One Vision Housing Limited (202014747)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014747

One Vision Housing Limited

15 July 2021


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 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 concerns:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding the functionality of her toilet.
    2. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s bathroom.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding the functionality of her toilet.
  3. In respect of the resident’s concerns around the functionality of her toilet, along with the lack of sealant and the actions taken by the landlord to remedy these, that have occurred after 24 February 2021, it has confirmed that a new complaint was logged for this and is under investigation. Paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: “are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure…”
  4. It is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider issues that are yet to be investigated by the landlord. In order for this Service to make a determination, the landlord needs to be given the opportunity to investigate and respond to the resident’s complaint. Therefore, a determination will not be made on this aspect of the complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord at the property.
  2. The property is a one-bedroom bungalow.

Summary of events

  1. The landlord noted that the resident had been raising various concerns regarding repairs being needed in her bathroom since 5 November 2019, when she informed it of a leak in her shower. It recorded that it then attended the property on 12 November 2019 to seal the shower area; however, she “refused the work as she believed she needed a new shower”.
  2. The landlord’s records showed that it then carried out an inspection on 17 December 2019 to determine the parts that were needed for the resident’s bathroom, and it also agreed to replace damaged floor tiles with linoleum, following her request for this on 9 December 2019. It confirmed that the above works commenced on 10 January 2020, as the next available appointment after the Christmas shut down, and were completed on 13 January 2020.
  3. Moving forward, the landlord noted that the resident contacted it again on 28 July 2020 to express her concerns regarding a crack in the basin and the shower plug representing a trip hazard that she was transferred to its contractor’s supervisor for, but did not raise again until a later date, and on 9 September 2020 to raise an emergency repair due to a leaking toilet. It recorded that it attended this “within service level agreement”, offered a portable toilet as it could not complete the repairs on that day, and then it then fitted a new toilet and plinth on 10 September 2020.
  4. On 27 September 2020, the resident emailed the landlord regarding the repairs required in her bathroom. In particular, she expressed her dissatisfaction with the “shower base” being fitted incorrectly, the bathroom sink being broken, and there having been “made no attempt to contact [her] nor arrange for the jobs to be done”, despite her having confirmation that these issues were reported to it. The resident noted that the email was to be considered as a first stage complaint, which the landlord acknowledged on 29 September 2020.
  5. The landlord then emailed the resident on 30 September 2020 to apologise that she had not been contacted by it about her cracked sink, as its contractor’s operative did not recall having had any communication with her about this issue. It advised that the remedial works relating to her sink were usually rechargeable, but that it would waive the costs in this instance and that an appointment was arranged for 15 October 2020 for the works to be completed.
  6. The resident replied to this on the same day to advise that she would be making herself available for the above appointment. Furthermore, she added that the sink was damaged by one of the landlord’s operatives during the appointment that took place on 10 January 2020 for the refitting of her shower, along with the pedestal and basin. The resident noted that she had raised these concerns with its contractor’s above operative previously via telephone on 29 July 2020, along with the positioning of the shower drain, and that they had agreed to renew the bathroom sink and pedestal and to accept her photographs of the shower base.
  7. On 12 October 2020, the landlord issued the resident’s stage one complaint response, which was comprised of the following:
    1. It decided to not uphold the aspect of the complaint concerning the “shower tray being fitted in an incorrect position”, but it agreed to refit this in the position that she had requested.
    2. In respect of her concerns regarding the cracked bathroom sink, it identified “some confusion” as to when works would be carried out and a breakdown in communication; therefore, it decided to partially uphold this aspect of her complaint.
    3. Regarding her reports of a leaking and unstable toilet, it decided to not uphold this aspect of the complaint, and noted that this was because it had attended the property on the same day of her report, offered an alternative in the form of a portable toilet, and fitted a new one on the following day.
    4. It also addressed her dissatisfaction with the standard of the works undertaken during the replacement of the toilet and her reports of damage caused to the linoleum behind this. The landlord noted that it had discussed the above with its contractor’s operative and supervisor, and that they had advised that the linoleum was “sealed and stuck down”, being satisfied that the work was completed satisfactorily when they had left the property, so that it would not uphold this aspect of her complaint. This was because it could not verify the facts, and that it would check and carry out any remedial works needed to the linoleum during its visit of 19 October 2020, although it agreed to ensure that its contractors followed through with any agreed actions and kept residents informed.
  8. On 15 October 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord to request for her complaint to be escalated to the next stage of its complaints procedure, and to receive compensation for damages and service failure from it. Additionally, she provided photographs of the damaged linoleum, advised that this was not sealed and stuck down, that she was dissatisfied with the standard of the works, and that she had covered the costs of the linoleum being fitted because the previous floor covering was damaged by its operatives. The landlord then issued the resident with a complaint escalation acknowledgement on 4 November 2020.
  9. On 12 November 2020, the landlord issued the second and final stage complaint response to the resident. As a resolution, it apologised to her for the service that she had received from it, and offered her a gesture of goodwill of £100 for replacement flooring and repair delays.
  10. The resident then brought her complaint to this Service on 24 February 2021. This was followed by a telephone call on 29 April 2021, during which she advised that her desired outcome would be for the landlord to repair the toilet due to water leaks and a lack of sealant, and to increase the amount of compensation offered to approximately £500 or more.
  11. On 10 May 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord to advise that she was still experiencing water overflow when flushing the toilet. Additionally, she noted that it had attended various appointments outside her property since 2013, attempting to “clear a blockage from the outside drain”, and that she had “been waiting since 24 April 2021” for it to attend the property to seal the toilet and remove a plinth. The resident added that the landlord did not attend an appointment that was scheduled for 7 May 2021, and that two operatives had visited her property on 10 May 2021 and took photos of the plinth situated behind the toilet, but did not carry out any works.
  12. The resident then emailed the landlord again on 12 May 2021 to raise further concerns with the state of her toilet due to blockages to and water and sewage leaks from this that were saturating the property. This was followed up by a telephone call from her to this Service on 14 May 2021, during which she advised that she wished for the plinth to be removed and replaced due to contaminated water.
  13. The landlord subsequently wrote to this Service on 19 May 2021 to confirm that the resident’s concerns regarding the functionality of her toilet due to the lack of sealant had been logged as a stage one complaint. This was because it considered this to be a “new issue which occurred following drainage work in March 2021.”


Assessment and findings

The landlord’s repairs, maintenance and planned works policy

  1. The landlord categorises repairs based on priority, and its repairs, maintenance and planned works policy states that it would “respond to all emergency repairs within 24 hours, and within two hours if there is a threat to health, safety or security”. Whereas non-emergency repairs are “to be commenced and completed within [ten] days of the date of the first appointment”.

The landlord’s compensation policy

  1. In its compensation policy, the landlord divides payments into compensation and gestures of goodwill. Both are made when it identifies a service failure, however, compensation payments are to be made in instances where its actions or omissions cause the resident a “loss of service or out of pocket expense”. Whereas gestures of goodwill will be offered to “maintain good relations” between the landlord and a resident in instances where it identifies a service failure that would have caused inconvenience to them.
  2. Additionally, the landlord’s compensation policy states that “in all claims for compensation, [it] will look to replace damaged/destroyed items rather than award monetary value.”

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s bathroom

  1. It is noted that the resident stated that she has been experiencing repair issues to her bathroom since 2013. However, the Ombudsman will not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. Therefore, while the historical incidents provide contextual background to the current complaint, this assessment focuses on events from March 2020 onwards, which is six months prior to the resident’s stage one formal complaint being made on 27 September 2020.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 28 July 2020 to raise concerns that the shower plug in her bathroom represented a trip hazard. However, it did not take any action in respect of this report, other than transferring her to its contractor’s supervisor, which was unreasonable, as it should have investigated or discussed the matter further with her instead. This would have enabled the landlord to have either rectified the potential hazard or to have reassured the resident that the area was safe, to ensure that unnecessary inconvenience or distress was avoided on her part as a result.
  3. Following the resident’s report of a toilet leak, on 9 September 2020, the landlord advised that it attended this on that day. This was in line with its repairs, maintenance, and planned works policy, above at paragraph 21, which stated that emergency appointments were to be attended within 24 hours. However, because the landlord could not complete the repair at the time, it offered to supply the resident with a portable toilet while the situation was rectified.
  4. This was reasonable of the landlord because it attempted to provide the resident with an alternative to her leaking toilet on the date that it attended this, to ensure that she could still use this essential amenity. Furthermore, it then fitted a new toilet at her property on 10 September 2020, which was the next day and so was likely to have still been within its emergency repairs response timeframe of 24 hours for it to do so. Therefore, there was no failure identified in the landlord’s handling of this repair.
  5. In the resident’s stage one complaint of 27 September 2020, she expressed her dissatisfaction with how her shower base was fitted and with her bathroom sink being cracked, as well as with the landlord’s lack of attempts to arrange for these to be remedied. In respect of the sink, it was reasonable for it to address this matter prior to issuing the stage one complaint response, arranging to replace the sink on 15 October 2020, and waiving the costs. This is because the landlord showed that it attempted to put things right by carrying out remedial works to the sink sooner that its complaint response, as well as by declining to recharge the resident for this as it otherwise usually would, in light of her previous report about this having been on 28 July 2020.
  6. It has been taken into account that the resident informed the landlord, on 30 September 2020, that the bathroom sink had been damaged by one of its operatives during the appointment that took place on 10 January 2020. However, it would have been her responsibility to have informed it of any damage as soon as this was identified, rather than on 28 July 2020, in order for it to be able to investigate or take any action for this as soon as possible. Nevertheless, in the landlord’s stage one complaint response of 12 October 2020, it determined that there was a breakdown in communication in respect of the sink. Therefore, its offer to replace the sink and not charge the resident for this was reasonable.
  7. Also in the landlord’s stage one complaint response, it agreed to reposition the property’s shower tray, as per the resident’s request for this on 27 September 2020. This was reasonable for it to have done, despite its finding in the complaint response that her complaint about this was not upheld, as she had requested that the shower tray be repositioned and she remained dissatisfied about this. 
  8. However, given the landlord’s lack of acknowledgement of the resident’s concerns that the shower plug represented a trip hazard, detailed above at paragraph 25, and the fact that it took from 28 July to 15 October 2020 to replace her cracked sink, it was appropriate that it offered her a £100 goodwill gesture on 12 November 2020 for reasons including its repair delays. This is because its compensation policy above at paragraph 22 gave it discretion to do so for service failures that it had identified that would have caused inconvenience to her, such as these delays, which its compensation offer recognised proportionately.
  9. Furthermore, the landlord’s stage one complaint response agreed to investigate the standard of the previous works undertaken to the resident’s bathroom during a subsequent visit on 19 October 2020. This was suitable, as it demonstrated that it had considered the concerns that she had expressed about this on 27 and 30 September 2020, and that it sought to resolve these with a further inspection in order to identify whether there were any more failings on its part in respect of this.
  10. To conclude, this Service appreciates the inconvenience experienced by the resident. However, in the complaint and the events assessed in this report, it has been found that, while there were certain shortfalls in respect of the landlord’s repair delays and communication, it made reasonable redress to her for these. This is because it did so by agreeing to reposition the shower tray, replacing the resident’s sink, waiving the cost for the replacement of the sink, and offering her a goodwill gesture of £100.
  11. This Service considered that the resident advised us that she was seeking a minimum amount of compensation of £500. However, we also considered the level of the failures identified, along with the landlord’s offer of £100 monetary compensation for these, and non-financial remedies in the form of further works and rechargeable works that it did not charge her for. Therefore, in light of its compensation policy, and our remedies guidance, it has been found that the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress to the resident. This is because its above actions recognised its failings in the resident’s case proportionately in line with its policy and our guidance, which did not require it to offer her a higher level of compensation.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its handling of repairs to her bathroom satisfactorily.

Reasons

  1. The landlord made efforts to put things right for the resident in terms of carrying out remedial works, and offered a suitable amount of compensation.

Recommendation

  1. It is recommended that the landlord pay the £100 compensation that it previously offered to the resident, if it has not done so already.
  2. The landlord should contact this Service within four weeks to confirm whether it will follow the above recommendation.
  3. The Ombudsman accepts that, because of the present restrictions due to the corona virus pandemic, the timing of the above actions will depend on what is reasonable in the light of Government guidance regarding the health of the resident and of the landlord’s staff.