Nottingham City Homes Registered Provider Limited (202109191)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202109191

Nottingham City Homes Registered Provider Limited

15 July 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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of uneven flooring at the property.
    2. The landlord’s handling of adaptations to the resident’s front door.
    3. The landlord’s handling of repairs to a blocked drain in the wet room at the property and to the boiler.
    4. The landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

  1. The resident occupies the property, a 2-bedroom bungalow, under a secure tenancy agreement with the landlord dated 24 December 2019. The resident has a disability affecting her mobility and requires the use of a walking aid.
  2. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about its handling of repairs and other works to the property, including adaptations to make the property’s front door more accessible, a request to address uneven floors within the property, repairs to a blocked shower drain and a repair to the boiler. The resident complained about the landlord’s poor communication.
  3. In its complaint response the landlord confirmed that it had attended a blocked shower drain at the property on 9 September 2020. Its records showed that it had received no further reports of drainage issues. The landlord explained that it was not responsible for managing the works to the resident’s front door, as these were organised by the adaptations team within the Council on the recommendation of an Occupational Therapist (OT). Although some works had been completed to the boiler in November 2020, the issues were not resolved until 24 December 2020, for which the landlord apologised. The final complaint response acknowledged that there had been several discussions about the property’s flooring and the landlord had concluded that this was not a repairs issue, as the floor was operating as it should and no damage was identified. The landlord acknowledged that the resident may be adversely affected by the slight deflection in some areas due to her mobility issues. It noted that this should be pursued through the Council’s adaptations scheme. The landlord apologised if this advice was not made clear to the resident in its previous communications.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. A copy of the resident’s formal complaint has not been provided to this investigation, nor has any evidence of correspondence with the resident pre-dating the complaint. It is understood from the stage 1 response that the original complaint of 18 December 2020 included concerns about the landlord’s handling of window repairs and an ant infestation. As these issues were not pursued by the resident in her escalation request or responded to by the landlord at the final stage, the Ombudsman has only investigated the matters listed in the complaint definition above.
  2. The landlord elected to log the resident’s complaints of 18 December 2020, 29 April 2021, and 4 May 2021 as separate complaints but provided a single response on 13 May 2021. It stated that this was a stage 1 response to the complaints made in April and May and a final response to the original complaint of December 2020.
  3. No evidence has been provided that the resident requested the escalation of her stage 1 complaints, or that the landlord provided any further response and so the Ombudsman has only considered the issues raised in the complaint of 18 December 2020 as part of this investigation. This is because the Ombudsman cannot investigate complaints that have not completed the landlord’s formal complaints process, in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme.

Landlord’s handling of reports of uneven flooring

  1. According to the landlord’s repairs records, the floorboards at the property were inspected on 30 October 2020 as the resident reported that she had fallen due to uneven areas or flooring. The repairs records do not detail what, if any, works were completed at this time. The limited information provided to this investigation raises concerns about the landlord’s record keeping.
  2. Following the complaint, an order was raised on 13 January 2021 for faulty floorboards and another on 19 January 2021 for uneven areas of the kitchen floor. The latter was marked completed on 3 March 2021. Again, there are limited details as to what, if any, works were completed at this time and no details of the reports from the contractors that attended. There were failings in the landlord’s records keeping as the lack of detailed records has prevented the Ombudsman from thoroughly investigating the complaint.
  3. The landlord’s Building Surveyor attended on 22 March 2021 to inspect the flooring. He advised that no repairs were required but acknowledged that there was deflection in some areas, potentially causing the resident difficulties due to her mobility issues. He recommended an OT assessment be obtained and, if necessary, adaptations requested via the Council. The landlord’s internal emails of 23 March 2021 confirm this advice, although the resident states that the Building Surveyor informed her that the floor was unsuitable for her mobility issues during his visit.
  4. Following the inspection there is no evidence that the landlord liaised with the Council on the resident’s behalf to arrange an OT assessment, which would have been appropriate in the circumstances. The landlord’s stage 2 response of 13 May 2021 noted that this was still an outstanding action 7 weeks after the landlord’s inspection. There was an unreasonable delay in the landlord taking further action, particularly given the resident’s vulnerabilities.
  5. In an email to this Service on 13 August 2021 the landlord confirmed that an OT had attended and agreed with the surveyor’s recommendations that no repairs or renewals were required. The landlord has not provided a copy of the OT’s report and so the Ombudsman is unable to verify this statement.
  6. The landlord was entitled to rely on the advice of its Building Surveyor, who was a competent professional, to conclude that no repairs were required to the flooring. However, there was service failure in its handling of this aspect of the complaint due to an unreasonable delay in consulting an OT and its failure to provide adequate records and information to this investigation.
  7. The Ombudsman understands that since the final response, further surveys of the flooring have been completed and works arranged to lift the flooring to conduct a more detailed inspection of the sub-floor. The Ombudsman usually only considers the landlord’s actions to the date of the final complaint response and so if the resident has concerns about the landlord’s handling of the ongoing investigations she will need to raise a new complaint with the landlord.

Landlord’s handling of adaptations to the front door

  1. In its stage 1 response the landlord confirmed that it was not responsible for the management of adaptations, as these were arranged by the Council on the advice of an OT.
  2. The landlord has not provided a copy of its Adaptations Policy, however, its website states that the Council will assess the required works, in consultation with an OT, and necessary works will then be raised with and completed by the landlord’s Adaptations Team. On the basis of the information available online, the advice provided to the resident in the stage 1 response that the landlord was not responsible for managing adaptations was inaccurate, or at least unclear, as it was responsible for completing the works.
  3. The landlord states that the order for works to the door was received on 2 November 2020 and the works were completed on 16 February 2020 following a survey appointment on 12 January 2021. The Adaptations Team advised in an internal email dated 18 December 2020 that the works could take up to 6 weeks and were recorded as ‘medium priority’. The resident states that she was told by an operative who attended to measure up for the door on 12 January 2021 that the works should be completed in 2 weeks. Whilst the Ombudsman does not dispute the resident’s version of events, in the absence of documentary evidence of the advice that was provided, it is not possible to conclude that the resident was misinformed.
  4. As an adaptation, the landlord’s repairs timescales do not apply to the works to the resident’s front door. However, the Ombudsman would still have expected these works to be completed within a reasonable time. The landlord has failed to explain why it took more than 2 months to arrange a survey. It has also failed to provide any correspondence or other records relating to these works. In the absence of this information, the time taken to complete these works appears unreasonable. This amounts to service failure and raises concerns about the landlord’s record keeping.

Landlord’s handling of repairs to a blocked drain and boiler

  1. Under clause 4.2 of the resident’s tenancy agreement the landlord is obliged to repair and maintain the property’s waste pipes. Under clause 3.6 the resident must provide access to the landlord or its contractors for the purpose of completing inspections, maintenance, or repairs.
  2. The landlord has explained that according to its records only one report was received of a blocked shower drain, which was attended on 29 September 2020. The resident has stated that the landlord attended at least 3 times in relation to the same issue, however, there is no documentary evidence of any further reports or visits.
  3. It is noted that following the inspection on 22 March 2021 the Building Surveyor recommended a CCTV survey of the drains. The landlord has explained that its contractors were unable to contact the resident to arrange an appointment and so attempted a ‘cold call’ visit to the property when access was denied. The landlord encouraged the resident to speak with its contractor to arrange an appointment. As the landlord took steps to complete further investigations once it became aware of an ongoing problem with the drains, the Ombudsman is satisfied that there was no service failure in relation to this aspect of the complaint.

Complaints handling

  1. The landlord’s stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint of 18 December 2020 was significantly delayed beyond the 20-working-day target timeframe. The resident requested her complaint be escalated on 2 February 2021 and did not receive a response until 13 May 2021, which was entirely unreasonable. The landlord has not provided an explanation for the delay and so the Ombudsman concludes that there was service failure in its complaints handling.
  2. The Ombudsman also notes that the final response did not address the comment in the resident’s escalation request that the stage 1 response was ‘full of inaccuracies’. As part of a stage 2 investigation the landlord is required to review and comment on the adequacy of the stage 1 investigation, which did not happen. The landlord missed an opportunity to demonstrate to the resident that it had fully investigated her concerns and to restore her trust and confidence in its service. 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of uneven flooring in the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of works to the resident’s front door.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the shower drain and boiler.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 54 there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of the date of this report the landlord must confirm to this Service that it has complied with the following Orders to:
    1. Pay the resident £250 in recognition of the failings identified in its handling of her reports of uneven flooring in the property.
    2. Pay the resident £150 in recognition of the delay in progressing the works to the resident’s front door.
    3. Pay the resident £50 compensation in recognition of its poor complaints handling.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should review its record keeping policies and procedures to ensure that detailed and accurate repairs records are kept and are available for delivery to the Ombudsman for the purposes of its investigations.