Town and Country Housing (202117800)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202117800

Town and Country Housing

20 May 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 the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s shower and his request for compensation.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a flat within a block of flats.
  2. The landlord’s records show that the resident initially raised a repair to his electric shower on 23 August 2021. Its records show that a repair was attended on 3 September 2021, however, the shower was found to be “blown up” (damaged) on the inside, and so a further repair was scheduled to fit a new electric shower unit. This was completed on 9 September 2021.
  3. According to the landlord’s records the resident raised a complaint in September 2021 advising that he had been without a shower for three weeks, and was dissatisfied with the time taken to complete the repair. The resident said that the landlord had been “trying to force him to shower in the sink”, however he explained that he had health issues and that it was impractical. He said he had resorted to purchasing a gym membership to gain access to a shower and asked that the landlord compensate him £29.99 for the costs. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 13 September 2021. It explained that at the time the resident raised the repair there was no mention of his health issues nor could it see anything in its records to show that it had previously been made aware of them. The landlord confirmed that its contractor attended the repair in September, had a new shower unit ordered as urgent and reattended and completed the installation on 9 September 2021. It acknowledged that being without a shower was inconvenient however, the landlord said that it did not consider 13 days to be an unreasonable amount of time to complete repairs when the resident had other facilities to wash. The landlord declined the resident’s request for reimbursement of the costs he incurred as it “was not made aware of [his health issues] and did not cause [his] shower to breakdown”.
  4. An internal email between staff showed that the resident asked to escalate his complaint as he was dissatisfied with the outcome. He raised similar issues as in his formal complaint in September. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 7 October 2021, it recalled the chronology of repairs and its responses to the resident’s complaint. The landlord explained that the resident’s complaint was not upheld as the shower was replaced within the appropriate timescales to the category of repair, and that his complaint was also satisfactorily responded to within its timescales. It apologised that the repair was not completed to his satisfaction, but explained that repairs are not always able to be completed within resident expectations, even if they are completed with service standard timescales. The landlord advised that it did not have specialist requirements recorded for the resident, and was unable to prioritise any repairs. It suggested that he log any health issues with it so they would be considered in the future.
  5. After further discussion with the resident, the landlord wrote to him on 28 October 2021. It said that it had eventually found some health issues recorded (but none which, on the face of it, appear directly connected to the resident’s inability to use other washing facilities in his home), and acknowledged they were not carried over to the contractor’s systems. It again declined the resident’s request for compensation on the grounds that the repair was completed within a reasonable timeframe. The landlord advised that it would look to improve its recording and highlighting of health issues. It explained how the resident could raise his complaint with this Service if he was dissatisfied with its response.
  6. The resident passed his complaint to this Service as he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, he raised similar issues as in his formal complaint in September 2021.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s repair procedure sets out a timescale of 20 days for non-urgent repairs. The resident initially reported a repair issue with his shower on 23 August 2021, according to the landlord’s records the contractor attended on 3 September. However, the shower unit required replacing and so a new appointment was arranged, and the repair was completed on 9 September 2021, which was within the landlord’s 20-day repair timeframe. In short, the landlord acted appropriately in respect of its completion of repairs to the resident’s shower.
  2. The resident said he believed that the landlord should reimburse him for the gym membership he purchased as a result of no access to a shower. The landlord acknowledged that being without a shower was inconvenient. However, it advised that it would not compensate him on the grounds that the repair was completed within a reasonable time and that the resident had other facilities to wash with. The Ombudsman recognises that some residents’ circumstances mean that they are more affected by the landlords’ actions or inactions than others. Nothing in the evidence indicates the landlord was aware of the resident’s inability to use other facilities for washing, or that he was needing to use external facilities and paying for them, until he raised it in his complaint. If the landlord had previously been aware then it would be expected to have attempted to work with the resident to create an interim solution until the repairs were complete.
  3. There is no denying that not being able to use the shower at home would be frustrating for anybody, even without the added circumstances the resident appears to face. Nonetheless, as there is no evidence the landlord was aware, and the repairs were completed within its published timeframes, its decision not to reimburse the resident for his costs was not unreasonable.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint.