South Yorkshire Housing Association Limited (SYHA) (202303551)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303551

South Yorkshire Housing Association Limited (SYHA)

30 July 2024

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a non-standard bath as part of a planned bathroom replacement.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the property. She has a physical disability that affects her mobility and activities of daily living.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 3 March 2022 to tell her that her bathroom was due to be upgraded. The resident told the Ombudsman that the landlord initially suggested it leave her existing bath and toilet in situ, as the new standard fittings it provided may not meet her needs. She asked the landlord to install a larger bath, to better meet her bathing needs. She said the landlord initially agreed to this.
On 22 March 2022, an occupational therapist assessed the resident’s bathing needs. Afterwards, it contacted the landlord and recommended a bath with similar dimensions to the resident’s current bath. The landlord responded, agreeing that it would ensure the replacement bath was no smaller than the resident’s current bath.
The landlord visited the resident on 14 May 2022. After measuring the resident’s bathroom, the landlord said it would not be possible to fit a wider bath in the resident’s bathroom. It said that if it fitted a larger bath, there would not be enough space for the resident’s toilet frame. It found that the dimensions of the resident’s current bath and the standard bath it was fitting through its planned maintenance programme were the same. It suggested that it fit its standard sized bath. However, the resident raised concerns that the bath handles on the proposed bath would interfere with her bathing equipment.
On 17 May 2022, the landlord recorded that the resident’s carer contacted it as they did not feel a standard bath was suitable for the resident’s medical needs. The landlord agreed to put the work on hold until the resident had sought further advice from the occupational therapy team. On 31 May 2022 the resident’s occupational therapist sent the landlord a letter saying the resident would benefit from a larger bath. The landlord recorded that it explained to the occupational therapist that a bath of the size recommended would not fit in the resident’s bathroom. It asked them to confirm in writing if a standard sized bath was appropriate for the resident.
A second occupational therapist arranged a home visit with the landlord to assess the resident’s bathroom in July 2022. As the resident did not feel the bath suggested by the landlord was suitable, they suggested an alternative bath from a different supplier with the same footprint but larger internal dimensions. The landlord responded, saying it would not fit the proposed bath as it was acrylic.
On 18 August 2022, the resident sent the landlord information about baths that she felt were more suitable for her needs than its standard bath. The landlord responded, saying it would only consider the fitting its standard bath, or leaving her existing bath in place.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 6 October 2022. It asked the resident to decide between a standard bath or a wet room. It asked her to tell it her decision by 7 November 2022. It sent her a full specification of works by email the same week.
During a call with the landlord on 14 December 2022, the resident raised concerns again about the handles on the bath the landlord had proposed. The landlord exchanged emails with the resident’s occupational therapist, who agreed that the handles would interfere with the resident’s bathing equipment. They said it was not essential for the resident’s bath to have handles as they could provide her with a handrail if needed. The landlord contacted the bath manufacturer. It confirmed it could provide a bath without handles, but it would also be without a slip resistant finish. The landlord emailed the resident to ask if this was an acceptable solution.
On 21 February, the resident made a complaint to the landlord, saying:
1. She had not refused a new bath, but the bath the landlord was offering her was not suitable. She needed handles and a non-slip finish.
2. She felt the landlord had not listened to the advice of her occupational therapist.
3. She felt the landlord’s communication was inadequate, for example it did not always respond to her callback requests.
4. She said she wanted the landlord to call her not email her as she did not always have access to her emails.
The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process on 27 February 2023. It summarised its actions to date and said:
1. The resident confirmed by phone on 3 November 2022 that she wanted the landlord to replace the bath. It needed her signed consent in writing.
2. The landlord summarised its conversations with the occupational therapist and the bath supplier.
3. It said she could choose between her existing bath, or a new bath without handles or a non-slip finish. The landlord said it did not want to consider alternative bath suppliers, as it knew the quality of the current supplier’s products and the occupational therapist had confirmed that its proposals were medically suitable for the resident.
The resident was not satisfied with the landlord’s response and asked it to escalate her complaint to the second stage of its complaints process. In addition to what she said in her additional complaint, she said:
1. She felt it was possible to install a bath that met her needs.
2. She was unhappy with the landlord’s communication and felt it should have called her rather than sent a written complaint response.
3. She felt the landlord’s communication with the occupational therapy team was inappropriate.
The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints process on 24 March 2023. It repeated its offer of its standard bath without handles or a slip resistant finish, and said:
1. The bath the resident wanted did not fit in her bathroom. The bath it suggested had the same bathing capacity as the bath she had asked for.
2. It had responded to the resident in a timely way. The process had taken longer than usual as it had worked with 3 occupational therapists to consider a range of options.
3. It could not see that the occupational therapists had expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s communication with them.
On 7 December 2023, the landlord recorded that it spoke with the occupational therapy service. It said the occupational therapy service told it:
1. It had offered the resident a walk-in shower but she had declined this option.
2. It did not consider a larger bath to be medically necessary for the resident.
3. The occupational therapy team was concerned that the alternative bath proposed by the landlord was not suitable, as it did not have a non-slip finish. It did not feel a bathmat was suitable as it could slip.
4. It therefore felt that the resident should keep her existing bath, and asked the landlord to consider updating the plug, taps and side panel. The landlord agreed to this suggestion.
On 12 January 2024 the occupational therapy service told the landlord that the resident still wanted a larger bath. It asked if it was possible for the resident to self-fund a larger bath. The landlord explained that physical constraints of the resident’s bathroom were the barrier to installing an alternative bath, not cost.
The landlord told the Ombudsman that it carried out a further survey of the property on 16 April 2024. It identified 2 alternative baths which were larger than its standard bath but smaller than wider baths previously considered. The resident suggested a 3rd bath, which the landlord agreed to install. It has confirmed that it would replace the bathroom in the coming weeks. The Ombudsman has not received confirmation that the bath has been fitted.
The resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her request and asked the Ombudsman to investigate. She told the Ombudsman that she felt the process had taken too long, that the landlord’s communication was poor, and that she had to chase updates from the landlord. She feels that the landlord should compensate her for the distress she says its handling of her request has caused her.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The landlord worked with the occupational therapy service to consider alternative baths that were suitable for the resident. It is outside of our remit to make any findings or determination about the occupational therapy service because we only investigate local authorities’ actions in their capacity as social landlords and we cannot investigate their other activities that do not directly relate to housing. Complaints about the occupational therapy service would be within the jurisdiction of a different Ombudsman service, the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). If the resident is unhappy with the service provided by the Occupational Therapy service, she may wish to get advice from the LGSCO.

The resident’s request for a wider bath

Under the Equality Act 2010, organisations have a duty to make “reasonable adjustments” to their services. Reasonable adjustments are changes that organisations must make to prevent someone with a disability being disadvantaged compared with others who are not disabled. As the landlord was aware that the resident had a disability and she told it that she needed an alternative bath to meet her needs, the landlord should have considered her request in the context of the Equality Act 2010.
The landlord has a planned and cyclical works policy. In it, it explains that when it replaces items like bathrooms, kitchens, and doors, it will consult with residents on their choice of design, layout, colour choices or finishes. It says it will take into consideration factors like adaptations.
The landlord also has an equipment and adaptations policy. It commits to supporting its tenants to live independently in their homes. It says it will fund minor equipment and adaptations for residents where the cost is less than £1000. It says it will give its tenants a say in the choice of fittings and equipment being provided, where possible. As such, it was appropriate for the landlord to consider fitting an alternative bath that better met the resident’s medical needs when she requested this. This was in line with both the landlord’s planned and cyclical works policy, and its equipment and adaptations policy.
The resident told the Ombudsman she felt it has taken the landlord too long to replace her bathroom. She explained that as a result there have been delays in the occupational therapy service completing other aids and adaptations to her home, including the installation of a stairlift. This has had a significant impact on her activities of daily living.
Landlords are expected to complete repairs and improvement works in residents’ homes within a “reasonable timescale”. The landlord’s planned and cyclical works policy does not give a timescale for it to complete cyclical works like the resident’s bathroom replacement, although it says it will give residents 28 days’ notice before it begins works. The Ombudsman accepts that cyclical works may take longer than routine repairs due to the amount of work involved and the need to order parts which have to be manufactured. However, from the point the landlord notified the resident that it intended to replace her bathroom, the works have taken over 2 years. This is not a reasonable timescale. Any delay of this length will have caused the resident considerable inconvenience. However, not all delays are within landlords’ control. The Ombudsman will only make findings against the landlord where delays were avoidable.
The landlord arranged to measure the resident’s bathroom to see if a larger bath would fit. It arranged to do this 3 weeks after it spoke to the resident’s occupational therapist. Its records show this was the first time that it was available to do the measurement. Overall, this did not cause a significant delay in the landlord’s replacement of the bathroom.
The landlord was in regular contact with the occupational therapy service, to ensure that its suggestions were medically suitable for the resident. This was appropriate, as the occupational therapy service was best placed to identify the resident’s needs. It is outside of the landlord’s remit to assess residents’ medical needs. This caused unavoidable delays to the process.
In addition, evidence seen by this service showed additional delays in the landlord’s communication with the occupational therapy service which were outside of the landlord’s control. These included:
1. Delays due to staff absence within the occupational therapy service.
2. Staff turnover within the occupational therapy service.
3. On some occasions the landlord had to chase the occupational therapy service for a response to its enquiries. It did this proactively and within a reasonable timescale.
4. The advice given by the occupational therapy service did not always appear to be consistent, and the landlord’s efforts to clarify this added additional time to the process. For example, the landlord’s records indicate that the occupational therapy service initially told it a similar bath to the resident’s existing bath was appropriate. Occupational therapy next said she would benefit from a larger bath, and later said that a larger bath was not medically necessary. In addition, it said on one occasion that the resident did not require a non-slip finish in her bath, but later said that a non-slip bathmat was not appropriate as it could move.
The Ombudsman saw that on some occasions where the landlord wrote to or emailed the resident, she did not respond for some time. She later explained that she did not always have access to her emails. There was no evidence that the landlord knew this at the time it wrote the emails, so these delays were outside of its control.
However, some delays were avoidable. When the occupational therapy service identified that the handles in the standard bath it fitted were in an inappropriate place for the resident, the landlord contacted its supplier to see if there was an alternative. It was a reasonable action, as the landlord had an existing relationship with its supplier and knew the quality of the products it sold. However, the resident had first raised concerns about the bath handles 7 months previously when the landlord visited her at home. If the landlord had asked its supplier earlier, it would have minimised the short delay its enquiries caused.
On 15 July 2022 the occupational therapy service suggested an alternative bath. The landlord said it would speak to a member of staff who was on annual leave. The member of staff did not respond to the occupational therapy service for 1 month. It is unclear how much of the delay was due to annual leave, but overall, the timescale of the landlord’s response was unreasonable. Landlords should try to ensure that expertise is shared between staff so they are not overly reliant on individuals who may be unavailable due to sickness or annual leave. This helps them deliver business continuity.
Between August 2022 and October 2022, there was a further delay. It appears from the landlord’s records that this was due to a communication breakdown between the landlord and the occupational therapy service. The occupational therapy service had closed its case because the landlord would not consider any alternative baths, but the landlord was not aware of this. While there is no evidence the landlord should have known the case was closed, it could have followed up with the occupational therapy service sooner. This would have minimised the delay to the resident. Not knowing what was happening during this time will have cause her avoidable uncertainty and worry.
The landlord usually provides residents with steel baths, which it sources from a specific manufacturer. When the resident’s occupational therapist, and later the resident, suggested an acrylic bath with larger internal dimensions as an alternative, the landlord refused to consider this. It said that it did not fit acrylic baths “due to them being easier to damage and for the safety of tenants”. As a result, it said it would only offer the resident its standard bath, or it would leave her existing bath in place. It later said the “only options” were those discussed on the site visit. This was not appropriate. While the landlord’s desire to provide the resident with a high-quality bath was commendable, acrylic baths are widely used and considered to be safe. The occupational therapy service said a larger bath would benefit the resident, although it was not medically necessary. And the landlord had a duty to consider any reasonable adjustments requested by the resident under the Equality Act 2010. As such, the landlord should have fully considered the alternatives suggested, to try to find a workable solution. If there were other reasons the suggested baths were not suitable, for example if they would not fit in the bathroom, or the cost was prohibitive, the landlord should have explained this to the resident.
During the landlord’s conversation with the resident about her complaint, the landlord noted that the resident had made several suggestions about ways that it would be possible to install a larger bath. However, the landlord did not record these, and they were not investigated as part of the resident’s complaint. This was inappropriate. As discussed above, the landlord should have considered all proposed options. Its failure to do so undermined the landlord-tenant relationship and led to the resident feeling she was not being listened to.
The landlord later identified 2 alternative steel baths with larger dimensions and agreed to fit an alternative bath suggested by the resident. While this was reasonable, it should have happened much sooner. It is unclear from the records seen by this investigation when these suggestions were made. As of 9 July 2024, the new bathroom had not been installed. The landlord’s failure to consider alternative baths when they were first proposed caused an overall delay of around 18 months to the resident’s bathroom replacement. As such, this was a significant failing by the landlord, which caused detriment to the resident.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s communication, both with her and with the occupational therapy service. The landlord responded to this in its stage 2 complaint response to the resident, which was appropriate. It said that it had reviewed its records and could not see any evidence of inappropriate correspondence it had sent to the occupational therapy service, nor evidence that the occupational therapy service had expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s communication. With the information available to this investigation, the Ombudsman agrees with these findings. As above, it was reasonable for the landlord to contact occupational therapy multiple times as it needed to seek clarification regarding the resident’s needs. The tone of the communication the Ombudsman has seen was appropriate and professional.
The landlord’s records show that the landlord did not always proactively keep the resident updated. For example, after it visited her at home on 13 May 2022, it did not contact the resident again until 16 June 2022, after she had called to ask for an update. This was not reasonable. Landlords should keep residents updated on the progress of works to their home. This helps to manage their expectations.
As the landlord did not keep the resident updated, she called it for updates. It was not always available when she called, which will have been frustrating for the resident. This would have been avoided if it had called her. The resident left messages asking the landlord to call her back. The Ombudsman considers it reasonable for landlords to contact residents back within 5 working days under normal circumstances. In most cases the landlord’s records indicate that it spoke to or wrote to the resident within this timescale. However, there is no evidence the landlord told the resident when she could expect a response. This failed to manage her expectations and caused her frustration. The landlord should consider how it monitors and progresses complex repairs or planned works in future. It should consider making contact agreements with residents, specifying how often it will update them on the progress of works.
The resident complained to the landlord by telephone. She told the Ombudsman that she did not feel the landlord’s record of the complaint reflected what she said. As the Ombudsman has only seen the landlord’s record of the conversation, we cannot determine whether its records were accurate. Landlords should make accurate records of all conversations with residents. It is good practice to summarise key points of conversations before ending a call, to ensure that both parties share a mutual understanding of what was said. The landlord could consider implementing this, if it does not do this already. Although the disagreement about the landlord’s complaint record would have caused some level of inconvenience for the resident, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the resident has had the opportunity to clarify her complaint through the landlord’s process and in correspondence with the Ombudsman. Therefore, she would not have been significantly disadvantaged by the discrepancy.
The resident told the landlord in her telephone complaint that she preferred telephone to emails, as she did not always have access to her email account. She was unhappy that the landlord sent her a written complaint response. It is standard practice for a landlord to send complaint responses in writing. This reduces ambiguity and provides an audit trail of its response. However, given the resident’s communication preferences it would have been reasonable for the landlord to call her to talk through its complaint responses, as well as sending her a written response. It did not do so, at either stage of the complaints process. This was not appropriate as it may have led to the resident feeling that her preferences were being ignored. The landlord is ordered to ensure that it records the resident’s communication preferences so that its staff can consider them when contacting her in future.
The resident told the Ombudsman that, during conversations about the bath the landlord initially proposed, it did not show her any pictures of the bath. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to show the resident pictures of the proposed bath so she could visualise it.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for an alternative bath. This caused the resident avoidable time and effort, inconvenience, and worry. The detriment to the resident was increased by the resulting delay in other adaptations to her home. To put things right for the resident, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Complete the bathroom replacements within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
2. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failures identified in this report.
3. Pay the resident £400 in compensation for the distress, inconvenience, time, and effort caused by its handling of her request for an adapted bathroom. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, available on our webpage, says awards in this range are appropriate where there has been maladministration by the landlord which has adversely affected the resident, but there was no permanent impact. In this case there was no permanent impact as the landlord has now agreed to install a larger bath.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a non-standard bath as part of a planned bathroom replacement.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Complete the resident’s bathroom replacement.
2. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failures identified in this report. The landlord should follow up its written apology with a phone call to the resident, in line with her communication preferences.
3. Directly pay the resident £400 in compensation for the avoidable distress, inconvenience, time, and effort caused by its handling of her request for an alternative bath.
4. Record the resident’s communication preferences so that its staff can consider them when contacting her in future. It should contact the resident by phone to discuss her communication preferences, to ensure it records them accurately.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider how it monitors and progresses complex repairs or planned works in future. It should consider making contact agreements with residents, specifying how often it will update them on the progress of works.