East Midlands Housing Group Limited (202201886)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202201886

East Midlands Housing Group Limited

23 December 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:
   1. The resident’s requests for it to replace her flooring, and the quality of its associated works and communication.
   2. The associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord of a house. The landlord has documented that the resident has vulnerabilities including sight and mobility issues, for which she is awaiting treatment and uses walking aides, respectively.
3. The resident initially reported an issue with her floor tiles being cracked putting her at risk of falls due to her poor mobility to the landlord on 14 June 2021, and this was attended by its operative on 24 June 2021. They confirmed that the ceramic tiles below her carpet were chipped and broken, needing to be replaced as “dangerous”, and they recommended that wooden flooring would be more suitable instead.
4. This was then investigated by a surveyor on 14 July 2021, who suggested that, due to the structure of the resident’s hallway and living room floors, these should be self-levelled and a wood-effect hard-wearing vinyl would be the most appropriate solution. This was installed in only her hallway on 2 September 2021, and she subsequently reported that, during the installation, the contractors had damaged floor tiles in her dining room. The resident reported to the landlord that she had previously been told that the living room flooring would also be replaced, and she later told it that bumps had appeared on the new vinyl flooring in her hallway, which it again agreed to self-level and replace with more new vinyl there and in her living room.
5. On 31 January 2022, the landlord’s appointment to install the resident’s replacement flooring on that day was cancelled, as well as the appointment to do so for the following day, as the new flooring was unavailable. However, after an attendance by it on the latter date, she was informed that the flooring in the living and dining room would not be replaced, but that it could instead only replace the broken tiles, which she refused.
6. A stage one complaint was initially raised from 1 February 2022 because the resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision to not replace the flooring in her living room, the cracks on which it attributed to wear and tear and the bumpy vinyl to a water leak, as she had previously been told that this would be installed. She further complained about the standard of work of the vinyl installation in her hallway being poor. The resident sought the installation of vinyl or laminate in her living room and dining room, and the replacement of the vinyl flooring installed in her hallway.
7. In response to the resident’s stage one complaint, on 16 February 2022 the landlord established that its repair service did not replace floor coverings in its properties, but that it was able to repair the damaged floor tiles. It apologised if she was told that it would replace the tiling with vinyl or laminate, and that the installation of vinyl in the hallway was contrary to this, as well as for the confusion that this would have caused.
8. The resident’s final stage complaint from 24 February 2022 to the landlord requested the replacement of her flooring with laminate, including because her hallway’s new vinyl flooring was coming up, and so this was a trip hazard that she had twice fallen on. Its final stage complaint panel meeting, rearranged from 27 May 2022 to 13 June 2022 at her request, verbally reiterated its position on this to her and re-offered her floor tile repairs that she again declined, as well as recognising that there had been a failure in its contradictory communication that had impacted her. The landlord therefore offered the resident £100 compensation for this failure, and as an acknowledgment of the late cancellation of the appointments on 31 January and 1 February 2022, which it subsequently paid her.
9. The resident nevertheless reported to the landlord on 12 and 15 July 2022 that she had again tripped on her flooring and that its subsequent attendance on the latter date to make this safe was not replacing this, respectively, for which it completed an accident form. It then issued her with its final stage complaint panel’s response letter on 11 August 2022, which outlined the panel’s previous findings.
10. The resident subsequently complained to this Service that her flooring was poor and dangerous from the damaged floor tiles, that this required replacement vinyl flooring, and that she had been previously been told her flooring would be replaced by the landlord as well as made safe. She later suggested to us that it would seek to replace the flooring, but that the sealant around the edge of her hallway flooring was coming away.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s requests for the landlord to replace her flooring, and the quality of its associated works and communication

11. The resident is seeking for replacement vinyl or laminate flooring to be installed in her property, as the landlord had previously communicated to her that it planned to do so and installed vinyl flooring in her hallway on 2 September 2021. She also had an appointment from it for the flooring to be fitted on 31 January and 1 February 2022, however this was cancelled as the flooring was not ready to be collected. Following this, the landlord attributed the damaged floor tiles and bumpy vinyl it had installed to wear and tear and a water leak, respectively, as opposed to damage caused by its contractor. At this point, it informed her that it would not be providing new flooring, but that it would repair and make safe the existing flooring.
12. This was not unreasonable of the landlord because it had no obligation to replace the flooring. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that it only has the responsibility to keep in repair the structure of the property, which would have included the flooring, but not to improve this. Therefore, the landlord had the responsibility to repair her damaged floor tiles, and the bumpy vinyl that it had installed in her property, but not necessarily to replace this with new flooring, which could be categorised as an improvement rather than a repair.
13. This meant that the landlord’s offer to repair and make safe the broken tiles to avoid the trip hazard to the resident was appropriate and reasonable to ensure her safety. As she nevertheless refused this, it responded suitably by explaining that its repair service did not replace floor coverings in the living and dining rooms of its properties. The landlord’s final stage complaint response also appropriately apologised for any confusion that may have arisen from the installation of the hallway flooring, and for providing the resident with incorrect information, acknowledging that this was a failure of its service provision which had impacted her.
14. The landlord’s compensation for service failure policy sets out that offers from £50 lower band compensation can be awarded where there has been a service failure resulting in some impact on the resident. In response to this, it offered and paid her £100 compensation for the contradictory information that she had received from it about the replacement of her flooring, as well as the late cancellation of the appointments to do so. The landlord recognised that the resident had been impacted by its poor communication, and compensated her accordingly, which was a reasonable response in light of inconvenience the resident experienced. This is also in line with this Service’s remedies guidance, which suggests compensation from £50 where there has been a service failure.
15. From the resident’s subsequent communication with this Service, it is unclear whether she has since agreed to the landlord’s proposed repairs to her flooring, or if it has now offered to replace the flooring. In the absence of confirmation of this, it has been recommended below to re-offer her the most recent works that it has offered her to address the condition of her flooring, if it has not completed these already.
16. However, the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states that an emergency repair is one where a health and safety hazard or a potentially seriously detrimental risk is identified, and that these should be dealt with by it to be made safe within 24 hours to prevent harm to the resident. The policy also identifies a programmed repair as a non-urgent repair which does not affect the safety or enjoyment of the property, and it aims to complete these within three months.
17. When the resident reported the flooring repairs at her property on 14 June 2021, the landlord noted that she was worried about experiencing falls due to her poor mobility. Since it had recorded mobility, sight and other vulnerabilities for her, it should have attended this as an emergency repair within 24 hours. This is to ensure that the property was made safe to prevent harm to her, before a long-term flooring solution was achieved.
18. The landlord nevertheless did not attend the property until ten calendar days later on 24 June 2021, when its operative found that the resident’s broken floor tiles needed to be replaced as “dangerous”. This was not an appropriately timely response by it in the presence of a reported safety concern, which it had not investigated or made safe within its repairs and maintenance policy’s 24-hour timescale for it to do so, and for a resident with recorded vulnerabilities.
19. As per the repairs and maintenance policy, the landlord states that it “will work with [its] care and support [team] to develop a service that will take account of and respond to individual needs and specific vulnerabilities when required.” It should therefore have consulted with the care and support service to provide a safe and comprehensive response to the resident’s concerns. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord did so, however, or considered her vulnerabilities as part of its response, which was unreasonable.
20. On 14 July 2022, a surveyor attended the resident’s property, and stated that a replacement vinyl flooring would be most appropriate given the structure of her hallway and living room floors. Furthermore, the new hallway vinyl flooring installation was completed on 2 September 2021, which was approximately two-and-a-half months following her first report of the broken floor, and an unsuitably lengthy delay to make this safe for her in only one part of her damaged flooring.
21. While this repair was in line with the landlord’s programmed repair target of three months, it should have acted sooner to make safe all of the damaged flooring in the property in view of the resident’s vulnerabilities. It should have instead ensured her safety within its repairs and maintenance policy’s 24-hour timescale on all of the affected flooring by securing and surveying this sooner, but it did not do so. The landlord therefore did not act reasonably in response to the resident’s requests to replace her flooring given the safety concerns about this, and so this was a very concerning failing on its part.
22. It has therefore been recommended below that the landlord review its staff’s training needs with regard to their application of its repairs and maintenance policy to vulnerable residents’ reports of emergency repairs, to ensure that its repairs are appropriately timely and tailored to their specific needs. It has also been recommended below to provide the resident with details to enable her to submit a liability insurance claim to it or its insurers for any damages to her health that she experienced from the condition of her flooring, including from when she reported falling on this, for which it should have provided her with these details.
23. As it failed to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities in light of a safety concern and act accordingly, or to recognise and acknowledge its failings under its repairs policy, the landlord has been ordered below to pay the resident another £250 compensation. This is within the range of middle band compensation recommended by its compensation for service failure policy and this Service’s remedies guidance for failures that have adversely affected her, for which it failed to address the detriment to her or make an offer that was proportionate to the failings identified by this investigation.

The associated complaint

24. In line with its complaints process guide and this Service’s complaint handling code, the landlord is expected to respond to stage one complaints within 10 working days, and to a final stage complaint within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated.
25. The landlord’s stage one complaint response was provided to the resident 11 working days after the complaint of 1 February 2022 had been made, being issued on 16 February 2022. Therefore, while there was a brief one-working-day delay in its response, this was not unreasonable.
26. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage one complaint response and escalated the complaint to the final stage of its complaints procedure on 24 February 2022, from when its complaint panel was due to meet and issue its final stage complaint response within 20 working days, i.e. by 24 March 2022. However, it instead scheduled the panel 43 working days later than this for 27 May 2022, before at her request this meeting was rescheduled for 13 June 2022. This delay was a failing on the part of the landlord, as it is expected to respond to complaints in a timely manner to minimise the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience to residents.
27. Moreover, the only evidence that the landlord then informed the resident of its final stage complaint decision in writing was on 11 August 2022. This was a further 43 working days after the decision was made, and even more outside of its complaints policy’s and this Service’s complaint handling code’s 20-working-day final stage complaint response timescale, causing her additional unnecessary time and trouble before she received this, totalling 86 working days of delays. While the code envisages additional time being justified if related to convening a final stage complaint panel, this is with regard to three-stage complaint procedures, and not to the landlord’s two-stage procedure.
28. The delays that the resident experienced in receiving her final stage complaint decision amounts to a failure that the landlord did not recognise or attempt to redress, which is inappropriate. It has therefore been ordered below to pay her another £100 compensation in recognition of its poor complaint handling in her case, as well as recommended below to review its staff’s training needs regarding their application of its complaints policy and this Service’s complaint handling code. This is in line with the landlord’s compensation for service failure policy and this Service’s remedies guidance, which suggest payments within this range for failures to reply to correspondence, which adversely affected the resident and it failed to acknowledge or attempt to put right.

Determination

29. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s requests for it to replace her flooring, and the quality of its associated works and communication.
30. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Order and Recommendations

31. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident further compensation totalling £350 within four weeks, which is broken down into:
    1. £250 compensation for its failings to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities, in response to her reports of unsafe flooring;
    2. £100 compensation for its poor complaint handling.
32. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Contact the resident to re-offer her the most recent works that it has offered her to address the condition of her flooring, if it has not completed these already.
    2. Contact the resident to provide her with details to enable her to submit a liability insurance claim to it or its insurers for any damages to her health that she experienced from the condition of her flooring, including from when she reported falling on this.
    3. Review its staff’s training needs with regard to their application of its repairs and maintenance policy to vulnerable residents’ reports of emergency repairs, to ensure that its repairs are appropriately timely and tailored to their specific needs.
    4. Review its staff’s training needs regarding their application of its complaints policy, and this Service’s complaint handling code at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/landlords-info/complaint-handling-code/, in order to ensure that these are followed to prevent its complaint handling delays in the resident’s case from occurring again in the future.
33. The landlord shall contact this Service within four weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above order, and whether it will follow the above recommendations.