Summary: LGSCO finds the Council was at fault for failing to consider Ms X’s needs arising from her disability when replacing her shower. The Housing Ombudsman finds maladministration in the Council’s handling of Ms X’s reports of repairs. Both Ombudsmen find fault in the Council’s complaint handling. To remedy the injustice to Ms X, the Council has agreed to apologise, replace Ms X’s shower, make payments and act to improve its service.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains that the council:
1. Replaced her shower with one without variable pressure control;
2. Did not attend for repairs appointments and said she refused access to the repairs contractor; and
3. Delayed responding to her complaint.
2. As a result, Ms X says she is without equipment she needs to manage her health condition and experienced avoidable frustration and distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, we have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. We refer to this as ‘injustice’. Injustice may include distress, inconvenience or being put to avoidable time and trouble. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. The LGSCO considers whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. The LGSCO investigates complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)
6. The Housing Ombudsman Service (HOS) 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 HOS considers the evidence and establishes if there has been any ‘maladministration’, including circumstances where a landlord behaved unreasonably, treated the complainant in an inappropriate manner or failed to comply with its obligations. (Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme)
7. The HOS Dispute Resolution Principles are ‘be fair’, ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’ – we will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.
8. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
9. If the LGSCO is satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
10. Following an investigation, the HOS may order a member landlord to take steps to put things right. (Paragraphs 54-55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme)

Back to top

How we considered this complaint

11. Ms X’s complaint covers matters that fall into the jurisdiction of both the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) and the Housing Ombudsman Service (HOS).
12. Each Ombudsman has therefore investigated the parts of the complaint which are within its jurisdiction and jointly considered the parts of the complaint that fell within both jurisdictions. This decision statement covers both investigations.
13. The LGSCO investigated complaints a) and c) in paragraph one. The HOS investigated complaints b) and c).
14. We spoke to Ms X, considered the complaint, and the information she provided. We made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
15. Each Ombudsman considered their Guidance on Remedies, copies of which can be found on their websites.
16. Ms X and the organisation had an opportunity to comment on a draft decision. We considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What we found

17. We have set out a summary of the key events below. It is not meant to show everything that happened. It is based on our review of all the evidence provided about this complaint.

Background

18. Ms X is a secure tenant of the Council. Ms X has disabilities which the Council knows about.
19. Until October 2023, the property had a shower with variable pressure control, which Ms X says she needs to manage her disability.
20. In late October 2023, Ms X told the Council that her shower was not working. The Council attended on the same day and told her she needed a new shower. Ms X told the Council’s repair operative that she required the same model, as it was approved by her occupational therapist (OT).
21. The repair operative told Ms X that the previous shower model had been discontinued. Ms X says she disproved this by finding the same model still available online. The Council fitted a new shower. It does not have variable pressure controls.
22. In late November 2023, Ms X raised a formal complaint. She said:
1. the new shower model fitted was not suitable for her needs, as it did not have a variable pressure capability;
2. she had reported this to the Council, and had been promised a return call, but this had not taken place;
3. the Council told her a repair operative would visit on 14 November 2023, but that on 13 November 2023, she called the Council and was told there was no record of the appointment; and
4. the new shower was leaking.
23. The Council acknowledged the complaint the same day.
24. In January 2024, the Council’s surveyor assessed the shower. The Council’s records show that the surveyor reported that the shower worked and did not need to be replaced. Its records also noted that Ms X declined works to repair the leak, because she wanted a replacement shower. The repair works were then cancelled on the Council’s system.
25. Throughout February 2024, the Council investigated the complaint. It spoke with the OT, who said a wet room would be best suited for Ms X’s needs, but that Ms X had declined this option. The OT was unable to advise whether Ms X needed a variable pressure shower, as this had not formed part of their assessment.
26. The Council provided its stage one response on 29 February 2024. It said:
1. the OT had not specifically recommended a shower with variable pressure and instead had recommended a wet room, which Ms X had declined. It advised it would therefore not install a shower with a variable pressure control “as this is against the advice of Occupational Therapy”;
2. it had raised works to repair the reported leak but according to its operative, Ms X had “refused access to repair [her] electric shower”;
3. it therefore did not uphold the complaint, because it said Ms X prevented the repair; and
4. it reminded Ms X about the conditions for entry in her tenancy agreement and advised that she must provide access for the repairs to the leak.
27. Ms X replied to the Council on 2 March 2024. She disputed that she had refused entry to the Council’s repair operative. She said the repairs team offered a date for a visit, but she told the Council she was not available on that date. She therefore asked the Council to escalate her complaint.
28. In mid-March 2024, Ms X provided a medical letter which said she would “greatly benefit from a variable pressure shower.” She pointed out that this disputed the Council’s position that her current shower met her needs.
29. The Council provided its stage two response on 12 April 2024, which said:
1. Ms X disputed that she had refused entry and said that the reference to her tenancy agreement in the stage one response was intended to intimidate her. It did not, however, provide a response to this concern; and
2. although Ms X wanted a new shower, the OT had determined that the current shower met her needs. It therefore asked Ms X to contact the repairs team to arrange a repair to the current shower.
30. The Council says it repaired the shower in December 2024. It noted Ms X’s position that the cause of the leak was due to poor initial installation. However, it advised that its records did not support this position.

Analysis and findings

Shower replacement – findings

31. Ms X told the repairs operative she needed a shower with variable pressure control because of her disability. The Council made no effort to check whether this was the case before installing a new shower. Failure to do so was fault.
32. Contrary to the Council’s statements in response to Ms X’s complaint, the OT did not say Ms X did not need a variable pressure shower. The OT said they could not advise whether she did. The only evidence the Council had which addressed the point was the medical letter Ms X provided. There is no evidence the Council considered the medical letter before responding to Ms X’s complaint. Failure to do so was fault.
33. The Council was also at fault for telling Ms X in its complaint response that installing a shower with a pressure control was “against the advice of Occupational Therapy”. This misrepresented the OTs advice and caused Ms X significant distress and confusion.
34. The only evidence the Council has says Ms X needs a variable pressure control on her shower. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, on balance, Ms X does need it. This means Ms X has been without equipment she needs because of fault by the Council. This is an injustice to Ms X. The Council should therefore replace Ms X’s shower with one with the variable pressure control she needs.

Repair appointments and access – findings

35. In her initial complaint, Ms X reported that she had called the Council to discuss her concerns about the new shower on 23 October 2023. She has advised that she was promised a call back on 24 October 2023, but that this did not happen. Similarly, she called on 25 October 2023 and was once again promised a call back within 48 hours, but that did not happen. Finally, she called again on 31 October 2023, and was told a repairs visit was booked for 14 November 2023. She called to confirm on 13 November 2023 but was told there was no record of the booking.
36. In such circumstances, it is reasonable for the Council to keep records of the calls so that it can provide an audit trail of what was discussed and what actions, if any, were agreed. It is also reasonable to separately record any planned repair visits in its repair records.
37. The Council has not provided any call records to show whether the above-noted calls took place or record what was discussed and agreed. Additionally, the Council’s repair records do not note any bookings for 14 November 2023.
38. Given, however, that Ms X specifically raised these concerns as part of her complaint, we would expect the Council to undertake a thorough investigation and provide its position. Such an investigation may include reviewing records and speaking with relevant staff members.
39. In its stage one response, the Council clearly set out its understanding of the complaint, which included the failure to return calls and the missed appointment. However, it subsequently failed to provide any position on what had happened and whether there had been any failing identified. This was a missed opportunity to demonstrate to Ms X that it had thoroughly investigated her complaint and was taking the issues seriously.
40. It is not disputed that Ms X’s tenancy agreement states that she must provide reasonable access to the Council and its operatives for necessary repairs. Where possible, it is reasonable for the Council to provide notice of such visits.
41. It is also not disputed that the Council’s repairs team contacted Ms X to arrange a visit in early 2024. The Council’s position is that Ms X subsequently refused access for such a visit.
42. As noted above, in such circumstances, it is reasonable for the Council to keep records of the call and of any subsequent actions. Such actions may include confirming in writing its position that access had been refused and explaining its next steps, such as enforcement action to gain access. It is evident that such action was discussed internally at the Council, but no contact was made with Ms X to set out its position.
43. We have not been provided with any records or file notes about the landlord’s call from the time that it was made. Ms X has explained her position that she informed the Council that she would not be available on the proposed date as she was away from home.
44. The Council’s records show that on 16 February 2024, its operative recorded that the “tenant has refused the shower leak to be fixed.” While it may be the case that there was a dispute over the proposed works, this does not evidence that she had refused access outright. She had previously allowed a surveyor access to the property to assess the shower in January 2024. Its characterisation that she had refused access was therefore without evidence. This caused confusion for Ms X, and it was distressing for her to see this presented in a formal complaint response.
45. As part of her escalation request, Ms X explained her position that she had not refused access but that she had not been available on the Council’s proposed date. The Council noted this concern in detail in the opening paragraphs of its stage two response. However, it did not provide any further comments or response to this element of the complaint. As with its stage one response, it is not evident that any thorough investigation took place, and the Council provided no clarification or justification to support its earlier position that Ms X had refused access.
46. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states that Councils must address all points raised in the complaint. In this case, while it ultimately sought to rearrange the visit, the Council’s complaint responses failed to thoroughly address all of the issues raised by Ms X.
47. In summary, the Council failed to explain its position on the missed calls and appointment or provide reasonable evidence to support its assertion that Ms X refused access. This points to both record keeping failings and complaint handling failings, which resulted in distress and inconvenience for Ms X. A finding of maladministration has therefore been made.
48. An order for £200 compensation has been made to reflect the impact caused to Ms X, being £100 for the failure to address the missed appointments and call back and a further £100 for the failure to provide a position on its assertion that she had refused access. This order is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for instances where a failure has adversely affected a complainant and where the Council has failed to acknowledge its failings and has made no attempt to put things right.

Complaints handling – findings

49. The Council operates a 2-stage complaints procedure. It will issue a stage one response within 10 working days of a complaint and a stage two response within 20 working days of an escalation.
50. Ms X complained on 20 November 2023. The Council acknowledged the complaint on the same day. This means it should have provided its stage one response by 4 December 2023. The Council did not provide its stage one response until 29 February 2024. This was 70 working days after Ms X’s complaint. Both LGSCO and the HOS find this was a failing.
51. We understand that councils sometimes need longer to respond to a complaint. In this case, the evidence shows Ms X and the Council were liaising about further inspections throughout this period. However, if a landlord is delayed responding to a complaint, the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code says councils must provide an explanation for the delay prior to the expiry of any deadlines and provide a new indicative timeframe for the response. The Council failed to communicate with Ms X about the delay. Nor did it recognise the delay in its complaint response or seek to provide redress.
52. The Council sent Ms X the stage two response on 12 April 2024. This was 28 working days after Ms X’s escalation request. Once again, the Council failed to notify Ms X about the delay. Nor did it identify the delay in its response. Both LGSCO and the HOS find this was a failing.
53. In summary, the Council’s complaint responses were not provided within the timeframes of either its policy or the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, without reasonable explanation. This amounted to maladministration, for which £100 compensation has been ordered to reflect the impact this caused Ms X, being £50 for the delays to each response.

Conclusion

54. LGSCO finds the Council at fault for:
1. failing to consider whether Ms X needed a shower with variable pressure control before installing a new one; and
2. failing to take into account the medical evidence which said she did need such a shower.
55. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, HOS finds there was maladministration in respect of the complaints about the missed repair appointments and claims Ms X had refused access.
56. LGSCO finds fault and the HOS finds maladministration in the Council’s complaints handling.

Back to top

Action

HOS orders

57. Within four weeks of the date of the final decision, the Council should pay compensation of £300, comprising:
1. £200 for any distress and inconvenience caused by its failings in relation to the missed appointments and claims Ms X had refused access.
2. £100 for its ineffective complaints handling.
58. The Council should provide the Housing Ombudsman Service with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

LGSCO action

59. Within four weeks of the date of the final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. apologise to Ms X in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology;
2. install a new shower which has the variable pressure control Ms X needs; and
3. pay Ms X £200 for the distress caused by being without equipment she needs to manage her disability.
60. Within three months of the date of the final decision, the Council should:
1. produce guidance for relevant staff on when and how to check a tenant’s social care and/or equipment needs when responding to repairs.
61. The Council should provide the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

62. We find both maladministration and fault by the Council causing injustice. The Council should both comply with the orders and take the recommended action as a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Final decision on behalf of the Ombudsmen

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman