The Guinness Partnership Limited (202302555)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302555

The Guinness Partnership Limited

28 May 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident about bathroom repairs.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant. The resident is vulnerable and has health issues and disabilities.
3. The resident reported in January 2023 that a crack in his bathroom flooring was resulting in water leaking into the kitchen below, after which the landlord says its contractor attended in an emergency and identified that the flooring needed replacement.
4. On 16 February 2023, a contractor attended for follow on works for the bathroom flooring and is noted to have reported that the shower tray also needed replacement. On 20 February, the resident said the contractor who attended on 16 February had told him not to go into the bathroom as the flooring was so rotted. He explained that he was incontinent and usually showered twice a day but currently only had a small basin to wash.
5. On 22 February 2023, an in-house repairs operative who attended were unable to replace the shower tray as it was a non-standard one, and they cordoned off the shower due to the rotted flooring. The same day, the landlord contacted the resident about a decant. The landlord notes that the resident discussed this with his partner and declined this, as he did not wish to move out and had a relative nearby whose shower he could use. The landlord internally confirmed that there were no health and safety concerns with this and invited the resident to contact it if he changed his mind.
6. Over subsequent days, the resident chased for updates about the repair. The landlord’s logs report that the floor and shower tray repairs initially being allocated to different parties caused delays, there were difficulties contacting its contractor, and its contractor had difficulty sourcing a replacement for the resident’s non-standard shower tray. The resident said on 24 February 2023 that he could not use someone else’s shower any longer, and the landlord offered to decant the resident on dates including 24 and 27 February and 1 March, but the resident continued to decline this as he wanted to stay at home. His reasons included that he had regular health visits, he had a dog which was not permitted in hotels, he was concerned a walk-in shower was not guaranteed, and he was concerned about mess he may create in a hotel room due to his incontinence. The evidence provided advises that the bathroom flooring and shower tray repairs were completed on 2 March.
7. The resident made a complaint on 1 March 2023. He was unhappy that he was without a shower for 2 weeks. He said he was told the repair would take a few days. He said he had had to wash using a small sink. He said he had not received callbacks as promised.
8. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 24 March 2023. It detailed the chronology of the repair, contact from the resident and decant offers it had made. It noted that the repair was completed by 6 March 2023 and that the tray being non-standard and having to be ordered in caused the delays. It acknowledged that the resident experienced significant delays in the repairs, it had failed to provide updates when requested, and it had delayed in its complaint response. It apologized for the delays and the stress and inconvenience in the resident not having bathing facilities, and the poor communication he had experienced. It awarded £125, which comprised £75 for distress and inconvenience, £25 for poor communication, and £25 for a delay responding to the complaint. It noted that the relevant service had acknowledged the delays and the importance of keeping customers updated.
9. The resident requested escalation of the complaint on 29 March 2023. He restated dissatisfaction with the length of time the repair took. He explained that he suffered with incontinence and he had a minor heat attack while awaiting the repair, which he put down to the stress caused by the issue. He said that the advice that the shower tray was hard to obtain was not accurate and that the landlord’s operative had told him they could do the repair within days.
10. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 24 April 2023. It said that the shower tray had to be special ordered and the repairs needed were more substantial than realized, which meant that the bathroom could not be used. It noted that the resident was offered temporary accommodation but this was declined as he had regular visits from health professionals, accommodation on offer did not cater for dogs, and he had said he could use a relative’s shower. He had also said he wished to remain at the property after the landlord offered to look for accommodation which could accommodate his dog. It confirmed the failings and compensation at stage 1, but awarded a further £25 for a delay returning a call from the resident during its stage 2 investigation (bringing its award to £150 in total). It addressed some concerns the resident had raised. It said that its operative could not have fitted the shower tray, due to their lacking expertise to carry out the repair and the shower tray not being readily available. It apologized for the impact on the resident, but said it had fulfilled its duty of care as it had offered temporary accommodation. It said that the resident would need to submit a personal injury claim via a solicitor for claims that he had suffered a heart attack due to the stress.
11. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. He highlights that he is vulnerable, has incontinence and has had strokes. He said that a contractor showed him that the required part was available but said they were not allowed to install it. He says he was left in unsanitary conditions and that as a result of being left without a bathroom, he washed himself at his kitchen sink. He does not feel that the £150 compensation reflects the conditions he was left in and the impact these had, or the costs that the landlord would have incurred if it had decanted him to a hotel, and has said that he is seeking £1,000 to £2,000.

Assessment and findings

12. The Ombudsman should note that we do not make definitive decisions about negligence and liability for the impact on health, and the landlord provided some information about how the resident could pursue this through a personal injury claim. However, we can assess if the landlord followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and responded reasonably.
13. The evidence shows that the resident was unable to use the shower for a period of around 2 weeks, while the flooring and shower tray required repair. The resident disputes parts should have taken so long to order and fit, as an operative showed him parts were in stock. The Ombudsman is unable to say who is right and who is wrong on the evidence available, but the landlord did not dispute that the repairs were delayed. This will have clearly impacted the resident, particularly given his vulnerabilities, and the landlord rightly offered temporary accommodation.
14. The landlord’s decant policy provides for it to consider moving tenants temporarily out of their home while repairs are outstanding. The landlord acted in line with this to offer the resident alternative accommodation on multiple occasions from 22 February 2023. The Ombudsman understands that the resident will have had his reasons for declining this, and feels that the consequent lack of a shower meant that the landlord significantly failed him. However, the landlord’s offering of alternative accommodation shows that it tried to provide a solution for the loss of the shower, and this fulfilled its obligations.
15. The Ombudsman understands the resident’s point that compensation to him should equate to what the landlord would have incurred, but if temporary accommodation is declined, the landlord has no obligation to pay an amount equivalent to what the temporary accommodation would have cost. The Ombudsman therefore sees no basis to order compensation to the level sought by the resident.
16. However, there is evidence of an unacknowledged and unreasonable delay before temporary accommodation was offered. The contractor’s attendance on 16 February 2023 is when the resident says he was told not to go into the bathroom, and when he started to use a small basin to wash. This should have prompted a swift response, but there was no attendance or offer of temporary accommodation until 6 days later. There is no evidence that the inability to use the bathroom was appropriately flagged sooner by the contractor. This means that there was an unreasonable delay responding to the 16 February visit, which prolonged resolution of matters. This also means the resident experienced a loss of shower, which he paid towards in his rent, for almost a week before he was offered temporary accommodation on 22 February.
17. The landlord’s award of £150 recognised that there were some delays, and showed positive empathy with the resident’s situation, but it did not appropriately acknowledge these issues. The Ombudsman therefore finds a service failure and orders £100 compensation in recognition of the delay in action after the 16 February visit, and the loss of the shower room between 16 and 22 February. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s approach and our remedies guidance.

Determination

18. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident about bathroom repairs.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

19. The landlord is, within 4 weeks, ordered to pay the resident £100 for the issues identified, in addition to the £150 it previously offered if it has not paid this already.

Recommendations

20. The landlord is recommended to ensure that loss of amenities such as bathrooms are appropriately flagged by its contractors, and acted on, in a timely manner.
21. The landlord is recommended to review the case for how to ensure that, in repairs involving similar works and vulnerabilities, parts are obtained as quickly as possible to avoid any unnecessary delays in restoring essential facilities such as showers and toilets.