Wandle Housing Association Limited (202200372)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202200372

Wandle Housing Association Limited

20 September 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 size of the replacement toilet provided by the landlord.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord.
  2. On 17 November 2021, the landlord raised a work order to replace the toilet in the resident’s property due to cracks in the bowl. On 22 November, the appointment was rearranged due to the contractor needing to source the necessary materials. The appointment then took place on 01 December 2021 where the toilet was replaced.
  3. The resident was dissatisfied with the height of the replacement toilet, and stated this would exacerbate her health conditions, which included back and knee pain. The resident raised this as a complaint on 17 December 2021. During the escalation of the complaint, the resident raised further concerns including the lack of communication regarding the complaint, that the replacement toilet meant she was having to hoist herself on and off, and that the replacement should have been like–for–like as it had now impacted upon her quality of life.
  4. In the landlord’s response to the complaint it advised that the toilet met the British Standard, it advised the resident of the acceptable dimensions that a toilet should be, and offered to replace the toilet if the resident had a professional assessment that supported the need for an alternative design.
  5. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and escalated her complaint to this Service on 06 April 2022. The resident stated she was dissatisfied with the delays in the complaint handling. She informed this Service that the landlord had originally advised her that a doctor’s note would be acceptable as a professional assessment but had now advised it is unable to accept the doctors note, and would require an assessment from an occupational therapist instead.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. The resident has referenced how the replacement toilet provided by the landlord has impacted her health. However, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is more appropriate for it to be dealt with through the courts as a personal injury claim. The courts can call on medical experts and make legally binding judgements. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident. This is an accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.
  2. The resident later complained they were dissatisfied with the first appointment being rearranged due to the contractor not having the required parts. The landlord has raised this a separate complaint but it has not completed the landlord’s process. The landlord must be given the opportunity to respond to the resident’s concerns through its own process first. This is in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says ‘the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which in his opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale’. It is noted that the landlord has not been given the opportunity to formally consider its subsequent response to the resident’s further reports, including whether further compensation is necessary.

Policies and Procedures

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that a stage one response will be sent within 10 working days, and the stage two response within 20 working days with both allowing for a further 10 working days if the resident is informed and there is good reason for doing so.

The size of the replacement toilet

  1.  Following the resident’s report of the replacement toilet being too small, the landlord investigated the size and dimensions of the replacement toilet that was installed at the resident’s property. The landlord advised the resident of the dimensions of the toilet it believed it had installed based on work logs, and how it found this to be within the British Standard. It also stated it would replace the toilet again if the replacement was found to have differing dimensions and was in fact smaller. This was a reasonable response based on the landlord’s obligations and available information.
  2. Following the resident’s report, the replacement toilet was installed within 10 working days. Given that this was a routine repair, which according to the landlord’s repairs policy should be completed within 28 days, this was undertaken within an appropriate timeframe.
  3. The landlord also advised it would replace the toilet again if the resident had a professional assessment which resulted in necessary adaptations being identified. This was appropriate as the tenancy agreement and repairs policy states that any vulnerabilities or adaptations needed would be considered in relation to suitable repairs. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to recommend the resident seek a professional opinion given the resident’s health concerns.
  4. The resident has advised this Service that she was informed that a professional assessment could include a GP. The landlord later clarified the resident that the assessment would need to be completed by an occupational therapist. The landlord’s explanation is the correct process, although it would have been best practice for the landlord to provide full details about what assessment would be appropriate during the stage one response. The landlord could have considered sign-posting the resident to an appropriate occupational therapist, or referring the case itself. Ultimately, the landlord’s advice was correct (albeit later improved with clarification).

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. Following the complaint raised on 01 December 2021, the landlord sent its stage one response on 19 December 2021. This was a total of 13 working days later, which slightly exceeds the appropriate timeframe as given in the landlord’s complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. The resident had to chase the complaint response and therefore it would have been appropriate for the landlord to provide clear communication regarding any delays in order to set the resident’s expectations correctly.
  2. Following this, the resident raised concerns with the landlord regarding her complaint not being escalated as requested. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge the escalation request, and to respond appropriately. The escalation request was then acknowledged on 26 January 2022 and the stage two response was sent on 24 March 2022. This was a total of 41 working days following the stage two response, which was outside of the appropriate timescales for complaint handling as per the landlord’s policies, and the timescales given by this Service.
  3. Whilst the landlord handled the repairs appropriately, the landlord’s complaint responses were not compliant with the appropriate timescales given by the landlord’s policies and the guidance provided by this Service. They also failed to provide clear advice about how the resident could arrange a supporting assessment.
  4. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the amount of £100 compensation would provide adequate redress for the service failures identified including the complaint handling delays and the unclear advice at stage 1 about the further assessment. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests awards of between £50-£250 where there has been service failure which had an impact on the complainant but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant. In this case, the delays and poor communication did not affect the outcome of the complaint, but did have an impact on the resident and compensation is due in view of this.

Determination

  1.  In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the size of the replacement toilet provided by the landlord.
  2.  In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in way the landlord handled the associated complaint.

Orders

  1.  The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 compensation for the time and trouble caused by the delays in complaint handling. This should be paid within 28 days of the date of this letter.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord ensures communication surrounding a occupational therapist assessment process is clearer.