Bolton at Home Limited (202119214)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119214

Bolton at Home Limited

19 May 2023

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 concerns about the standard of workmanship following repairs to the bathroom.

Background

2. The resident held an assured tenancy with the landlord in a 2-bedroom first floor flat.
3. On 22 September 2021 operatives attended the property to carry out repairs to the resident’s shower.
4. On 23 September 2021 the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord. In summary the complaint said:

a.     He was unhappy with the unacceptable standard of work completed on his shower today.

b.     He needed a new shower enclosure, however the operatives said that they would not install a new one and would reuse the current enclosure instead.

c.      He had supplied a sealant strip that the operatives had agreed to fit, however they had fitted the strip after installing the enclosure, meaning it was not watertight.

d.     The operatives had failed to clean off the large amounts of black soot and rubble that had fallen after they had drilled the walls.

e.     There was a large scratch on his shower tray.

f.        The operatives had only fixed one side of the shower but had left the other side.

g.     The silicone around the shower was a mess and they had not cleaned off the old silicone before reapplying it.

h.     As an outcome to his complaint, he said he wanted a new appointment as soon as possible to fix the mess and for the landlord to replace the scratched shower tray. He also said he wanted the landlord to fit a new shower enclosure.

5. The landlord called the resident on 24 September 2021. The note of the call states that the landlord requested to visit the resident’s property to inspect the shower trays and doors. The note said that the resident had started to swear and shout and he had told the landlord that he didn’t want anyone in his house. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident disputes that he refused to allow the inspection.
6. On the 25 September 2021 the landlord responded to the resident at stage one of its complaints process. The landlord did not uphold the complaint. In summary the response said.

a.     It had called him on 24 September 2021 to apologise and arrange an appointment to inspect the shower tray and enclosure, but he had refused the appointment.

b.     That under its procedure, operatives were not allowed to undertake work requested by customers that fell outside of the job specification. It said that operatives should not have agreed to fit the ‘strip’, as this was not needed. It apologised for this failing.

c.      It had tried to reassure the resident during its call that the shower should be completely watertight, although was happy to come out and inspect it and complete any necessary works.

d.     The scratch on the shower tray was in place when it was delivered to the landlord and that replacing this would have caused further delay to the repair. It said that it would not affect the use of the tray or how watertight it was, and therefore it had made the decision to go ahead with the work.

e.     The shower enclosure required a clean but did not need replacing as it was in full working order.

f.        It could not fully investigate the resident’s complaint as he had refused to allow the landlord to enter his home and view the work or suggest any resolutions to his complaint.

7. In response the resident sent a number of emails to the landlord that contained abusive language, including a request to escalate the complaint. The escalation request said:

a.     That the landlord had dismissed his complaint and that it could check the shower if it wanted.

b.     He said that a professional had fitted the shower and that they had applied a sealant strip to stop the mould build up and that he wanted it restored that way.

c.      He did not say the landlord could not visit his home, but he queried why it needed to, as it had photos that showed the mess.

d.     He had objected to the shower tray as soon as he saw the scratch, and that the operatives had agreed to replace it.

8. On 30 September 2021 the landlord issued its final response. In summary the response said:

a.     In line with The Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling code, it declined the escalation request due to the language and verbal abuse it contained.

b.     That the resident had informed the landlord the shower was not leaking but it had offered to come and inspect the work and he had refused.

c.      The extra seal was unnecessary and that it had been added at the resident’s request.

d.     The shower cubicles were sealed from the outside of the tray, and this was why it was added in this way.

e.     It apologised that the operatives had carried out his request to fit the seal. It said that although it was ripped during fitting it would not affect how watertight the tray was, as it was already sealed.

f.        The scratch on the tray was cosmetic and would not affect how watertight the tray was. It said that no further work was necessary to the shower at this point.

9. In the resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman, he said that the walk-in shower had been irreparably damaged by the operatives when completing the repair. He said that it was unacceptable for the landlord to install a damaged tray and that he had refused to accept it. He said that the operatives had badly damaged the shower tray and the landlord had refused to replace it. He said that the operatives had installed the sealant strip in an unacceptable and unprofessional manner. As an outcome to his complaint, he said he wanted his bathroom to be put back to the state it was before the operatives had damaged it.

Assessment and findings

10. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:

a.         Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes; 

b.         Put things right, and; 

c.         Learn from outcomes. 

11. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
12. When a resident reports issues with works a landlord has carried out at a property, it is reasonable for a landlord to take steps to investigate and put right any issues found. In this case, following the resident’s complaint, the landlord acted quickly to try and resolve the resident’s concerns. The landlord called him to arrange an inspection of his shower to assess the workmanship. It also offered to carry out any necessary repair works. Given the resident’s concerns this was a fair and reasonable approach to take.
13. However, the landlord said that it was unable to inspect the shower as the resident had refused an appointment and that he had become unreasonable and abusive during its call with him. Although the resident disputed that he had refused an appointment, the landlord’s records supported its position and the evidence showed that between the landlord’s initial call to the resident and its final response, the resident had sent large volumes of unreasonable and abusive correspondence to the landlord.
14. The landlord’s repairs policy states that residents are responsible for ‘Treating us, and our contractors, with respect and allowing us to carry out the repair in a safe environment… We may refuse to carry out a repair if you are abusive or aggressive to our staff.’ Following the landlord’s stage one response the resident said that the landlord could come out and visit the property and requested that it did so. Although the landlord did not specifically address this request in its final response, given it was reasonable in the circumstances and in line with its repairs policy for the landlord to not inspect the resident’s bathroom. The landlord did however respond to the residents’ concerns in writing. The landlord issued detailed responses to the resident, and it provided reasonable explanations and reassurances to help alleviate the resident’s concerns.
15. The photographic evidence provided from the landlord to this Service, showed a small rip to the seal strip at one end of the shower. The resident purchased the seal strip and the landlord fitted it for him, at his request. It is not entirely clear how the damage to the sealant strip was caused, however the landlord confirmed that it should not have fitted the seal and it apologised for this. Given this failing it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident. It was also reasonable for the landlord to reassure the resident that the additional strip was unnecessary, and that the rip would not affect the water tightness of the shower.
16. There was also photographic evidence of a small scratch to the shower tray. The landlord confirmed that the scratch was present when it received the tray. There was no evidence that the operatives had damaged the shower tray during the installation. However, given that this had caused concern to the resident, it was reasonable for the landlord to explain to the resident that the scratch was cosmetic and would not affect the use of the tray. While the Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s dissatisfaction on this issue, the scratch is not so serious a failing as to warrant a finding of maladministration.
17. Overall, the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns was reasonable and proportionate. The landlord initially tried to take steps to inspect the work and put things right for the resident. The damage to the sealant strip and the scratch on the shower tray were minor and the Ombudsman is satisfied that this would not have caused any significant adverse effect to the resident, however, the landlord acted fairly by apologising to the resident for its shortcomings. The Ombudsman also notes that the landlord responded fairly and professionally in response to large volumes of abusive correspondence from the resident.

Determination

18. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to concerns about the standard of workmanship following repairs to the bathroom.