Optivo (202014196)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014196

Optivo

12 August 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

The complaint concerns the amount of time taken by the landlord to complete repair works to the resident’s bathroom.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.

Summary of events

On 22 January 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to report that the sealant surrounding her bath was coming away along with several areas of the tile grouting. The landlord attended the property on 28 February 2020 but had to re-arrange a new appointment as it deemed that five square meters of tile needed to be renewed.
On 4 March 2020, a new repair work order was raised for the bathroom wall to be re-tiled on 20 April 2020, however, this was cancelled due to the restrictions imposed by the coronavirus pandemic. The resident also reported a water leak coming through the lounge ceiling, on 24 March 2020. The landlord attended to this on the same day, approximately one hour from the resident’s report, identified that the leak stemmed from the “blown tiles” and advised the resident to use the bathtub rather than the shower until it could carry out a permanent repair.
The resident lodged a stage one complaint with the landlord on 26 May 2020, which the landlord acknowledged in writing on 27 May 2020. Also, on 27 May 2020 the resident reported that the lightbulb in her bathroom required replacement every few weeks.
The landlord attended the property again on 10 June 2020, checked the light and could not find any faults, however, because the resident advised that the light “blows” or stops working periodically, the operative attending advised that they would need an asbestos survey prior to changing the light fitting. On 12 June 2020, the landlord raised a work order for an asbestos survey to be carried out.
On 8 July 2020, the landlord attended the property to conduct a survey for the works required to the bathroom. As a result of the survey, the landlord raised multiple work orders for the following repairs to be carried out:
1. Renewal of the plasterboard behind the bath tiles.
2. Removal and re-fitting of the bath and basin.
3. “Hack off” and re-tile nine square meters of “blown and de-bonded” tiles.
The landlord attended the property again on 12 August 2020, to carry out a further inspection, instead of commencing the works. The landlord then arranged for the repair works to be carried out on 22 and 23 September 2020.
On 22 September 2020, the landlord advised that its operative removed the tiles, renewed the bath panel, removed the water damaged area of the wall and installed moisture boards instead and then re-tiled. On 23 September 2020, the landlord attended to grout the wall tiles and apply sealant around the bath area. The resident emailed the landlord on the same day as she was unhappy with the standard of the works because she identified “a gap at the bottom of the bath panel” and that the new tiles were a different shade to the existing ones. As a result, the landlord inspected the area and then arranged for further works to be carried out.
On 3 October 2020, the landlord attended the property and “renewed shower screen, ma[de] good [to] tiles, regrout[ed], sealed, [and] installed skirting”.
The resident emailed the landlord on 5 October 2020, to express her dissatisfaction with the standard of the works carried out, and concerns around a new possible leak, and provided# photographic proof to support this. Landlord internal communication from the same day noted that the asbestos survey was carried out in July 2020.
On 23 October 2020, the landlord emailed the resident to confirm it had arranged an appointment for a bath panel to be fitted on 6 November 2020. The resident then emailed the landlord on 3 November 2020 to advise the following:
1. She was informed, via voicemail, on 12 October 2020, that the bathroom light would be replaced on 21 October 2020, however, this was not done.
2. The landlord’s sub-contractor had been in contact regarding the appointment scheduled for 6 November 2020, to advise it was yet to be approved by the landlord.
The landlord replied to the resident on 9 November 2020, to advise that she would be entitled to £10 compensation, for the missed appointment, and to confirm that the appointment on 6 November 2020, went ahead. The resident replied to this on 17 December 2020, requesting an update on her ongoing complaint. On the same day, the landlord advised that it did not follow up on the resident’s complaint because it was waiting for the outstanding works to be completed first.
The resident emailed the landlord on 21 December 2020, to advise the following:
1. The bathroom light was replaced on 9 November 2020.
2. She was unhappy with the amount of time the landlord took to complete the repairs required to her bathroom and that she felt that the bath “was replaced to a very poor standard” and incorrectly fitted “[two] years ago”.
3. The different surveyors who attended the property had “different reports about what was causing the leak”.
4. The sealant around the bath “was replaced on a couple of occasions…to a poor standard”.
5. She felt ignored by the landlord’s staff when attempting to raise her concerns regarding the leak and condition of the tiles.
6. There were various missed appointments.
7. She was looking for compensation of £1200 for the inconveniences she experienced because of the landlord’s handling of repairs to her bathroom.
The landlord issued a stage one complaint response on 12 January 2021, in which it recollected the events related to the repairs needed to the resident’s bathroom, apologised for its shortcomings, and offered compensation of £145, out of which £50 was a “failure to repair payment”, £75 for the inconvenience caused, and £20 for the missed appointments.
The resident then replied on the same day to express her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of her repairs, the information related in the stage one complaint response, along with the proposed outcome, and to request for her complaint to be escalated to the next stage of the landlord’s complaints procedure.
On 14 January 2021, the resident emailed the landlord regarding the escalation of her complaint and to further express her dissatisfaction, to which the landlord responded on the same day and provided the resident with the necessary information.
On 4 February 2021, the landlord issued the final complaint response, in which it:
1. Advised that it would not escalate the resident’s complaint for a panel review.
2. Apologised for the amount of time it took to complete the repairs and inconveniences that stemmed from this.
3. Confirmed that while the repairs were outstanding the resident could use the bath, instead of the shower.
4. It increased its offer of compensation to £250 to cover for the inconvenience experienced, maintaining its offer of £50 for its failure to repair, and £20 for the two missed appointments, which came to a full amount of £320.
The resident contacted this Service on 16 February 2021, to advise that the water leak started in 2019 and the landlord had been carrying out patch repairs since. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of repairs, the fact that she was left without washing facilities, and the amount of compensation offered. Subsequently, the resident accepted the landlord’s offer of compensation of £320 on 14 June 2020, at this Service’s advice, although she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s overall handling of the repairs and her complaint about this.

The landlord’s responsive repairs policy

The landlord’s responsive repairs policy divides repairs into two categories:
1. Emergency repairs – which are instances where the repair issue is “causing immediate risk”, and the landlord commits to attend to this and make safe within six hours. In cases where the works cannot be completed on the spot then the landlord would arrange further appointments, which would be classed as non-emergency repairs.
2. Non-emergency repairs – represent the repairs which do not pose an immediate risk and the landlord aims to complete these in one visit. If the repair requires more visits then the landlord would “measure the amount of time it takes” from the day the repair is reported to the day it is completed.

The amount of time taken by the landlord to complete repair works to the resident’s bathroom

The resident has raised concerns that the standard of the works carried out to her bathroom on various occasions. In respect of this it is noted that the landlord is entitled to rely on the opinion of suitably qualified members of staff/contractors when deciding what repair works to carry out. This Service can look at whether the landlord complied with recommendations made around works that should be carried out or if further repairs need to be completed. In this instance, the evidence provided did not indicate that further repairs are needed. However, if the bathroom is not fully functioning, or the resident considers that there are other outstanding works, she should raise this with the landlord in the first instance.
Additionally, this Service noted that the resident mentioned that the repair issues to her bathroom had been ongoing for a longer amount of time and that the landlord had been carrying out patch repairs to put these issues right. Under Paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we 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.
The resident reported issues with the sealant around her bath on 22 January 2020, for which the landlord attended her property on 28 February 2020. It is acknowledged that the landlord’s responsive repairs policy does not have a set timeframe for attending to non-emergency repairs, however, the fact that it took slightly over a month to respond to this initial report was unreasonable as, considering the nature of the works, this was a considerable amount of time.
Because the works could not be completed on the day, a further appointment was then arranged for 20 April 2020, but this was subsequently cancelled because of the national lockdown period, which was outside of the landlord’s control. During this period landlords were only able to attend emergency repairs, with non-emergency works being put on hold until restrictions were lifted. However, at the same time the landlord attended the resident’s report of a water leak, made on 24 March 2020, within approximately one hour, which complied with the response timeframe of six hours for emergency repairs set in its responsive repairs policy, and provided advice on how to handle the leak and adjacent repair issues until it could complete more permanent repairs. This was an appropriate response under the circumstances as the leak was considered an emergency repair which required an immediate response, despite the lockdown restrictions.
Further appointments were then attended on 10 June, 8 July, and 12 August 2020; however, the repair works to the resident’s bathroom did not start until 22 September 2020. These works were carried out over the course of multiple appointments which took place on 23 September, 3 October, 6 and 9 November 2020. Considering the date of the initial repair report, along with the completion dates, confirmed above, it has been found that the landlord took over nine months to carry out the remedial works required to the resident’s bathroom. This was an unreasonable amount of time, even considering the delays caused by the lockdown period, which was outside of the landlord’s control. During this time the resident could only use her washing facilities partially, which caused her significant inconvenience.
Furthermore, it has been considered that the landlord attended the property on multiple occasions to carry out inspections, which were unnecessary seeing that the scope of works was already established. Additionally, this Service has also taken into account the fact that the resident accommodated all these appointments, which involved taking leave from her workplace. However, the landlord ultimately acknowledged the delays and inconveniences caused to the resident, in its complaint responses of 12 January and 4 February 2021, apologised, and offered a final amount of compensation of £320 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its shortcomings.
This Service appreciates that the amount of compensation offered by the landlord was lower than what the resident had requested but considering that during the periods of time when government restrictions allowed, the landlord attended the property, and ultimately completed the repairs, along with the fact that she could partially use her washing facilities, the amount of compensation of £320 was reasonable and in line with the Housing Ombudsman remedies guidance (published on our website) for the level of delays and service failure identified.
The above amount was also reasonable because the landlord made visible efforts to put things right for the resident by carrying out inspections and completing repairs.
To conclude, while it is clear that the landlord should have completed the repair works required to the resident’s bathroom in a more timely manner, the fact that it ultimately carried out and completed the repairs, acknowledged its shortcomings, apologised, and offered a reasonable amount of compensation was sufficient redress in this case.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

The landlord completed the works, apologised and offered sufficient monetary compensation in view of the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced because of errors and delays in completing the repairs.

Recommendation

The landlord should pay the amount of £320 of compensation, in full, to the resident, if it did not do so already.
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.