Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202109125)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202109125

Notting Hill Genesis

24 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:
1. Installation of the shower chair in the resident’s bathroom.
2. Related complaint:

Background

The resident has an assured shorthold tenancy which commenced on 28 June 2010.
The property is described as a two-bedroom flat situated on the second floor of the building. The resident has a disability and the property is fully wheelchair adapted.
The landlord’s responsive repair policy has two categories. Emergency repairs are defined as those that affect a resident’s safety and are responded to within 24 hours. Other repairs are defined as non-urgent and should be responded to within 20 working days. Also, it outlines that it is responsible for showers that it has provided, bathroom flooring and wall tiles.
The landlord’s complaints & compliments policy sets out that a quick fix can be undertaken where it can resolve the complaint within 24 hours. In those circumstances, it does not need to issue a formal response. Complaints handled at the first stage of the complaints procedure will be resolved within 10 working days and at its final stage within 20 working days.

Summary of events

The resident reported on 21 May 2021 that the shower chair needed repair. On 24 May 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to advise that the repair to the shower chair remained outstanding and that the request was urgent. Later that day, the resident sent a complaint about the delay in completing the repair to the shower chair, advising that this had prevented him bathing and showering. He requested that the landlord acknowledge his complaint.
The landlord’s records show that on the same day (24 May 2021), it sent the report from the contractor who had attended the resident’s property to the occupational therapist (OT). The report stated that “attended site and attempted to refix chair. We attached chair with new plugs and bolts but we tested and would not hold. I suggest a new chair with legs is supplied and installed as wall is weak. As it is a stud wall, legs will help support weight.” The landlord asked the OT whether it supplied the style of shower chair required by the resident.
The landlord and OT communicated regarding the type of chair that was required for the resident. It was noted that shower chairs attached to the wall were not adjustable and that the wall in its current state could not support the shower chair.
The landlord emailed the resident to advise that it had received the report from its contractor who had attended his property the previous Friday. It was trying to source the recommended chair and it had not registered his repair request as a complaint. It explained that it was trying to deal with his request as quickly as it could and apologised for the inconvenience he had experienced. It would also keep him updated.
The following day, the landlord again communicated with the OT who informed the landlord that the shower chair was not available. It advised of at least three to four weeks lead time before delivery and that the wall would need to be reinforced.
On 26 May 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to say that if it did not register the complaint, he would contact the Ombudsman.
In response, the landlord contacted the resident to inform him that its contractor had recommended that repairs be undertaken to the wall before the chair could be installed. It had arranged an appointment for this to take place on 28 May 2021. With regard to the complaint, it advised that it was not refusing to register the complaint. However, it considered that the repair was still within its service level agreement and it had not identified a service failure. It requested that the resident allow it to repair the shower wall and chair and reconfirmed the appointment for 28 May 2021. It arranged for the complaint to be registered and sent the acknowledgment to the resident.
On 2 June 2021, the landlord emailed the resident to advise that it was aware that the work to the bathroom wall was completed on 28 May 2021. However, as there would be at least a three week wait before the shower chair could be installed, it asked the resident if he wanted the old chair to be reinstated.
In response, the resident informed the landlord that it had been in receipt of the report since 21 May 2021 and had delayed in contacting him. He stated that as the previous shower chair was damaged, he was surprised that the landlord was offering him the use of a dangerous shower chair. The resident asked whether the landlord’s email was its response to his complaint.
The landlord communicated further with the resident on 2 June 2021 by email. It informed the resident that:
1. The shower chair had been ordered but it would take at least 3 weeks to arrive.
2. It had reinforced the bathroom wall to provide strength and stability.
3. It had offered to refit the old chair until the new chair arrived.
4. It was aware that the resident had not requested a new chair.
5. The new chair would be replaced on a like for like basis. If he wanted a different chair, he should contact the OT and it would review the recommendations once they were received.
6. He should stop making derogatory comments when communicating with its staff and managing agent as these were upsetting.
7. Confirmed that the complaint would be responded to by 9 June 2021.
The resident requested that the old chair be reinstated until the new one became available.
The landlord’s provided its stage 1 complaint response on 4 June 2021. The key findings were:
1. The shower chair was reported on 21 May 2021 and the out of hours service attended the same day.
2. The chair could not be repaired; therefore, the wall was made good 4 days later and a new chair was ordered but the shower chair would take 3 weeks to arrive.
3. His repair request had been treated as a service request as it had not identified a service failure.
4. The shower chair ordered was a similar model to that one already ordered. Due to the time delay, the resident was asked whether he wanted the old chair reinstalled.
5. Agreed to the old chair being refitted as an interim measure. Therefore, its contractor would make contact to arrange for the refitting of the shower chair.
The resident escalated his complaint on 8 June 2021. He requested that the landlord send him its reports dated 21 May 2021, 2 June 2021 and 4 June 2021. He also disputed that he had not experienced a service failure as the housing officer had told him to stop taking a shower and stated that he had been treated like a second-hand citizen. Finally, he asked why the landlord ‘hated disability.’
The same day, (8 June 2021), the landlord emailed the resident. It apologised and sent him the information provided by its contractor. It also, confirmed that its contractor would be carrying out the installation of the shower chair and offered a gesture of good will of £100. It explained that this was for the resident having to wait longer than expected for the installation of the shower chair. It asked the resident that in light of its apology and gesture of good will whether he still wished to progress the complaint.
The resident confirmed to the landlord on the same day that he wanted the complaint to progress. The following day 9 June 2021, the landlord acknowledged the final stage complaint.
The landlord sent its final response to the complaint about the shower chair on 30 June 2021. It explained:
1. The landlord did not share contractor reports but would summarise any recommendations. The final response summarised the contractor’s visits on 21 May 2021, 24 May 2021, 2 June 2021, 4 June 2021 and 7 June 2021.
2. The landlord could not find an email where its staff had stated the resident should stop showering until the shower chair was fitted. It noted the landlord had also raised the repair as an ‘emergency’ and also pro-actively suggested reinstalling the old chair due to the supplier’s delay with the new chair.
3. The landlord could not find any information in its contact with the resident to support their complaint that it treated disabled residents as ‘second class citizens.’ It acknowledged that the repair had not ‘gone to plan,’ but that it had tried to resolve the repair throughout the complaint.
4. The landlord repeated its earlier gesture of good will of £100 to acknowledge the inconvenience caused by the delayed installation of the new shower chair.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated the complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

It is recognised that the resident has been upset and distressed by the landlord’s handling of the replacement shower chair to the property. The resident’s feelings are understood and it is not disputed that dealing with such situations is stressful.
The Ombudsman’s role includes an assessment of whether the landlord has followed its policies and procedures and acted appropriately. In doing so, the Ombudsman will consider the landlord’s response to the substantive issue, as well as the actions it took within its complaints process.

Installation of the shower chair in the resident’s bathroom

The landlord responded appropriately to the report of a broken shower chair by arranging a repair visit on the same day after normal hours. It is reasonable that not all repairs can be completed at the first visit. In this instance the contractor did attempt a repair but found the repaired chair was not safe to use.
The landlord’s submission to this Service shows that the replacement shower chair was not available and it was informed of a delay of at least three weeks before it could be supplied. The landlord cannot be held responsible for the time it can take to produce specialist materials, including items for adaptation works. The emails from the time show the landlord ordered the replacement chair when notified, and that it explored an interim option.
Therefore, the time taken to complete the repair was reasonable. Furthermore, the landlord has acknowledged that although it arranged for the replacement chair as soon as possible, there was still a period of inconvenience for the resident. Therefore, it has made a gesture of good will to acknowledge this.
The resident made allegations about the landlord’s service, including that they had told him that while he did not have use of the shower chair, he should not shower. However, the landlord explained in its complaint responses, it could not find any such comments. The correspondence provided by both parties does not include comments of this nature, and the resident did not specify where or when the comments were made. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord not to take any further action given the lack of evidence.
From what can be seen, the landlord acted appropriately in keeping the resident regularly updated about the action it had taken to strengthen the wall and the delay in installing the shower chair. This was to manage the resident’s expectations by ensuring that the resident was aware of the reason for the delay and suggested an interim arrangement for the short period of time that the resident was without the shower chair.
The landlord is obliged under the Equality Act 2010 to provide appropriate support that meets the needs of the resident. The resident expressed that he was of the view that the landlord did not ‘like disability.’ From what can be seen the landlord reviewed the report from its contractor, communicated with the OT regarding the most appropriate shower chair for the resident. It arranged for the wall to be strengthened as advised and discussed alternative models to decide on the most suitable shower chair for the resident. Therefore, there is no evidence that the landlord did not act appropriately or show appropriate regard for the circumstances that the resident found himself in whilst the shower chair needed to be replaced.
The resident also complained after the final response that the new chair was inappropriate. The resident stated the contractor explained they would have to raise this with the landlord. The contractor was correct that the landlord had replaced the shower chair with a ‘like for like’ replacement as it was advised. This is a reasonable approach for a responsive repair. The landlord’s emails also show it advised the resident that if they felt their needs had changed, they would need an OT assessment to recommend any new or altered adaptations for them to then be ordered. It is reasonable for landlord’s to follow an evidenced based approach, therefore this advice to secure an appropriate expert’s assessment was the appropriate response to the resident’s concerns.

Related complaint

The Complaint Handling Code published in July 2020 gives guidance to landlords to assist with the swift resolution of complaints and improve the resident and tenant relationship. Before the landlord’s formal complaint process, it operates a quick fix response when it can resolve complaints within 24 hours. The resident complained on 24 May 2021, after the landlord’s contractor attended and he remained without a shower chair. The lack of a shower chair had a direct impact on the resident’s personal hygiene and getting the shower chair repaired or replaced was a high priority. The landlord initially responded on the same day to the resident advising that it was treating the matter as a service request as it was its first notification of the issue. The resident maintained that he wanted his concerns progressed to a complaint. There was a delay of two days before the landlord acted in accordance with its complaint procedure and registered the complaint. This was a short coming as it was aware on the day that the resident made his complaint that its contractor had been unable to repair the shower chair and it had been unable to address the resident’s concerns.
The landlord’s complaints and compliments policy says that it will respond to complaints within 10 working days. The landlord responded on 4 June 2021. This was within its service standard, taking 8 working days.
The landlord’s communication was resident focused. It explained the work that would be carried out, time frames it was working to and provided information about the appointments it had arranged with its contractor to repair the wall and reinstall the shower chair.
Following the resident’s escalation of his complaint, the landlord emailed the resident on 8 June 2021. Within this email, the landlord apologised to the resident and made a good will gesture of £100 for the delay he experienced. The same manager responded to the resident’s complaint on 30 June 2021, again within its published complaint time scales. However, while the final stage complaint response was more detailed, than its response of 8 June 2021, the landlord missed an opportunity on 8 June 2021 to provide an earlier and quicker final complaint response to the resident. This would have reduced the time that the resident waited to receive the landlord’s final position regarding his concerns about the installation of the shower chair.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the installation of the shower chair in your bathroom
In accordance with paragraph 52 there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the related complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord to pay the £100 gesture of good will stated in its final complaint response direct to the resident. This is not to be paid to the resident’s rent account in line with this Service remedies guidance.