ForHousing Limited (202343435)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202343435

ForHousing Limited

1 October 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 handling of:
1. Repairs to the resident’s bathroom.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy which began on 22 March 016. The property is a 2-bedroom bungalow. The landlord said its systems showed the resident was disabled and that during the complaints procedure, it was made aware the resident had Addison’s disease, COPD, difficulties with mobility and a support dog.
On 30 January 2023, the landlord was aware a sewage leak had damaged the resident’s bathroom flooring. The resident had reported that this had caused contamination to the shower tray and that it was loose. She requested that it change the shower tray. The landlord inspected the bathroom and discovered that the flooring was peeling away and that the seals around the shower tray needed renewal. It also found mould where someone had raked out the silicone.
The landlord agreed to replace the shower tray, remove the shower screen, fit vinyl to the ceramic trims on the wall where the shower tray is, and have new flooring fitted. The landlord attended to replace the shower tray and complete the tiling on 27 February 2023, however, the resident felt dissatisfied with the quality of the work. The landlord reviewed the tiling and agreed to re-do the work. It noted that the shower tray required no further work.
The landlord returned to complete the tiling on 10 March 2023, but the resident declined the work because it would only complete part of the tiling, and this would not match the existing mosaic. The landlord attended again to complete the work on 22 May 2023 but did not gain access.
On 19 October 2023, the landlord attended to remove the shower screen, renew the bathroom flooring, and install an extractor fan. The resident told the contractor there was water pooling by the toilet. The contractor assessed the flooring, stating that the vinyl was in good condition and that someone needed to check the drainage or install a larger shower screen.
On 20 October 2023, the resident made a complaint. She said she was dissatisfied with the floor layer who attended the previous day because he could not complete the flooring due to a lack of time. She explained this was an ongoing issue and asked for this to be looked into.
On 2 November 2023, the landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said:
1. It had attended the property on 19 October 2023 and the contractor said the flooring was in good condition.
2. There were further jobs raised to inspect the shower tray and this had confused which works were required.
3. It had arranged for a surveyor to attend on 3 November 2023 to assess the flooring and the shower tray.
4. The extractor fan was due to be installed on 8 November 2023.
On 24 November 2023, the resident escalated her complaint. She said that although the landlord had agreed to replace the flooring, she did not want there to be a joint in it. She also said no work had begun for the flooring, shower screen or extractor fans.
On 21 December 2023, the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said:
1. The flooring required a joint because its size was not a perfect fit. However, any joint would remain watertight and unnoticeable.
2. It had considered the resident’s comments and would send a surveyor to remeasure the flooring and determine whether they could avoid a joint in the floor.
3. The resident initially declined the offer of a start date in January 2024 because she wanted the works to be completed before Christmas. It offered her another date in December 2023, but the resident asked to continue with the original start date in January 2024.

Post complaints procedure

The landlord agreed to retile 3 walls, replace the shower screen, install an extractor fan, and lay new flooring. Whilst it completed the works, it offered the resident accommodation at a guest house in a sheltered accommodation unit for bathing and toilet facilities. It completed the work between 17 May and 20 May 2024.
The resident told the Ombudsman she had referred the complaint to us because she was seeking the following outcomes:
1. An apology for the landlord’s failures.
2. The landlord to complete the outstanding works to her bathroom.
3. The landlord to complete a post-completion survey of the outstanding works whilst she is present.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident explained to the Ombudsman that there were other outstanding repairs relating to her external walls which she believed to be causing water ingress into her property.
Paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme states:

“The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s 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.”

As this issue has not completed the landlord’s complaint procedure, it has not been considered as part of this investigation. The resident can raise this as a separate complaint with her landlord and seek further recourse from the Ombudsman, if required.

The bathroom repairs

The landlord’s repair records show that it was on notice from 30 January 2023 that the resident’s flooring had been damaged by a sewage leak and required replacement. The repair logs also noted the resident had reported her shower tray was moving when she stood on it.
On 2 February 2023, the landlord inspected the bathroom and noted that the shower tray needed to be resealed and the plumbing inspected. Although the landlord completed the inspection promptly, the repair records do not clearly indicate which works were conducted at this appointment. This is evidence of poor record-keeping.
On 9 February 2023, the resident called the landlord and explained that raw sewage had contaminated the shower tray, which needed to be replaced. She said an operative had attended the previous day to fix the flooring but could not complete the work because other jobs in the bathroom were incomplete. It was unclear which jobs the resident had explained were incomplete.
The landlord indicated in internal communications at this time that it would investigate the moving shower tray on 14 February 2023 to see if further work was required. The resident explained this appointment did not happen. When the landlord investigated this, it found the responsible team had not attended because they felt they already knew what they needed to complete the job. This was a failure because we would have expected the landlord to have communicated this to the resident. This caused the resident inconvenience because she had waited for an appointment that did not happen.
On 16 February 2023, the evidence shows the landlord had spoken with the resident to explain it would:
1. Renew the shower screen.
2. Screed the floor under the shower tray to stop the movement.
3. Fit vinyl to the ceramic tiles on the wall where the shower tray was.
4. Renew the bathroom flooring.
Although the repair records note the landlord attended to complete these works between 27 February and 31 February 2023. During the appointments, the landlord only completed the renewal of the shower tray and the tiling. The resident called the landlord on 28 February 2023. She said the operatives had not installed the tiles correctly, had fitted the shower tray incorrectly, and failed to ensure it was draining properly. She also explained this would delay laying the flooring. The landlord attended the property on 1 March 2023 and confirmed the tiling works were poor, but the shower tray did not require any further work.
The Ombudsman considers the landlord acted promptly and arranged to investigate the resident’s concerns about the standard of work carried out. This was appropriate in the circumstances because the landlord tried to put things right in a timely manner.
Separately, the landlord’s repair records indicate it attended on 9 and 10 March 2023 to renew the shower screen and to remove the mould on the tiles and shower tray. The records relating to 9 March 2023 noted that it completed the job and referred to the operatives replacing the sealant. The record relating to 10 March 2023 notes the landlord failed to gain access to the property. The jobs for both repair records are identical, and the first repair record states that the contractor completed the job, so it is unclear why the landlord required further access to finish the job on 10 March 2023. This is evidence of poor record-keeping.
On 27 March 2023, the resident expressed dissatisfaction to the landlord because the tiler had attended but was only going to replace four tiles up from the floor around the shower. She explained this would not match the existing mosaic. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns at this time.
While the Ombudsman empathises with the resident, there was no obligation on the landlord to ensure the repairs to the bathroom tiles matched the existing décor. However, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have evidenced it had explained its position around the scope of the tiling referencing its policy and statutory obligations. This would have ensured it had managed the resident’s expectations at the earliest opportunity about what it would do. This was a missed opportunity that contributed to the delays in completing the repairs.
The repair records show three further appointments were made on 19 April, 4 May, and 22 May 2023 to remove the shower screen, fit the flooring, and install an extractor fan. The evidence shows the landlord was denied access to the property for all of these appointments.
The Ombudsman considers the landlord made attempts to complete the work it had agreed with the resident between 19 April and 22 May 2023. The Ombudsman cannot hold the landlord responsible for this type of delay as it was outside its control.
The Ombudsman notes the next appointment was made on 19 October 2023. It is unclear what, if any, communications the landlord had with the resident between May 2023 and October 2023 about gaining access to the property.
On 19 October 2023, the landlord’s contractor re-attended to complete the work noted in paragraph 20. It records that the resident said during the appointment the water was pooling around the toilet. The contractor said that the flooring was in good condition and recommended installing a larger shower screen and inspecting the drainage. The landlord inspected the external drainage on 20 October 2023 and noted the drains were in working order, but a plumber was required to inspect the wet room. A plumber attended on 1 December 2023 and resealed the wet room floor near the shower, but the records indicate the resident declined access.
The landlord took 31 working days to inspect the plumbing near the toilet. Although this was 1 working day outside of its repair policy timeframes, this would have caused minimal inconvenience to the resident. In addition, as the resident declined access, the Ombudsman is unable to find any impact on the resident for the landlord’s short delay.
On 24 November 2023, the landlord attended to renew the bathroom flooring. The records indicate the resident declined the work because she did not want the flooring to have a joint in it. She told the landlord this was because it would be a trip hazard, and she had concerns that it would not be watertight.
In its stage 2 response (December 2023), the landlord explained that the flooring came in standard measurements, which were smaller than the amount of flooring required, necessitating a joint. It also informed the resident that it had conducted a further inspection and that the flooring would not need a joint. However, when the operatives later fitted the flooring, they found that a joint was necessary due to the required measurements.
The landlord had relied on the expertise of its operative, who had assured it that the floor could be installed without a joint. This led to its communications with the resident. Nonetheless, the landlord is responsible for the acts of its third parties and as this was a contentious issue, this caused distress and inconvenience to the resident because it failed to lay the flooring in the way it had agreed to.
The landlord’s repair records show it attended the resident’s property on 9 January 2024 to complete the outstanding work to the bathroom, but it did not gain access. It tried again on 23 January 2024, but the repair records show the resident wanted the bathroom fully retiled rather than a small section of tiles renewed. As a result, the operatives completed no further work at the appointment.
On 29 January 2024, the resident chased the landlord after receiving information that the contractor would speak with the landlord about the scope of the tiling work. She also mentioned that an engineer attended to fit an extractor fan, but due to the size of the machine, it could only go above the toilet wall, so they would request a window fan instead. In addition, she explained that 6 workmen had attended, and no work had started.
The landlord said the work would begin on 19 February 2024 and provided a schedule of works. The schedule said the landlord would “fit new wall tiles.” The landlord received an email from the resident asking whether it would replace all the tiles in the bathroom. She later asked for a call from the landlord because she would not consent for the work to begin until the issue was sorted. There is no evidence the landlord called the resident.
The Ombudsman considers the landlord delayed in dealing with the resident’s concerns over the scope of the tiling. This was an issue it was aware of in March 2023 and failed to demonstrate it had adequately addressed the matter. This factored into the delay experienced by the resident because the issue remained unresolved. This caused frustration because the resident’s expectations were not managed about what the landlord was obligated or willing to do in the circumstances between March 2023 and February 2024.
On 21 February 2024, the landlord attended to replace the shower screen, but could not complete the work because parts were missing. The landlord contacted the contractor and found that all the parts were left on site from a previous appointment but could not be found. The resident asked the landlord to call her to discuss this. There is no evidence the landlord called the resident. However, it did email her with an update which said:
1. The flooring could not be completed without a joint because of the standard sizes the flooring came in.
2. The tiles were damaged during a previous appointment and could not be reused. It would retile the small area with white glazed tiles as the current tiles had been discontinued.
3. It would attend the next day to fix the shower screen, and the shower could be used without this as the bathroom was a wet room. It also said it would like to agree on dates for the work to start so that it could mitigate the length of time this was for.
4. The landlord had closed the bathroom works on the system because the resident declined the work due to her dissatisfaction with the flooring.
The Ombudsman considers the landlord was responsible for the delay in replacing the shower. As a result, the resident experienced distress and inconvenience because she expected the shower screen to be replaced during the appointment.
The resident asked the landlord to call her following the email she had received. She also said that the bathroom repairs had been ongoing for an excessive period, and she would like to have the work done privately and the landlord to reimburse her. The landlord emailed her to explain that it would not allow the work to be conducted privately and that a manager would call her. The landlord called the resident the next day. It followed this up with an email which said:
1. The chipped tiles would be replaced with plain white tiles.
2. It would send a surveyor to assess the water pooling in the shower.
3. The floor seam would be flush to the floor and would not be a trip hazard, but it would ask for a further opinion from the surveyor.
4. It would provide an update regarding the shower screen following the surveyor’s assessment.
5. The complaint handler would update the resident with the surveyor’s findings and organise further appointments.
The evidence shows the resident was looking at purchasing tiles during this time. When it became clear that the resident could not do this (26 March 2024), she asked the landlord whether it would consider replacing all the tiles in the bathroom as a gesture of goodwill for the time she had waited for the completion of the works. The landlord said it could not offer a full retile, but it would replace all the tiles on the singular wall where there were chipped tiles. At the same time, the landlord reviewed pictures of the water pooling in the bathroom and agreed to install a larger shower screen than previously ordered.
The Ombudsman considers that the landlord exceeded its repair obligations by offering to replace all the tiles on the wall with chipped tiles, although the landlord was not obligated to do so. In addition, the landlord responded to the resident’s reports about the water pooling and agreed to a larger screen. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord provided another schedule of work to the resident on 28 February 2024. It included “wall tiles to be renewed following tenant supplying her own.” It is unclear why the schedule of work included this given the resident’s previous comments on the matter. The landlord also asked the resident to agree on a start date of 25 March 2024. On 13 March 2024, the landlord asked the resident to confirm whether she was purchasing tiles for the wall or if she agreed to use the landlord’s white tiles so that the work would not be delayed. When the resident responded she did not provide the landlord with an answer.
On 25 March 2024, the landlord attended the property and overhauled the shower, however, a plumber needed to reconnect it. It also installed the extractor fan and completed some painting. The repair records indicated the resident declined the tiling works and called the landlord for an update for this on the same day. The landlord responded by liaising with its contractor. It told the resident the wall behind the shower was to be retiled as previously agreed with her. The resident contested this and said the tiler had also advised her that four rows of tiles needed to be replaced.
On 26 March, the landlord’s surveyor confirmed that standard white tiles needed to be installed in place of the bottom row of tiles, which had been discontinued. The resident confirmed she was unable to buy the tiles and asked the landlord to make all the shower walls white because she felt mismatched tiles would make the bathroom look a mess. The landlord responded by agreeing to tile a further two of the walls surrounding the shower. The resident also requested that it completely retile the radiator wall, which required the bottom tiles to be replaced. The landlord agreed to this.
The Ombudsman considers the landlord acted reasonably in the circumstances by considering the resident’s requests around the scope of the tiling work. Although the landlord was not obligated to, it agreed to retile an additional two walls, exceeding its repair obligations. This was positive to note. In addition, the landlord completed all the work the resident had consented to during its appointment on 25 March 2024. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
On 9 April 2024, the resident chased the landlord for a start date for the remaining work. The landlord explained it had re-raised the works and gave a start date of 8 May 2024 which would last 4 days. On one of those days, the toilet would be removed in the morning and reinstated in the evening. The landlord asked the resident to confirm the dates. When the resident responded she asked whether the landlord had booked a hotel room so that she could have access to bathing and toilet facilities while the works were being carried out because of her health conditions. She also explained she had a dust allergy.
The landlord said this was not the type of work it would usually provide temporary accommodation for but offered the resident the use of a guest room in a sheltered accommodation scheme. The resident declined this because she thought there would be a risk to her health from other users of the scheme, the room was located in a block, and because she thought it was a nursing home. The landlord kept the booking open for the resident and explained she could use it to stay in and it would book meals for her, or she could use it on an ad hoc basis for the amenities. It also said it would order a chemical toilet for the resident and seal off her bathroom to limit the dust in the home in the event she wanted to stay on the property while the works commenced. The resident said she declined both of these options and relied on alternative means such as family to accommodate her needs.
The evidence shows the landlord considered the resident’s vulnerabilities and offered accommodation that enabled her to access bathing and toilet facilities. Whilst the Ombudsman understands the resident preferred hotel accommodation, there is no evidence the alternative provided by the landlord would not have met the resident’s needs.
The landlord completed the agreed works on 20 May 2024. This was 331 working days after the resident gave the landlord notice of the repairs. Although this was an unreasonable delay, the Ombudsman is unable to hold the landlord responsible for all the delays. This is because the resident refused access to contractors complete the repairs.
The landlord is, however, responsible for the following failures:
1. The landlord’s record-keeping did not reflect which works completed during its appointment on 9 February 2023.
2. The landlord failed to attend an appointment it had made on 14 February 2023 and did not notify the resident that it would not be attending.
3. The landlord delayed in replacing the shower screen during the appointment on 21 February 2023.
4. The landlord’s repair records during 9 and 10 March 2023 were unclear and did not reflect which works were completed and which works were outstanding.
5. The landlord missed an opportunity in March 2023 to manage the resident’s expectations over the scope of the tiling works.
6. The landlord failed to demonstrate it was actioning the repairs between 23 May 2023 and 18 October 2023.
7. The landlord failed to follow through with its promise to lay the flooring without a joint in it.
Given the culmination of failures, the Ombudsman considers this to be maladministration. Taken together the landlord’s failures are likely to have inconvenienced the resident and caused her some distress. Having carefully considered the Remedies Guidance, the Ombudsman considers the landlord should pay the resident £350 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused. This is because whilst it would have been distressing, the resident was also responsible for some of the delays by refusing access.
The resident has shown evidence to the Ombudsman that indicated the landlord did not seal the flooring or the toilet when it completed the works. The landlord must inspect the bathroom to assess any further works required to these areas.

Complaint handling

The Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) states landlords must:
1. issue stage 1 responses within 10 working days of acknowledgement.
2. Issue stage 2 responses within 20 working days of the resident’s request to escalate the complaint.
The landlord’s complaint policy reflects these timescales.
The resident raised a complaint on 20 October 2023. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 2 November 2023. This was 9 working days later. The landlord’s response time was reasonable and in line with the Code.
The resident escalated her complaint on 24 November 2023. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 21 December 2023. This was 19 working days later. The landlord’s response time was reasonable and in line with the Code.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response it acknowledged that its appointment during October 2023 had caused confusion about which works required completing. It apologised for this and said it would arrange to install an extractor fan and inspect the flooring and shower tray.
Given the landlord was aware that the repairs to the bathroom had been ongoing since January 2023, and it ought to have reasonably been aware that it had not actioned repairs between May and October 2023, it would have investigated this as part of the complaint’s procedure. This was a failure because the Code expects landlords to consider all information and evidence clearly and set out its findings. The Ombudsman considers this a service failure because this was a missed opportunity to acknowledge its failures and to try and put things right.
The handling of the complaint is likely to have caused the resident distress and inconvenience. Considering the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, compensation of £50 would be fair to recognise the impact.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s bathroom repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was a service failure with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders

Within 28 days of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures found at paragraphs 51 and 59 of this report.
2. Pay the resident £400 compensation, comprised of:
  1. £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident for its handling of the bathroom repairs.
  2. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident for its handling of her complaint.
3. Arrange to inspect the resident’s bathroom to assess the sealing of the resident’s toilet and flooring.
  1. It must produce a survey report with its findings within 5 working days of the inspection and its findings to the resident and the Ombudsman with any associated timescales for the completion of the work.
4. The landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman of completion of these orders.
Within 56 days of the date of this determination, the landlord must use its best endeavours to ensure the completion of any outstanding works in these areas. The landlord must also provide the Ombudsman with evidence of completion of the works within this timeframe.
Within 5 working days of the completion of the works, the landlord must conduct a post-completion survey with the resident. The landlord must provide the post-completion report to the resident and the Ombudsman.