Trafford Housing Trust Limited (202100386)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202100386

Trafford Housing Trust Limited

31 August 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

This complaint is about:

The length of time the resident had to wait to move into the property.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s requests for reasonable adjustments whilst waiting for Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) funded adaptations to be carried out by the Council.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to her property, including:
1. Reports of drainage issues in the property.
2. Concerns about asbestos in the property.
3. Repairs to outhouse.
4. The upstairs toilet not flushing properly.
5. Repairs to her bath.
6. Reports about contractors leaving rubbish in her loft.
7. Concerns about gas safety.
8. Report that a contractor attended her property without a pre-arranged appointment.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a three bedroom semi-detached house and the tenancy commenced on 30 November 2020. The property has an upstairs bathroom, with shower and toilet, and a downstairs toilet which is located in an outhouse.
The resident has registered disabilities including a hypermobility syndrome (Ehlers Danlos syndrome type 111), fibromyalgia, cardiac arrythmias, VSD heat defects, IBS, Incontinence, asthma, agoraphobia, anxiety disorder and depression. The resident’s two daughters have PTDS and anxiety, one of her daughters also has seizures.
In correspondence with the OT the landlord confirmed that the resident had been awarded a high priority management move as it was felt, by a number of agencies, that after significant trauma in 2014, that living in their current property was causing significant distress to both of the resident’s daughters and deterioration of their mental health.
This investigation has considered matters that formed part of the two complaints raised by the resident for which the landlord issued its final responses on 10 February 2021 and 9 May 2021. It is noted that on 25 May 2021, the landlord issued a follow up letter to its final response of 9 May 2021 which will also be considered as part of this investigation.
The actions of the Council’s Occupational Therapist (OT) and One Stop Resources Centre (OSRC), which is responsible for the delivery of the council’s adaptations programme, will be referred to within the report to provide context to the matters which the Ombudsman can consider. The Ombudsman is not able to comment on the adaptations agreed by the OT nor the length of time it took the Council’s OSRC to arrange for the DFG works to be carried out as this would be a matter for the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman who look at complaints about social care services.

Summary of events

On 19 December 2019, the landlord emailed the resident to confirm that her management move had been approved. The resident’s new property was identified as suitable and an offer made to her on 17 March 2020.
A void inspection was carried out at the property on 30 July 2020, noting that the current upstairs wet room was to be changed to a bath and that the kitchen was to be replaced. An asbestos survey report was also carried out the same day which recommended that the external shed and cement debris in the grass next to the shed be removed. A gas safety record check was carried out which the property passed.
On 3 August 2020, the resident emailed the landlord asking that they view the property as soon as possible. The resident explained that the delay was having an impact on both of her daughters’ mental health, one of whom had run away the previous day, was having flashbacks and refusing to return to their current home.
The resident viewed the property on 10 August 2020. The following day the landlord confirmed in an email to the resident it had been trying to contact the council’s OT to arrange for them to attend the new address to complete an assessment for adaptations, however, due to Covid-19 they were not taking anything new at the moment. The landlord said that once it had any further news on this it would be in touch otherwise it would be for the resident to arrange once she was in the new property and the council’s OSRC had opened.
The resident emailed the landlord on 6 and 7 October 2020 to say that she needed an urgent OT assessment of the new property and that her biggest concern was not having a specialist toilet. The landlord emailed the resident to advise that it had spoken to the council and they had advised that the council’s OSRC had reopened as of 29 September 2020. The landlord said it had tried to call them that day, 7 October 2020, but there was no answer and so it had left a message asking them to get in touch. The landlord provided the resident with the assessment number in case she would like to call them as well.
On 8 October 2020, the landlord emailed the resident to advise that the OSRC had advised that they were not doing major adaptations at that time but the resident not being able to use the toilet was something they would look to assist with. The landlord said that the OSRC had advised that it could fill in a referral form online, which it said it was happy to do, but suggested that the resident call the OSRC so that she can explain all of the requirements needed in details The landlord emailed a completed referral form for a specialist toilet to the OT the same day. However, the OT replied saying that it could not process the form as it did not have enough detail. The landlord advised the resident who said she would phone them.
The sign up took place at the property on 9 October 2020. The resident, her husband and the Property Inspector were present. The resident’s husband raised some snagging issues which the Property Inspector said they would get the contractor to address. After the signing, the resident highlighted her concerns to the landlord about a gas pipe, which she was not sure was correct. The landlord said it would pass the resident’s concerns to its Property Inspector and advised the resident to look for any other snagging issues over the weekend and to email them to the landlord. The landlord also:
1. Noted that the issue of adaptations was discussed and that the resident raised concerns about the outside of the property, where the downstairs toilet was located, which she hoped would be enclosed. The landlord said that it would do what it could, that it was liaising with the Council’s OSRC to assist with this but could not guarantee that it would be able to address this as quickly as the resident would need.
2. Explained that the resident would need to have an assessment of her needs so that the right adaptations could be put in place, but that this would be down to the Council’s OSRC. The resident said that she had had a previous assessment and that both the landlord and the OSRC knew that she had a degenerative condition. The landlord explained that as this was a new property, and it was some time ago that she had had her last assessment, a new assessment would be needed. The landlord noted that the resident said that she was ok at the moment but that this was something she would need to happen.
A voids post-inspection also took place on 9 October 2020. The inspection report noted that the asbestos roof of an old timber shed was to be removed but raised no other issues. The landlord emailed its contractor the same day to ask that it quote for the removal of the remainder of the shed and asbestos pieces in the resident’s garden. The contractor carried out the clearance works, and issued a Hazardous Waste Regulations 2005 consignment form on 12 October 2020.
On 23 October 2020, the landlord emailed the OT regarding the resident’s assessment. The OT emailed the landlord the same day to advise that they would be calling the resident that afternoon to book a visit early the following week. The landlord emailed the resident the same day to advise.
On 27 October 2020, the property passed a Landlord Gas safety Report, noting that the next safety check was due within 12 months.
On 4 November 2020, the resident advised the landlord that the OT had completed their assessment, that they would be summiting an application for a more long term plan and that the resident would need a commode in the short term.
On 4 November 2020, the landlord emailed the OT to ask whether, whilst it was carrying out snagging works, whether there were any short term solutions that could be put in place so that there were no further delays in the resident being able to move into the property once the snagging had been completed.
On 4 December 2020, the OSRC Adaptations Manager emailed the landlord to advise that they were looking to fast track the installation of a wash and dry toilet in the upper bathroom of the resident’s property and needed the landlord’s consent for this to proceed. The landlord provided its consent the same day.
On 21 December 2020, the landlord spoke to the resident, following it said its conversation with her on 16 December 2020. The landlord noted that the resident had four main concerns and that it had agreed to raise the resident’s concerns as a formal complaint. The resident’s four main concerns were:
1. Damage to her bath, which the landlord advised it would get someone out to look at it as soon as possible, however, as the bath was useable, this would probably be after Christmas
2. Drains. The landlord advised that it was still waiting to hear from the drainage consultants about the cause. The resident said that she did not understand why this was taking so long and that she had been told that the problem had been caused by rubble being put down the drain. The resident also said that there were a lot of cigarette ends in the drain, which she believed had been left by the operatives.
3. Snagging. The resident said that there had not been a final inspection at the property with her present. Whilst the landlord said that they understood all the outstanding jobs had been completed, the resident said a number of jobs remained outstanding including:
  1. Repairs to the guttering on the outhouse which the resident said the landlord had agreed to do.
  2. The outhouse was very cold and the resident was worried about the pipes bursting and damaging her appliances.
  3. Lots of builders material left in loft, which the resident said should have been checked and cleared out.
  4. The upstairs toilet was not flushing properly.
  5. That the shower was unusable, the resident had fitted a longer hose but by the time the water comes out it is cold.
4. Adaptations. The resident said that she had been told by the council’s adaptations team that the main adaptations, to the outhouse, would not be starting until March 2021, and she had been told the council would probably remove the outhouse and build an extension. With regards to her request for reasonable adjustments from the landlord in the meantime, the resident explained that she sometimes used the toilet in the outhouse so she had put a lamp and portable heater in there, which she believed was something the landlord should be doing. The resident also asked that the landlord make the outhouse wind and water-tight and compensate her for the money she has spent on doing temporary measures herself.
On 22 December 2020, the landlord requested a quote from its contractor to repair the chip in the resident’s steel bath. The contractor provided the quote and the landlord instructed them to go ahead with the work on the same day.
The landlord issued its stage one response on 11 January 2021. The landlord opened by apologising to the resident for the distress caused when its contractors turned up at her property unannounced on 5 January 2021. The landlord said that this was unacceptable given the resident’s circumstances and that any future works would be arranged by appointment in advance. With regards to:

The resident’s report of a fault with her bath, the landlord said that its contractor would contact her to arrange a suitable appointment to investigate the repair the following week.
The landlord said that the drainage issue was not something that it could have foreseen, the issue had been investigated and identified as a break in the pipe, which it said was due to natural ground movement. Whilst the drainage problem had now been resolved and the contractors had been to disinfect the area, it noted that the resident had advised that this was not resolved for 10 days. The landlord said that this was not acceptable and apologised for any inconvenience caused and the time it took for the contractors to return. The landlord advised that it was unable to compensate for any damage to the resident’s electrical items during the time of the drainage problems and for the resident to contact her home contents insurer to make a claim.
The insulation of the pipes to the resident’s appliances, and the outhouse roof works, these were completed on 8 January 2021. However, it was sorry that its contractor did not have the full list of snagging that the resident had originally provided. The contractor would contact the resident the following week to arrange a suitable time to visit to complete the following:
1. To check and ensure the shower was working correctly.
2. To check and test the flush of the upstairs toilet and to ensure waste is being flushed away until the new wash and dry toilet had been installed by the council.
The landlord said that its Social Enterprise Team to contact with the resident the following week to arrange a convenient time to remove any building materials left in the loft.
The landlord said that following a referral to her OT, the adaptions to her outhouse were arranged through the council’s OSRC and were due to be completed in March 2021. The landlord said that it was sorry it could not be completed sooner, saying that it understood that this was essential for the resident to live comfortably and independently.
As a gesture of goodwill, the landlord offered the resident a £50 Love to Shop voucher.

On 18 January 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to escalate her complaint. The resident said that:

The landlord could not prove that its contractors did not sweep their rubble and waste into the drains causing the blockage. The plasterers cleaned their tools in her new bath, which she said most likely caused the damage to the bath, and that the plaster also damaged the flooring, which was still damaged despite having been replaced twice and the professionally cleaned.
Leaving human waste outside for 10 days and not disinfecting was a health hazard and had accumulated underneath her kitchen sink, where they washed their dishes.
Her electrical items were not just damaged by water but also contaminated by human waste. The resident said that she had told the landlord several times that her home insurance did not cover the damage.
She had not asked the landlord for adaptations but for reasonable adjustments. The resident said that the landlord had not addressed nor responded to a number of issues including:
1. The outhouse roof still leaking.
2. The removal of the asbestos shed.
3. Delays in her moving in.

On 4 February 2021, the landlord emailed the resident to say that it had explored the issue regarding the debris in the resident’s loft and had been advised that it teams had been out several times to clear what was left but there had been no access. The landlord asked if the resident would be available on 9 February 2021. The resident replied the same day saying she would provide access but refuting the landlord’s comments that its teams had been out several times. The resident also said that this was meant to be done before she moved in.
On 9 February 2021, the resident forwarded an email to the landlord, which made a number of suggestions as to what reasonable adjustments the landlord might put in place ahead of the main adaptations the OSRC were going to install. These included:

Adjustments to the shower, including extending the of the shower curtain, although best practice would be a shower screen, the resident needing a long hose but the shower not being powerful enough for a long hose.
Works to the outhouse:
1. Both the toilet and the utility room not being on level and having no heating or lighting.
2. The passage between the outhouse and house being open to the elements and not being on the level and having steps both sides.
3. Issues with the flat roof to the outhouse which did not drain properly and causes accumulation of water, the leaks being worse and it not providing protection from the elements.

The landlord spoke to the resident about the recommendations the following day.
The resident also emailed the landlord on 9 February 2021, to report that she could not install her dishwasher in the kitchen as the fitting was wrong. The landlord responded providing advice for the installer as to how to adjust the fitting and saying that, whilst it understood the resident’s frustration, unfortunately not all connections are set up for the different appliances and size of fittings required.
On 10 February 2021, the landlord emailed the OT to say that it had been asked by the resident to contact them to see if there were any short term reasonable adjustments that could be made for the resident while she was awaiting her adaptations to be completed. The OT responded the following day to say that they would ring the resident to discuss short term options but were under the impression they had covered them previously.
The landlord issued its stage two response on 10 February 2021. The landlord said that:

The delay in the resident signing for the tenancy was due to the previous tenant’s personal circumstances and the need for third part involvement. In addition, the country went into lockdown due to the Covid19 pandemic which meant that services it needed to utilise were working with restricted staffing levels, which impacted timescales significantly.
Once it was in receipt of the keys to the property, the resident was invited to view the property and discussed the adaptations she required with its Home Moves Officer. The landlord said the resident was advised that it did not operate an adaptations service and that all requests were dealt with by the Council’s OSRC. The Council’s OSRC was closed due to the Covid19 pandemic, however, the landlord had managed to get in contact with the service and an assessment was carried out by exception by one of the council’s senior OTs. On 4 November 2020, it emailed the OT, following their assessment, to enquire as to whether there were any reasonable adjustments it could make whilst the resident was awaiting major adaptations. The landlord said its email bounced back and the phone lines were closed. The resident had advised the landlord that the OT would be applying for the adaptations to be carried out by the council and had advised that she would need a commode. The landlord said that based on that conversation it understood the adaptations were to be progressed by the Council’s OSRC and therefore did not pursue things further.
With regards to it being unwilling to accept liability for the resident’s electrical appliances which she alleged were damaged due to a problem with the drains. The landlord confirmed that its drainage contractor attended the property on 1 December 2020 as an emergency call out. The contractor initially identified a large number of wet wipes when it removed a manhole located at the front of the property, which was cleared using a high water pressure jet. Further investigations revealed a large break in the pipework, its contractor returned the following day to complete the repair and on 3 December 2020, however the resident asked that the contractor leave as one of her family was unwell. The landlord confirmed that the final works were completed and the area disinfected on 11 December 2020. The landlord acknowledged that the resident had advised that her home contents insurance policy did not cover the damage but that as it could not have reasonably foreseen this issue, it would not compensate her for the damage she had reported.
With regards to the resident’s concerns about hazards being left in her home:
1. The location of the gas had been checked and found to be safe. However, the pipe was re-routed in order to alleviate the resident’s concerns. Following the removal of the gas fire, the supply pipe to the fire was capped off. This could be seen above the floorboards and was therefore moved under the floorboards which its contractor confirmed was not dangerous.
2. The shed in the garden had asbestos roof sheets, some of which were broken. The resident had required access to the property to decorate and was advised that the sheet would be removed and to avoid the garden until that had happened. The roof sheets were removed three days later.
That it acknowledged the resident’s reports of a number of outstanding repairs including: that the outhouse roof was leaking; that the upstairs toilet did not flush away all the waste; that the water from the shower was coming out cold and her dishwasher did not fit in the designated kitchen space as the stop tap screw was facing the wall. The landlord said that it had instructed its contractor to check all of these issues but they had been unable to gain access. The landlord asked that the resident contact it to arrange a suitable date and time for the checks to be done.
That its contractors had categorically denied the resident’s allegations that it had cleaned its plastering tools in the bath and caused the reported damage. The landlord said that the photographs provided by the resident showed a chip to the top of the perimeter end of the bath which should not stop her or her family using the bath. The landlord said it had offered to repair the bath but would not replace it, and understood the resident was going to contact its contractor the following week to arrange this.
That it had thought it best to delay the one-off garden cut due to the number of operatives the resident had in her home at that time. As the resident had highlighted this, a member of its Grounds Maintenance team would be in touch to arrange this.
That it was sorry that the operatives attended her property unannounced on 26 January 2021 the resident’s home without a pre-arranged appointment. A marker had been placed on the resident’s account on 20 January 2021, advising that all appointments should be pre-arranged. However, the contractors who attended on 26 January 2021 had been allocated the job in December 2020 and were therefore not aware of the marker that had been placed on the resident’s account. The landlord also acknowledged that the resident had had a similar marker against her previous tenancy but unfortunately when the transfer was completed this data was not automatically applied to her new tenancy. The landlord said that as a result, the relevant teams had been advised that when transferring tenancies, any markers must be checked for an manually input on the new account. When markers are placed on accounts, any live repair jobs would also be reviewed and a notification sent to the relevant operatives/contractors.

On 11 February 2021, the OSRC Adaptations Manager emailed the landlord and the OT to advise that the resident’s case was pending allocation to an adaptations officer. The OSRC Adaptations Manager went on to explain that, once allocated and depending on the requirements, it may take three to six months to get to the approval stage and then up to 12 months from the date of their email for completion.
On 15 February 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to advise that she had found suspected asbestos fragments in her garden. The following day the landlord emailed to contractor regarding the removal of suspected asbestos materials in the rear garden area near outhouse. On 18 February 2021, the resident called the landlord saying that she had heard nothing from it regarding the removal of the suspected asbestos. The contractor attended and issued a Hazardous Waste Regulation Consignment noted on 19 February 2021.
On 22 February 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to thank it for addressing the reasonable adjustments whilst she was waiting for the adaptations to be completed. The resident went on to say that, whilst electricity was fed to the utility room, no lights were fitted to either the utility room or the toilet as she had requested. There was also no heating in the downstairs toilet, which they had all had to use for three months as the upstairs toilet did not work properly as the waste pipe had not been fitted correctly. The resident said that this was discovered by the plumber that installed her specialist toilet. The resident also said that the issue of the leaking outhouse roof had not been addressed and that a better quality shower was needed.
On 25 February 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to advise that she had slipped on the wet outhouse steps and hurt her knee, which had swollen so badly that the skin had burst. On 9 March 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to advise that she was staying at her parents’ house for some respite care, and on 15 March 2021 asked that the landlord send an inspection to her property as soon as possible.
On 22 March 2021, the landlord emailed the resident to say that it was going to make a decision regarding each reasonable adjustment the resident was asking for once it had been able to make a full assessment. It would be looking to gather information such as the benefits, costs and alternative solutions to each of the requests so that it could make a fully informed decision. As soon as it had a response regarding this it would let the resident know. If it needed more information the landlord said that it would come back to her. The resident responded saying that she wanted to make a new complaint about the landlord’s response to her request for reasonable adjustments whilst waiting for adaptations.
On 26 March 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to insist that the landlord inspect her property as a matter of urgency as she was still at her parents’ house where she could bathe, as they had a walk in shower.
On 30 March 2021, the landlord received a quote from its contractor regarding the lighting and heating to the toilet and utility room in the outhouse, to fit a door in the ginnel and to level of the floor that separates the backdoor from the outhouse.
On 30 March 2021, the landlord contacted the council’s OSRC to advise that it had received a quote for the reasonable adjustments the resident had requested and wanted to make sure it had the most up to date position regarding the OSRC’s adaptations before these were presented to its Allocations Panel for consideration. The OSRC Adaptations manager responded the same day to confirm that it would most likely be September/October 2021 before any adaptations works would go ahead.
On 7 April 2021 the contractor that had been instructed to repair the resident’s bath emailed the landlord to advise that it had put the job on hold as it had tried to re-schedule several times with no avail.
On 13 April 2021, the landlord issued its stage one response to the resident’s complaint of 22 March 2021. The landlord said that:

The resident was assessed by an OT on 4 November 2020 and it was agreed that the OT would be making an application for adaptations and that in the short-term the resident had been advised she would need a commode. The landlord said that, based on this, it did not pursue anything further.
On 9 February 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to query what further reasonable adjustments could be made to her home. As the Council’s OSRC remained closed, the resident’s requests were presented to its Allocations Panel for consideration. The panel had requested further information, that day, from the OT as to whether the suggested reasonable adjustments would be suitable for the resident’s needs, and from the Adaptations Team that they would not interfere with their planned permanent adaptations.
Pending approval of the further information, the panel agreed to the following reasonable adjustments with its Senior Creative Solutions officer:
1. Light and heating to be added to the downstairs toilet.
2. Light to be added to the utility room.
3. To provide and fit a door in the ginnel that separates the back door and the outside toilet.
4. To level the floor of the ginnel that separates the back door from the toilet and outhouses so that it is level access.
5. A shower curtain to be changed to a shower screen
Earlier that day the resident had emailed additional requests and specific requirements of the reasonable adjustments outlined above. The landlord asked that resident to confirm if she wished to progress with what had been put to the panel or if she would like the panel to consider a new application.

On 13 April 2021, the resident emailed landlord to escalate her complaint to stage two. The resident said that a commode was never going to be a reasonable adjustment and a commode would not shower her, the landlord knew about her inability to bathe independently but the bathroom was designed for an able bodied person. The resident said that the landlord knew what adaptations she already had in her previous property and yet no reasonable adjustments were made. The landlord had taken away her dignity, neglected her needs, avoided its responsibilities and passed the buck to the Council’s OSRC.
On 13 April 201, the landlord also emailed the OT a list of the requested reasonable adjustments as per its stage one response and asked that they had a look at the list of things the resident had asked of us and give some feedback as to whether they would meet the resident’s needs in the short term. On 16 April 2021, the OT said that they would get back to the landlord. On 22 April 2021, the landlord chased the OT for their response and on 27 April 2021, the OT said that the council’s adaptations team were going to visit the resident and so would get back to the landlord when they had discussed this with the resident.
On 20 April 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to escalate her complaint. The resident said that the landlord had:

Failed in its duty of case as to provide her with the ability to carry out basic human functions, such as the ability to bathe and toilet, cleanse safely and comfortably. By the non-provision of existing adaptations the landlord had lowered her quality of life.
Delayed the process of reasonable adjustments while she was waiting for adaptations to be installed by the council.
Failed to inspect the leaking roof to her outhouse, which she had told the landlord was now leaking into the property itself.
Known since November 2019 about her disabilities and how they affect her in her home and had known since summer 2020 of the urgent need for reasonable adjustments. The landlord was also aware of her daughters’ complex needs.

On 27 April 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to asked when her loft would be cleared and whether there had been any further developments regarding the implementation of the reasonable adjustments, including the shower screen and shower replacement. The resident said that she was still living between her home and her parent’s house and asked that the landlord provide her with an update as soon as possible.
The resident emailed the landlord again on 5 May 2021, to raise questions about how her bath was damaged and who repaired it. The resident also reported that the outhouse roof had leaked into the upstairs bedroom the previous night and said that no one had been to inspect it. The resident asked for this to be added her complaint. The landlord responded saying that the issue of the bath had been dealt with in it’s the resident’s previous complaint, as was the issue of the outhouse. The landlord went on to say that the resident would be contacted to arrange for its contractor and repairs inspector to visit and address all the concerns highlighted in her email of 13 April 2021, which did form part of the resident’s current complaint.
On 9 May 2021, landlord issued its stage two response. The landlord confirmed that on 13 April 2021, it had agreed to lighting and heating works to the downstairs toilet, lighting to the utility room, a door in the ginnel, to level the floor of the ginnel and to change the shower curtain to a shower screen. The landlord provided the resident with details of what action it intended to carry out with regards to the additional request the resident sent on 13 April 2021. The landlord said that
1. Its Repairs Inspector and contractor would visit to assess the resident’s requests, including:
  1. A better quality shower.
  2. Heating and two external doors in the ginnel (one with a cat flap, which the landlord said it would not supply) and brick structure to accommodate external door.
  3. Heating and lighting in the ginnel.
  4. Window locks to be adapted.
  5. Back garden path to be looked at as it is uneven and floods, and bath waste that floods the drive.
  6. Space in kitchen as this cannot facilitate an appliance.
  7. The removal of rubble and insulation from the loft.
  8. The damp stains on the kitchen ceiling and walls to be looked at, where it connects to the outhouse roof pond.

Its Responsive Electrical team would attend and install a new switch operated light fitting in the ginnel.
That the handwashing facilities in downstairs toilet and Gerberet WC situated downstairs, were not considered due to the planned permanent adaptations.
The steps to be adapted at the front door could not be done until both the Architect and Building Regulated from the council’s One Stop centre had visited.
The landlord said that it would be in touch to arrange access to action the resident’s requests were possible.

On 24 May 2021, the landlord raised a job for its contractor to attend to assess the outhouse roof, which it noted was possibly leaking into the kitchen.
On 25 May 2021, the landlord sent the resident a Stage two complaint update letter, further to its previous letter dated 9 May 2021, and following its visit to the resident’s property on 17 May 2021 to assess her repair requests. The landlord said that it understood that historically the outhouse building was for storage with an outside toilet, typically with single skinned brickwork, uninsulated concrete block floors and a concrete roof. Therefore a number of requests could not be implemented, which had been discussed with the resident during his visit. Similarly some requests could not be considered as they required a temporary structure to be built and therefore would interfere with the permanent adaptations that were due to commence later that year.
The operatives attended the property on or around 2 June 2021 and fixed the outhouse roof using weathering and water resistant bond adhesive. In an email to the landlord the same day, the resident said that this was evidence that the outhouse roof had not been watertight.

Assessment and findings

Assessment

The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns by adhering to its policies, procedures, and any agreements with the resident, and that the landlord acted reasonably, taking account of what is fair in all the circumstances of the case.
Under the terms of the tenancy, and in accordance with Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is obliged to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the resident’s home. The landlord is also obliged to keep in good repair and proper working order installations for the supply of water, gas and electricity, for sanitation and for space and water heating.
The Equality Act 2010 states that landlords have a duty to make reasonable adjustments for residents who are at a substantial disadvantage compared to people who don’t have a disability.
The reasonable adjustments duty only covers certain changes to the home. The duty doesn’t require the landlord to alter or remove ‘physical features’, for example structural changes, removing walls, widening doorways or installing permanent ramps.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that it is committed to carrying out minor adaptations to customers’ homes and that it will ask customers to contact the council’s One Stop Resource Centre (OSRC) when applying for a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) for any major adaptations needed within their home
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy has three priority categories for repairs: Emergency, which the policy states it intends to visit with eight hours; Routine, which it commits to complete within 20 working days and Planned, which it aims to deliver within 60 working days.
The landlord has a two stage formal complaints policy which states that the landlord will issue its stage one response within 10 working days and within 20 working days at stage two.

Concerns about the length of time the resident had to wait to move into the property.

When considering whether the length of time the resident had to wait to move into her property was reasonable, the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord’s actions were fair and reasonable given all the circumstances of the case. In this case this would include not only any government restriction due to Covid19, and any delays as a result, but also whether the landlord took reasonable account of the resident’s vulnerabilities when prioritising any works needed to the property before she could move in.
When the resident was offered the property, in March 2020, the landlord was aware that living in their current property was causing significant distress to both of the resident’s daughters and deterioration of their mental health. It was for this reason that they were offered the management move. The resident also advised the landlord on several occasions that the delay in them moving in was causing further distress to her daughters.
As the landlord was aware of the vulnerability of not only the resident but her daughters as well, it would be reasonable to expect the landlord to prioritise the works to her property to ensure that they could be completed as quickly as possible. The resident also explained the impact on both her daughters when she contacted the landlord on 3 August 2020 to ask that they view the property as soon as possible.
In its void inspection on 30 July 2020, the landlord noted that the kitchen, bathroom and heating system were to be replaced, the gulley needed to be cleaned and flushed to clear a blockage. An asbestos survey, also carried out on 30 July 2020, recommended that the external shed and cement debris be removed.
By the time the resident viewed the property on 10 August 2020, the major works to the bathroom, kitchen and heating system had been finished, within one month of the voids inspection on 30 July 2020. This was a reasonable amount of time for those works to be completed.
However, by the time of its post inspection on 9 October 2020, over two months after the void inspection, the asbestos shed and debris had still not been removed. The works to remove these were not carried out until 12 October 2020. It is not known when the clearance of the blockage to the gulley took place. However, the resident’s reports of further issues with drainage are considered as a separate matter.
In addition to the voids works there was also the issue of the need for the resident to have major adaptions to the property. When a property requires such major adaptations, whilst the landlord is not responsible for ensuring the works are carried out, it is expected to liaise with both the resident and the council with regards to ensuring the council is able to carry out the required works.
Given that the landlord was aware of that the resident had adaptations in her existing property, it would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to contact the council OSRC/OT when the property became void to establish what adaptations might be needed before it confirmed the offer to the resident and commenced the void works. There is no evidence that it did so. However, it is also noted that shortly after the resident was offered the property, the country went into a national Covid19 lockdown and even if the landlord had contacted the council at that time it is highly unlikely that any progress would have been made at that time.
The landlord did contact the council’s OT, following the resident’ viewing of the property on 10 August 2020, one month after the void inspection, at which point the council’s OT confirmed that due to Covid they were not taking on anything new at that time. The landlord’s records also note that the council’s OSRC did not then re-open until 29 September 2020.
The landlord contacted the council’s OSCR again in early October 2020, and on 8 October 2020 offered to assist the resident with a referral form for the OSCR to install a specialist toilet in the upstairs bathroom.
The sign up took place on 9 October 2020, at which point the adaptations were discussed and the landlord noted that the resident had confirmed that whilst she would need the adaptations to her property, she was ok at the moment. On 23 October 2020, the OT advised that the landlord that they would be arranging a visit with the resident early the following week.
The tenancy commenced on 30 November 2020, eight months after the resident had originally been offered the property.
In its final response the landlord explained that the delay in the resident being able to move into the property was due to issues with the previous tenant, Covid 19 lockdown and restricted staffing levels. Whilst these go some way to explaining the delay prior to the Void inspection on 30 July 2020, I am not satisfied that these issues alone provide a reasonable explanation for the four month delay in the resident being able to move into the property following that void inspection, especially given the known vulnerability of the resident and her daughters.
It is noted that the resident did require Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) funded adaptations to the property, and that the landlord did liaise with both the resident and the landlord about those adaptations. However, as the resident was able to move into the property without these works being completed, the evidence would suggest that it was the landlord’s lack of lack of urgency in completing the voids works, for which it was responsible, that resulted in the unreasonable delay in the resident being able to move into her new home.

Requests for reasonable adjustments whilst waiting for DFG funded adaptations to be carried out by the Council.

It is acknowledged that the council’s OSRC were to carry out extensive DFG funded adaptations to the resident’s property, demolishing the outhouse and building an extension to provide the resident with downstairs bathing and toileting facilities. However, as it was evident from the start that this would take a long time to complete, the landlord would be expected to consider minor adaptations or reasonable adjustments until such time as the major DFG funded adaptations commenced. If it were to agree to any such requests from the resident, it would be expected to ensure that these were provided within a reasonable period of time. If it were not to agree, it would need to provide a reasonable explanation for its decision.
It is also important to differentiate between whether the things the resident requested were minor adaptations or reasonable adjustments, or whether in fact they fell within the landlord’s obligations to repair under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant act and under the terms of her tenancy. Requests that the resident made which fall within the landlord’s obligation to repair have been considered separately.
The resident initially requested a source of heat and light to the toilet in the outhouse during her conversation with the landlord on 16 December 2020, explaining that due to her disabilities, she sometimes had to use that toilet rather than the one upstairs. In its stage one response of 11 January 2021, the landlord made reference to the DFG adaptations to the outhouse but made no reference to the resident’s request.
On 9 February 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord with a number of suggested reasonable adjustments including the lighting and heating to the outhouse toilet and utility room, adjustments to her shower and uneven flooring to the ginnel that separated the back door from the toilet and outhouse.
The landlord contacted the OT the following day but made no reference to this in its stage two response issued the same day. It was not until 22 March 2021 that the landlord advised the resident that it was going to make a decision about her request for reasonable adjustments and a further month before it advised in its stage one response to the resident’s new complaint, that the resident’s requests would be presented to its Allocations Panel for consideration.
By the time of its stage two response on 9 May 2021, almost two months later, the landlord said that it had agreed to install lighting and heating works to the downstairs toilet, lighting to the utility room, a door in the ginnel, to level the floor of the ginnel and to change the shower curtain to a shower screen.
The landlord arranged for its repairs inspector and contractor to visit the resident’s property to consider the reasonable adjustments she had suggested, which they did on 17 May 2021. However, this was more than five months since the resident’s initial request for lighting and heating and three months since her email outlining the other reasonable adjustments she was requesting. It should also be noted that the five months covered the winter period.
Following the visit the landlord confirmed that there were a number of requests that could not be implemented which it had discussed with the resident. With regards to levelling the floor to the ginnel that separates the back door from the toilet and outhouse and works to the steps at the front door, it was reasonable for the landlord not to consider either as minor adaptations or reasonable adjustments. The reason for this is that these would require the alteration or removal of ‘physical features’, and as such would not fall within the landlord’s obligations with regards to reasonable adjustments.
With regards to the other reasonable adjustment agreed by the landlord, this service has seen no records of when these were completed however, on 17 June 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to advise that its electricians were unable to do the works to the outhouse the previous day as they had not been instructed to do the toilet light.
In an email to the resident on 8 February 2022, the landlord confirmed that light and heating had been installed to the toilet in the outhouse, as had light to the utility room and ginnel and that window locks had been adapted. The landlord also confirmed that it was still to adjust the shower head height and install a longer shower curtain.
Having considered all the evidence, whilst the landlord did consider the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments whilst she waited for the DFG funded works to go ahead. The landlord took far too long to respond those requests or to carry out any works, most notably in the case of the resident’s request for a source of light and heat in the outhouse toilet. The landlord’s delay in doing so clearly added to the distress and inconvenience of the resident and, as with the works to the property prior to the resident moving in, I am not satisfied that the landlord took reasonable account of the resident’s vulnerabilities when prioritising any works needed.
It has been noted that the resident did not believe that a commode, recommended by her OT, was ever going to be a reasonable adjustment. However, as this was a recommendation made by the OT and not the landlord, no further comment will be made about this.

Repairs

Drainage issue:
1. The resident reported overflow from her drains on 1 December 2020. The landlord’s recognised its responsibility to repair and, in accordance with its repairs policy arranged for its drainage contractor to attend as an emergency call out. The contractor removed items from the drain and cleared the blockage.
2. In its stage one response of 11 January 2021, the landlord confirmed that the drainage problem had been resolved and the area disinfected. It also acknowledged that this had taken 10 days to resolve, which it said was not acceptable and apologised.
3. In the escalation of her complaint the resident raised concerns that the drains had been blocked by waste from the landlord’s contractors, that the waste water had contained human waste and had accumulated outside her kitchen sink, and that contaminated water had damaged her electrical items in the utility room. The resident asked that the landlord reimburse her for the damage to her appliances as it was not just that they had been water damaged by that the water was foul water.
4. In its final response the landlord confirmed that the works and disinfection was completed on 11 December 2020 but changed its position stating that its contractor had returned on 2 December 2020 to complete the repair to the pipe but the resident had asked them to leave as a member of her family was unwell. However, there is no evidence to support the landlord’s position and even if the resident had asked the contractors to leave on 2 December 2020, it should then have sought to return as soon as possible and there is no evidence that it did so.
5. With regards to the resident’s request that the landlord reimburse her for the electrical appliances in the utility room that she said were damaged as a result of the drainage issues. As there is no evidence that the drainage issues were the result of any failure by the landlord or that the landlord could have reasonably foreseen that this would happen, it was reasonable for the landlord to direct the resident towards her own contents insurance. It is acknowledged that the resident has said that her contents insurance would not cover this but this in itself would not make the landlord responsible for the replacement of those items.
Concerns about asbestos.
1. The removal of the external shed and cement debris, recommended in the Asbestos survey on 30 July 2020. The landlord failed to take any action with regards to this recommendation until 9 October 2020, three months later, when the voids post-inspection identified that this had not been done. At this point the landlord did act promptly and arranged to have the shed and asbestos pieces removed within one working day. It is noted that the resident was not living at the property at the time, however, the landlord was aware of the need for the resident to move into the property as soon as possible and so should have prioritising the works, which it clearly had not. The landlord said in its final response of 10 February 2021, that the roof sheets were removed three days after the resident had required access to the property but failed to address the issue that the removal of the shed was recommended three months earlier.
2. Following the resident’s report of alleged asbestos fragments in her garden on 15 February 2021, the landlord responded promptly, contacting its contractor the following day. However, there was a delay in its contractor attending and it was only following a follow up call from the resident on 18 February 2021 that the contractor then attended on 19 February 2021. The Hazardous Waste Regulations consignment note completed by the contractor on 19 February 2021, confirms that the waste removed contained Chrystotile, a form of asbestos.
Repairs to the outhouse
1. The resident initially raised concerns about the outhouse at sign up on 9 October 2020. The resident’s concerns at that time were that the outhouse was not enclosed. As this was not a repair issue it was reasonable for the landlord to advise that it would liaise with the council’s OSRC with regards to adaptations but that it could not guarantee how quickly these could be completed.
2. On 16 December 2020, the resident reported that the repairs to the guttering on the outhouse, which she said the landlord had agreed to do, had not been done. The resident also reported that the outhouse was very cold, was not wind or water tight and that she was worried out pipes bursting and damaging her appliances.
3. In its stage one response of 11 January 2021, the landlord advised that it had completed the insulation of the pipes to the resident’s appliances and the outhouse roof works on 8 January 2021. However, on 18 January 2021, the resident reported that the roof was still leaking and on 9 February 2021, that the roof did not drain properly, causing an accumulation of water and that the leaks were getting worse.
4. The landlord issued its stage two response the following day and, whilst it acknowledged that the works to the outhouse remained outstanding it said that its contractors had attended to carry out the works but had not been provided with access. The landlord asked the resident to contact it to arrange a suitable appointment for its contractor to check. This was a reasonable step for the landlord to take as, whilst it was aware that the OSCR were considering removing the outhouse and building an extension, the landlord would still be responsible for reasonable repairs to the outhouse until such time as the DFG adaptations commenced.
5. The resident contacted the landlord on 22 February 2021 to say that the issue of the outhouse roof had not been addressed and on 25 February 2021 that she had slipped on the wet outhouse steps and on 9 March 2021 that she was staying at her parents for respite care.
6. There is no further evidence of any further contact regarding the outhouse until 20 April 2021 when the resident escalated her complaint, saying that the landlord had failed to inspect the leaking roof and that the leak was now entering the main property. The landlord’s raised a job for the outhouse roof to be assessed on 25 May 2021, the contractor attended on 2 June 2020 and fixed the outhouse roof using a weathering and water resistant bond adhesive.
7. Whilst it is acknowledged that the OSCR were considering removing the outhouse, and that the OSCR had initially provided an estimated date for those works to start in March 2021, as the outhouse provided the resident with toileting facilities that she needed to use, as she was not always able to access the toilet upstairs, the landlord was obliged to carry out reasonable repairs until such time as it was replaced. It is also noted that in March 2021, the landlord was advised by the OSRC that the adaptations to the outhouse would most likely not go ahead until September/October 2021.
8. Whilst the leak to the outhouse roof was finally resolved, it took far to long for the landlord to resolve the issue. The resident reported the leak in October 2020 and the works were not completed until 2 June 2021, some eight months later. This was not a reasonable amount of time for the resident to have to wait for this to be resolved. It is noted that in its stage one response in February 2021, that it had experienced issues with gaining access. However, were that to have been the case, it would be reasonable for the landlord to confirm what dates its contractor had sought access, which it did not. The landlord would also be expected to provide evidence to this service of missed appointments or it contacting the resident to address the issue of access, which it has not done.
9. This would also only have accounted for the delay between the resident’s report of 18 January 2021 and its stage one response on 10 February 2021. The landlord has otherwise provided no reasonable explanation for the delay between 10 February and 2 June 2021.
Upstairs toilet not flushing properly
1. On 16 December 2020, the resident reported that her upstairs toilet was not flushing properly. At this point the landlord was under notice to investigate and if necessary repair.
2. In its Stage one response, on 11 January 2021 the landlord said that it would arrange for a suitable time to check and test the flush of the upstairs toilet and to ensure waste is being flushed away. Whilst this was an appropriate step for the landlord to take, it should have already attended by that time and as such should have acknowledged and apologised to the resident for the delay which it did not.
3. By the time of the landlord’s stage two response on 10 February 2021, the landlord still had not attended to resolve the issue with the resident’s upstairs toilet. The landlord said that it had instructed its contractor to attend but they had been unable to gain access. The landlord provided no dates when its contractors had attended and has provided this service with no evidence of any missed appointments.
4. Following the installation of the resident’s specialist toilet, by the council’s OSRC on 15 February 2021, the resident reported to the landlord on 22 February 2021, that the installer had identified that the waste pipe had not been fitted correctly to the existing toilet.
5. Despite this the landlord made no further mention of the toilet, nor did it acknowledge that it had failed to carry out any repairs to the toilet in accordance with the timescales set out in its repairs policy. The fact that the council’s OSCR were to replace the upstairs toilet did not absolve the landlord from its responsibility to repair the existing toilet. As a result of the landlord’s failure to carry out the repairs for which it was responsible, the resident was left without a properly functioning upstairs toilet and as a result she and her family had had to use the toilet in the outhouse. It should be noted that this period covered the winter months and that the toilet in the outhouse had no heating.
Bath repair.
1. On 16 December 2020, the resident reported damage to her bath.
2. On 21 December 2021, the landlord advised it would get someone out to look at the bath as soon as possible, however, as the bath was useable, this would probably be after Christmas. The landlord contacted its contractor the same day to repair the chip in the resident’s bath.
3. In stage one response of 11 January 2021, the landlord said that its contractor would contact the resident to arrange a suitable appointment to carry out the repair to the bath.
4. The landlord addressed the issue of the bath in its stage two response on 10 February 2021, noting that the resident was going to contact the contractor the following week to arrange this.
5. There is no further evidence of any communication between the landlord and its contractor until 7 April 2021 when, following contact from the resident, the contractor said that it had put the job on hold as it had tried to re-schedule several times with no avail.
6. Whilst four months was a long time for the resident to have to wait for the chip to her bath to be repaired, there is no evidence that the bath was unusable. However, the landlord should have been aware that the works were not completed/it had had no contract from its contractor and chased this up prior to April 2021 and then only chased it up when the resident complained.
Builders materials left in loft:
1. The resident first reported builders material left in the loft, on 16 December 2020. In its stage one response of 11 January 2021, the landlord said that its Social Enterprise Team (SET) would be in contact with the resident the following week to arrange a convenient time to remove any building materials left in the loft. This was an appropriate step for the landlord to take and it would have been reasonable for the resident to expect this to be completed within 20 working days.
2. On 4 February 2021, the landlord contacted the resident to arrange access. It is noted that the landlord’s position that it had attended previous but had not been able to access the property was refuted by the resident. However it was agreed that the landlord would then attend on 9 February 2021.
3. There is no further reference to the removal of building material from the resident’s loft until 27 April 2021, when the resident emailed the landlord to ask when the materials would be cleared. The landlord then said on 9 May 2021, that this matter would be looked into when its repair inspector visited the resident’s property, which they did on 10 May 2021.
4. No evidence has been provided of the inspectors visit on 10 May 2021. However, there is evidence of the resident emailing the landlord on 28 September 2021 to ask when someone was going to get in contact to arrange for this to be done. There is also evidence of the landlord responding to the resident to advise that in February 2021, its Social Enterprise team had confirmed that they were unable to lift the loft insulation and remove the rubble and mortar from between the joist. The landlord also confirmed that is void manager had also confirmed that this was not something the landlord could do.
5. Whilst this evidences that the landlord had considered whether or not it would be reasonable for it to remove the debris from the loft, the key issue here is whether the landlord advised the resident of its decisions at the time. There is no evidence that it did and so for the resident to have to wait four months to be made aware of the landlord’s decision was not reasonable.
Gas safety.
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding gas safety at her property was appropriate. A gas safety check was carried out at the property on 30 July 2020 and, following the concerns raised by the resident about a gas pipe, at sign up on 9 October 2020, the landlord arranged for a further Gas Safety report to be carried out on 27 October 2020, which the property passed.
Report that a contractor attended her property without a pre-arranged appointment.
1. The resident reported that contractors turned up unannounced on two occasion during the period covered by this report.
2. In its stage one response of 11 January 2021 the landlord rightly apologised for this and said that it would ensure that the resident was contacted prior to any visits going ahead in the future.
3. However there was then another unannounced visit on 26 January 2021. Following this the landlord investigated what had happened and in its stage two response of 10 February 2021 not only apologised to the resident that its contractor had attended unannounced on 26 January 2021, but also explained how the error had occurred and what steps it had put in place to prevent this happening again.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the length of time the resident had to wait to move into the property.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s requests for reasonable adjustments whilst waiting for Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) funded adaptations to be carried out by the Council.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of repairs to her property.

Reasons

Whilst it is acknowledged that delays due to issues with the previous tenant, Covid 19 lockdown and restricted staffing levels may had added to the delay in prior to the Void inspection on 30 July 2020, these issues alone do not provide a reasonable explanation for the four month delay in the resident being able to move into the property following that void inspection, especially given the known vulnerability of the resident and her daughters. As the resident was able to move into the property without the DFG adaptation works being completed, the evidence would suggest that it was the landlord’s lack of lack of urgency in completing the voids works, for which it was responsible, that resulted in the unreasonable delay in the resident being able to move into her new home.
Whilst the landlord did consider the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments whilst she waited for the DFG funded works to go ahead, it took far too long to respond those requests or to carry out any works. This clearly added to the distress and inconvenience of the resident and, as with the works to the property prior to the resident moving in, I am not satisfied that the landlord took reasonable account of the resident’s vulnerabilities when prioritising any works needed.
Whilst the landlord acknowledged its responsibility to repair, there were unreasonable delays in the progression of the repairs required, most notably in respect of the repairs to the resident’s upstairs toilet and to the roof of the outhouse, which caused the resident unnecessary upset and distress over a prolong period of time. The landlord’s responses up to the point of its final response did not sufficiently address the impact and distress experienced by the resident nor did they demonstrate that their concerns had been taken seriously.

Orders and recommendations

That within 28 days of the date of this determination the landlord is to apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report and pay her a total of £1,000 compensation, made up as follows:
1. £250 for the delays to the resident moving in as a result of its lack of urgency with regards to completing voids works.
2. £250 for the delays in it responding to or carrying out the reasonable adjustment requests made by the resident.
3. £500 for the repair handling failures identified in this report.