Complaint reference 00282 - Repairs

06 Jan 10 | Ombudsman Case Digests

Mrs J was an assured tenant. In 2006 the landlord was carrying our refurbishment works at her block. Mrs J complained about a warning she received concerning her behaviour to a contractor and that it did not refurbish her bathroom in accordance with the recommendations of the Occupational Therapist.

Warning about behaviour towards a contractor

In April 2006, following a compliant from a contractor the landlord told Mrs J it was 'very concerned to learn that when the electrician called, you were abusive to him and prevented him from carrying out the necessary tests' and explained advised that this was a breach of her tenancy agreement. It also told her that her home would be withdrawn from the refurbishment programme if she failed to provide access to contractors.

The warning was discussed at a joint meeting between the landlord Mrs J, her support worker and the local authority in February 2007; and again in January 2008. Consequently in March 2008 the landlord wrote to Mrs J confirming that it had ‘found no conclusive evidence to show that you were aggressive to our contractors apart from meetings held at the time. I apologise that this may have led to the allegations and any distress this has caused.'

It was of concern that the landlord did not have a record of the contractor complaint that prompted its April 2006 letter. Nonetheless, the landlord discussed the issue with Mrs J a number of times and apologised for any distress its letter may have caused. That represented an appropriate and proportionate response.

Bathroom

In 2006 the landlord refurbished Mrs J’s bathroom based in accordance with on advice from an Occupational Therapist (OT). In light of her subsequent complaint it agreed at the meeting in February 2007 to check about the possibility of moving the shower and grab rails. During that meeting the landlord also noted that confusion had been caused in relation to Mrs J requesting a separate OT assessment from the local authority.

Approximately a year later the landlord told Mrs R that any repositioning would need to be discussed with the original OT. Work was subsequently agreed but in October 2008 the landlord cancelled a work order to reposition the shower because ‘you no longer want it done.’ In November 2008, following a further meeting with Mrs J, the landlord then confirmed it was re-ordering the work.

The matter was discussed again during a home visit in December 2008 and at the Panel hearing in March 2009. In April 2009 the landlord finally noted it had contacted the local authority about another OT assessment but they would ‘only accept an approach directly from Mrs J as she has failed to keep previous appointments'… Nonetheless the landlord confirmed that if any repositioning was identified, it would consider carrying it out subject to budgetary constraints and assurances that Mrs J would allow access.

Determination

This was an appropriate response. The landlord arranged for work to be carried out and then cancelled it, both times in accordance with Mrs J’s wishes. It was reasonable to review the situation and make further work conditional on the OT and access to the property.

We found that there was no maladministration by the landlord but recommended that it should take steps to ensure more accurate record keeping in future.