North Yorkshire Council (202221966)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202221966

Selby District Council

14 July 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the refurbishment of the resident’s wet room.
The landlord’s complaint handling has also been investigated.

Background

The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord, which is a local authority, which started on 25 March 2019. The landlord holds a record of the resident’s medical conditions, which include arthritis, heart disease, spinal degeneration and Crohn’s disease.
On 2 March 2022 the resident reported that the shower pump in his wet room was excessively noisy and not pumping water away. On 3 March 2022 the resident also reported that his toilet was leaking from the back. On 15 March 2022 an order was raised to upgrade the wet room. Around two months later works commenced, although the exact start and end date of these is unclear.
On 27 May 2022 the landlord received a request to install a grab rail on the shower wall and install a specialist toilet following an occupational therapist (OT) visit.
On 16 June 2022 a list of snagging works were sent to the contractor, which included installing the grab rail as this was missed off the original order. On 22 June 2022 the resident reported to landlord that his toilet was not working, and the grab rail had been installed in the incorrect position.
On 23 June 2022 the resident raised a stage one complaint as he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s actions, which included:
1. A lack of information and forward planning regarding the resident’s complex needs.
2. Poor workmanship and being left with an unsafe shower area for 5 working days.
3. Disregard for the resident’s disabilities.
4. Failing to advise how to challenge a decision regarding a decorating allowance.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 27 June 2022 and said that it would provide a response within 20 working days. On 13 July 2022 the landlord contacted the resident asking for further information regarding his complaint. The resident provided further details the same day, including the issue that he was left with no toilet for a number of days and had to use a bucket in his shed.
The landlord provided its stage one response on 19 July 2022, where it apologised for the original repair timescales not being kept and acknowledged that this should have been explained. It further acknowledged that whilst the contractor ordered a temporary toilet, it was not provided and apologised that this did not happen. The response also confirmed that a list of snagging works had been sent back to the contractors and that decorating vouchers would now be issued.
On 12 August 2022 the resident escalated his complaint to stage two as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. The resident said:
1. He was told the work would take approximately one week and he would be without a toilet for one day. Whilst a porta potty was delivered, it was left in the bedroom and not suitable as once filled, the carer was unable to empty due to the weight.
2. He informed the landlord that he did not want the work to commence until an OT assessment had been carried out.
3. The workmanship was poor, and the floor remained unlevel.
4. He remained dissatisfied with the apology given, and that £39 decoration vouchers were not suffice as the ceiling needed to be repaired not just decorated.
5. He felt he had been humiliated by having to wash and shower outside for 10 days and use a bucket and a hose for a toilet. He said that all this could have been avoided if the landlord had just taken the time to listen to him and understand his needs prior to work commencing.
The landlord acknowledged the escalation on 16 August 2022, and a stage two response letter was provided on 4 October 2022. The final response said:
1. It was satisfied that the responses given in the stage one was correct.
2. It acknowledged that there was a delay in getting temporary toilet facilities to the resident and apologised.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 11 January 2023 as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. The resident said that he felt that the landlord had humiliated him and treated him with a complete lack of respect as he was left without a toilet for three days and a shower for ten days, despite being aware of his disabilities. He remained dissatisfied that the landlord said the works would take five days, but actually took six weeks. The resident said that in order to resolve his complaint he wants the specialist toilet to be commissioned, the outstanding repairs to be completed and financial compensation for the significant emotional distress, material inconvenience and financial loss he has suffered.

Assessment and findings

It is this Service’s role to assess the landlord’s response to the concerns raised by the resident and determine whether it acted reasonably based on the information available to it at the time.
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 landlord’s handling of the refurbishment of the resident’s wet room.

The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for:
1. Keeping in repair and proper working order the installations in the home for the supply of water, gas, electricity, sanitation and for space for water heating.
2. Basins, sinks, baths, toilets, flushing systems and waste pipes, water pipes, taps and stop taps.
The landlord’s tenant handbook, repairs and maintenance, states that it will listen to any problems that a resident has about a repair and try to put it right. It further states that it will respond quickly to health and safety issues, carry out repairs quickly and in one visit if possible. It also categorises repairs as:
1. Emergency repairs: To prevent a serious risk to health and safety and will be carried out within 24 hours.
2. Urgent: Repairs that need attention but are no risk to health and safety and will be carried out within five days.
3. Non-urgent: repairs that only cause minor inconvenience and have little effect on the property and will be carried out within 25 days.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight on record keeping details that keeping an accurate audit trail is an important part of a landlord’s service delivery. The landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate and detailed records of any conversations relating to repairs so that it can satisfy itself and the resident (and ultimately the Ombudsman if necessary) that it acted in accordance with what was discussed and with its policies.
The landlord says that following the resident’s reports of an issue with his existing wet room on 2 and 3 March 2022, it raised an order to upgrade the wet room. Whilst the landlord has provided this Service with a copy of the order it sent to the contractor, which says ‘upgrade the wet room as per a site visit on 15 March 2022’, it has been unable to provide any repair records which provide further details about when the initial repairs were attended to, the outcome or what was discussed on the site visit of 15 March 2022.
Based on information detailed in the resident’s letter, dated 13 July 2022, the work commenced on 9 May 2022. The landlord has been unable to provide any information which shows when the work did start or when it was completed, nor what work was carried out. Furthermore, there are also no records which show the landlord considered the resident’s disabilities and what, if any, reasonable adjustments needed to be made whilst the work was carried out.
It is assumed that the works to the wet room were completed in approximately the middle of June, as this Service has been provided with an email, dated 16 June 2022, detailing a list of snagging works. It further confirmed that the grab rail had not been installed in the bathroom, as requested by the OT, as it had been missed off the order. The landlord has been unable to supply any further information which confirms when the grabrail was installed, or when the snagging works were completed, which again demonstrates an issue with record keeping.
Records do indicate that on 22 June 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to inform it that the toilet would not flush, and the grabrail had been installed in the wrong place. The landlord has again been unable to supply any information which confirms how the resident’s reports were dealt with and whether it was in line with its own repairs policy and procedure.
This Service requested information from the landlord to evidence the way in which it handled the resident’s repairs, wet room replacement and concerns that he was without a working toilet, including:
1. Records which show the repair that was raised, on what date, what works were originally being carried out and any communications which documents why it was amended to major works.
2. Any letters, copies of emails or telephone calls which show what information the resident was given regarding the major works/refurbishment of his bathroom, including any contact regarding the delay and any explanations given to the resident for this.
3. Any information relating to the resident’s reports that he was without a toilet or washing facilities for a number of days, and any action taken, including any details as to whether a temporary decant was considered.
The Ombudsman has received very little information from the landlord, which indicates the landlord either does not hold these records or is unable to retrieve them. This Service would expect all contact to be recorded on the landlord’s system, to ensure there is an audit trail for any future issues that are raised. The landlord provided the resident with a brief response in it’s complaint responses, but the landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with any evidence to support its position.
It is for the Ombudsman to decide whether the landlord acted reasonably and fairly given the circumstances at the time. The resident says that he informed the landlord on multiple occasions of his disabilities and why he required a toilet, the resident said that he felt embarrassed having to describe the effects of his disabilities and felt that that landlord did not take it seriously. The resident also says that he explained that a porta potty was not suitable due to the number of times he used a toilet a day, but despite him explaining this, he was left without a working toilet for over three days and without shower facilities for ten days. The landlord’s final response acknowledged that the resident was without toilet facilities and apologised, however no further details relating to how it responded to the resident’s reports and the actions it took were provided.
The landlord said in it’s stage one response that there had been delay and that it had not been communicated to the resident effectively, it also acknowledged that the resident was not provided with adequate temporary toilet facilities and apologised for this, as well as the poor workmanship and lack of communication.
While it was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge and apologise for these failings, it failed to recognise the impact that the delay had on the resident, namely that he was unable to use the toilet or shower for a number of days, which resulted in a loss of dignity and extreme inconvenience for the resident. As such, it has not taken sufficient action to ‘put things right’ for the resident. Neither did it detail how it ‘learned from outcomes’ and what steps it had taken to prevent a recurrence of the failings.
Furthermore, it is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord failed to acknowledge or respond appropriately to the resident’s reports that he was without facilities for a number of days and that the landlord’s responses were in such a manner that it treated the resident personally in an unsympathetic manner.
The Ombudsman draws the landlord’s attention to section six of the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code, which sets out what the Ombudsman considers are the best practice principles of “putting things right” where there have been failings. This includes the principle that any remedy offered by a landlord “must reflect the extent of any service failures and the level of detriment caused to the resident”. Therefore, the decision to not take into consideration those factors was not reasonable.
In assessing an appropriate level of compensation, the Ombudsman takes into account a range of factors including any distress and inconvenience caused by the issues, the amount of time and effort expended on pursuing the matter with the landlord, and the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s acts and/or omissions. It considers whether any redress is proportionate to the severity of the failing by the landlord and the impact on the resident. The Ombudsman also takes into account the evidence that has been provided.
Ultimately the Ombudsman considers what would be fair and proportionate. The aim of compensation is not to be punitive, but to provide redress for the impact of any failings by the landlord on the resident. In the case of compensation for distress and inconvenience, we are not able to quantify a definitive loss and the intention of such an award is to recognise the overall distress and inconvenience suffered by the resident.
The Ombudsman has first considered the distress and inconvenience suffered by the resident as a result of the resident being without a toilet and shower for a number of days. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance where there has been a failure which had a significant impact on the resident, an amount of £600 to £1000 is recommended. Whilst it is unclear exactly what actions the landlord took due to its lack of records, the resident expressed the substantial emotional distress and loss of dignity he suffered as a result of being without a working toilet and shower for a number of days, of which the landlord was obliged to provide.
In recognition of this, the Ombudsman has made an order for the landlord to pay £1000 compensation, along with a number of other orders to ‘put things right’ for the resident and ensure that the landlord takes action to ‘learn from outcomes’.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord’s complaint policy states that it operates a two stage process. It states that a stage one complaint will be dealt with by the service team relevant to a case and will be acknowledged within five working days and responded to within 15 working days, with the possibility to extend to 20 working days. Residents can expect an explanation of why it has come to a decision and where appropriate an offer of remedy and what it will do to prevent it from happening again.
If the resident remains unhappy with the outcome, they can escalate their complaint to stage two by giving the landlord their reasons for wishing to escalate. Stage two complaints are classed as a formal investigation, which is carried out by a member of staff who has not had any previous involvement with the case. The policy states that residents can expect contact to confirm who is dealing with the case, the points of complaint and desired outcome within five working days and would then receive a response from the senior officer setting out the decision on the complaint.
The landlord’s compensation policy, dated 2022, states that it may consider making a monetary payment as a gesture of goodwill where service delivery failings cause exceptional inconvenience, stress, disturbance or annoyance. Any requests for compensation as a result of a service delivery failure will be dealt with on a case by case basis and considered at the discretion of senior staff.
The resident’s stage one complaint was appropriately acknowledged and responded to within its documented timescales and the response acknowledged some service failings and appropriately apologised. Furthermore, when the resident escalated his complaint to stage two giving clear and detailed reasons for his dissatisfaction, the landlord again acknowledged the complaint within its documented timeframe and based on the landlord’s policy, the resident should have received a response to his stage two complaint by 13 September 2022.
The landlord failed to make contact with the resident or progress the resident’s stage two complaint within the timeframe given, and this prompted the resident to chase the landlord on 21 September 2022 for a response. The landlord sent a second stage two acknowledgement on the same day and said it would respond within 10 working days.
The landlord provided a stage two response 37 working days after the resident’s escalation, which was outside of its own policy timeframe. Although the response clearly set out the points the resident had raised at stage two, the landlord failed to address these as it said it would not consider new issues raised. For example, when the resident raised additional information in his stage two escalation relating to the temporary toilet facilities, the landlord said in its response ‘whilst I am not required to investigate new information provided as part of a Stage 2 complaint which was not included in the original complaint, it is clear to me there was a delay in getting appropriate temporary facilities for you which should not have been the case and for which I would like to offer my sincere apologies’. It also failed to address the resident’s request for compensation.
It is unclear how the landlord was able to able to conduct a full investigation and make a decision on its handling of the wet room replacement, given the lack of records it held, but it is clear that it did not follow dispute resolution principles when responding to the resident’s complaint at stage two. The response dismissed the resident’s comments and did not consider the emotional impact it had on him.
Furthermore, when the landlord responds to each point raised by the resident, the landlord simply replies and says ‘our response to your Stage 1 complaint in which this point was specifically addressed I must advise that I am satisfied the response provided is correct. To this end, I do not uphold your complaint in respect of this issue’.
The landlord missed an opportunity to put things right for the resident or demonstrate that it conducted a fair and impartial investigation at stage two of the process. It also failed to take sufficient action to ‘put things right’ for the resident, neither had it detailed how it has ‘learned from outcomes’ and what steps it has taken to prevent a recurrence of the failings. This amounted to maladministration.
The Ombudsman has considered the impact on the resident regarding the delay that he experienced in the complaint handling, and also the missed opportunity by the landlord to put things right. In line with this Service’s remedy guidance, where there has been a failure which has adversely affected the resident and the landlord has made no attempt to put things right, payments of between £100 and £600 are recommended.
In recognition of the time and trouble and distress and inconvenience the resident has experienced, as well as the poor complaint handling by the landlord, the Ombudsman has made an order for the landlord to pay the resident an amount £350.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the wet room refurbishment.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £1350 within four weeks of the date of this report for the reasons identified above.
The landlord is ordered to review its record keeping practices, to ensure that accurate and accessible records are kept and maintained. As part of its review, the landlord should consider whether a record management policy and staff training are required. The landlord should write to the Ombudsman confirming this has been completed and detailing the outcome.
The landlord is ordered to carry out a case review to identify any lessons that can be learnt from this complaint, and any changes which may be needed to the landlord’s processes and policies in view of this. The landlord should write to the resident and this Service to confirm the findings of this case review within eight weeks of the date of this report.
The landlord should provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report within four weeks of the date of this report.
The landlord should carry out a post inspection of the resident’s bathroom within four weeks of the date of this report and complete any works identified within eight weeks of the report. This includes ensuring the toilet is inspected and any work required is completed. Ensure the toilet is inspected and any work required is completed, and the resident provided with instructions on how to use and maintain.

Recommendations

The landlord should review its processes relating to how it handles repairs, refurbishments or replacement works within the homes of residents who have medical conditions and vulnerabilities.
The landlord should consider producing a policy relating to planned works, including major refurbishments.
The landlord should carry out training with its repairs contractors to ensure all relevant information is recorded accurately to reflect the work that has been completed following a repairs visit.
The landlord should review the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on record keeping and the importance of keeping up to date and accurate data.