on 21 July 2021, despite the resident making a number of contacts about the issue in June 2021. The landlord has acknowledged this in its communications with this Service, stating ‘Unfortunately the issues with the wet room don’t appear to have been picked up at this point by the adaptations team and [the resident] had to contact us again in June to have this looked at.’ This was an unreasonable delay on the part of the landlord, especially so in light of the difficulties and distress the resident had explained that the situation was causing her and her son.
The landlord has said that it then arranged for an adapted bathroom specialist to visit to assess the situation, but again there is no record of this, and the date of the visit is unclear.
It was then reasonable for the landlord to discuss the various options with the resident that could be considered to resolve the problems with the wet room, and seek her input and preferences. The resident had stated in July 2021 she did not wish to explore the option of an extension, and it seems that sometime between then and August 2021 it was agreed that the landlord would remove the shower from the wet room and re-install a bathroom, with the landlord confirming this in its 25 August 2021 letter to the resident. While this was reasonable in itself, there are again no contemporaneous records during the period July to August 2021, and so it is unclear why it took another month to agree this way forward. In lieu of any evidence to the contrary, this was another delay on the part of the landlord, with no evidence of the resident being updated.
Overall, the evidence available shows that the landlord took a number of steps to try and address the issues that the resident had reported in 2020 and again in 2021, with some minor delays. However, when it became aware that replacing the pump in May 2021 had not resolved the problem, it should have progressed the matter with more urgency: The actions it took (such as discussing options with the resident in July 2021) were reasonable, but should have happened sooner. The delays represent a failing on the part of the landlord, and would have been frustrating for the resident, caused her time and trouble pursuing the matter, and prolonged the difficulties and distress that she and her son were experiencing due to the lack of facilities.
Further, there was a lack of accurate record keeping, which conceivably could have contributed to the delays as this would not have allowed the landlord to have tracked progress. It has also meant that the landlord has not been fully able to evidence some of the actions it refers to having been taken.
In its communications with this Service, the landlord has itself recognised that it had not, ‘…not adequately dealt with [the resident’s] complaints and issues. The time taken to fully resolve the issues is unacceptable. There were some mitigating factors, which hampered our response…however I do not believe that these factors were enough to prevent us dealing better with [the resident’s] issues.’ The landlord has said that while the issue with the wet room had not been straightforward to resolve, the resident had to contact it on far too many occasions to take it forward, and it accepted that damage had been caused to the carpet. As such, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to have taken action to ‘put things right’ for the resident and ‘learn from outcomes’.
The landlord did not recognise these failings or offer any compensation during the formal complaint process, but has since offered the resident £600 for damage caused to her carpets from the leaking wet room, and £250 for time and trouble relating to the issue. It was reasonable for the landlord to offer compensation for the financial loss associated with the carpet, and shows that it was willing to take action to ‘put things right’ for the resident. However, given the delays in progressing a resolution to the problem, £250 was insufficient an amount to remedy the adverse effect the delays had. Further, it would have been more appropriate for it to have considered this sooner, as part of its complaints process and prior to any intervention from this Service. It is therefore recommended that the landlord takes steps to ensure that the circumstances of a case and points of learning are fully considered as part of its complaints process to avoid similar circumstances in the future.
The Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance sets out that amounts of £100 to £600 are appropriate where there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident, and where a landlord has made some attempt to put things right but the offer was not proportionate. Taking all of the circumstances of this case into account and the adverse affect that the resident has described, an amount at the upper end if this scale is ordered below in relation to the time and trouble, inconvenience, and distress experienced.
Finally, although the landlord recognised failings, it has not provided any detail on how it will ‘learn from outcomes’ in this case, to prevent similar failings in the future. An order is made below to address this.

The kitchen

The Ombudsman understands that the kitchen was installed by the resident herself, with no agreement for the landlord to maintain. Therefore, in line with the tenancy agreement, repairs/replacements were not the responsibility of the landlord.
The resident has explained that as part of a resolution to concerns about a roof repair in 2020, the landlord had verbally agreed to provide new cupboard doors and drawer fronts. The landlord has stated to this Service that it looked into this when the resident raised it in April 2021, and was unable to find evidence of this agreement. Nevertheless, in April 2021 it agreed to replace the doors to some cupboards and add additional units. This demonstrates that the landlord was willing to take action outside of its obligations to address the resident’s concerns about the kitchen.
Once it had agreed to do this work, whether outside of its obligations or not, it should have ensured this was progressed, and the resident kept updated. There is no record of when the job was raised, and it was not until a month later, in its May 2021 stage one response, that there is evidence of the landlord updating the resident on the matter, saying that the works may be delayed due to parts being required. In its subsequent stage two response two months later it said that a delivery of kitchen units was expected at the end of July 2021. A further month later, in its 25 August 2021 letter, it said that the timescale for the work was not yet confirmed.
The landlord has stated to the Ombudsman that the resident was then not satisfied with the proposed repair to the kitchen, as the new units would not match the colour of her existing units. It has said, ‘As part of a compensation package, [the landlord] therefore agreed to replace all the doors and drawer fronts of the existing units in white, to match the additional units that Northwards had offered. However, when we attempted to do this, we realised that the units are not a standard size, so we couldn’t simple replace attach new doors to the carcases. Therefore, as another measure of our goodwill we agreed to replace these units, which total one sink unit, two wall units and one base unit…’ There are no contemporaneous records of this, and it is not clear when this agreement occurred, or when the landlord realised that the units were not of a standard size.
From the resident’s account, contractors had attended around mid-August 2021 and it was at this visit it was found that the wrong items had been ordered, and the kitchen was left half finished, with the incorrect kitchen units taking up space in the dining room, and the landlord failing to make contact or follow up.
Overall, and while there are a lack of contemporaneous records relating to this, the accounts of the landlord and the resident broadly accord, and indicate that while the landlord had ‘good intentions’ in carrying out works to the kitchen, these were not well executed, with delays in progressing the works and communication. This would have been frustrating for the resident, and caused time and trouble in pursuing the matter. The landlord has not recognised this in its complaint responses and so cannot be said to have ‘put things right’ for the resident. As such, and taking into account that the matter does not appear to have impacted on the resident’s ability to use the kitchen, an order of compensation is made below.
Once it became clear that major works may take place to the downstairs of the property, it was reasonable for the landlord to put on hold any works to the kitchen.

Determination (decision)

In line with section 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of problems with the wet-room at the property.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the kitchen repairs.
3. Service failure in the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

There were delays in the landlord’s progression of the wet room issue, which it did not recognise or offer remedy for until after the completion of the complaint process. While it was appropriate that it did then do so, the offer of compensation was inadequate in light of the adverse effect that the resident has described, and there is no indication that the landlord has ‘learnt from outcomes’. A finding of ‘service failure’ is found in relation to this issue rather than the more serious ‘maladministration’, to reflect that efforts made by the landlord to recognise its failing.
There was a long delay in the kitchen repair, with a lack of communication and updates provide to the resident, causing frustration and time and trouble.
There are a lack of contemporaneous records, indicating poor record keeping.

Orders

Within six weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Pay the resident a total of £1,275 (£600 for damage to carpets, £600 for the adverse affect the delays with the wet room had, and £75 for the adverse affect the delays with the kitchen repairs had). If any the £850 offered by the landlord in November 2021 in relation to the wet room issue has already been paid to the resident, it can be deducted from this total.
2. Carry out a review of the handling of the wet-room issue, to determine the reason for the delays and mishandling, and what action the landlord has/will take to prevent these in the future. This should include consideration of record keeping. The landlord should advise the Ombudsman of the outcome of this review.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord takes steps, such as staff training, to ensure that the circumstances of a case and points of learning are fully considered as part of its complaints process.