Sheffield City Council (202450779)

Background

1. The resident has anxiety and depression. Her bathroom floor collapsed on 17 October 2024. She asked her MP to help progress the repairs, who contacted the landlord on her behalf. For ease of reference, we have referred to the MP’s contact as the resident’s throughout this report, as the MP was acting on her behalf.

What the complaint is about

2. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the bathroom.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the bathroom.
5. We find service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord’s delay in logging and completing the repairs caused the resident distress and meant the resident lived with a unusable bathroom for an extended period. The landlord did not provide the resident with an action plan or regularly contact her during this time.
7. The landlord did not provide a response to all elements of the resident’s complaint.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

8. The landlord’s repair policy states urgent repairs will be attended to within 24 hours. Routine repairs will be completed within 25 working days. Planned repairs will be completed within 25 to 55 working days
9. The landlord’s repair policy says it would consider the inconvenience caused to the resident when deciding how quickly a repair needs attending to.
10. The resident said she reported bathroom repairs for a couple of months via the landlord’s webform but she did not hear anything. The landlord has told us it has no records of any bathroom repair reports before 17 October 2024. This was when the resident reported dangerous floorboards and a sinking toilet and sink. We do not dispute the resident’s account, however there is no evidence to show any reports before 17 October 2024, so we are unable to establish exactly what happened. As the first record we have of a report is from 17 October 2024, we have considered the landlord’s actions from this point onwards.
11. After the resident’s report on 17 October 2024 the landlord responded within the timescales of its repairs policy when attending to an urgent repair. Its findings were that the bathroom floor had collapsed, the toilet had sunk under the floor, and the sink had come away from the wall. The floor could not be used because it was unsafe. The landlord showed consideration of the urgent situation by:
    1. Offering the resident a chemical toilet, which she declined. She has told us that as the water was turned off she had no way of emptying it.
    2. Offering interim accommodation for that night. The resident declined this due to her mental health and having dogs. She said she would use a family member’s bathroom. The resident told the landlord she could not move temporarily to a property in certain areas due to personal circumstances.
    3. Completing an internal form to progress a temporary move.
12. The landlord offered the resident temporary accommodation on 31 October 2024. She declined this because she did not feel safe in the area offered. She was entitled to refuse the offer for that reason.
13. The landlord’s records show that on the same day the resident said that she no longer wanted temporary accommodation due to the impact on her mental health. The landlord considered completing the repair works while the resident remained living in the property. The resident disputes this and says she was told the property offered was the only option available. She has told us that she wanted the landlord to consider an alternative property in an area where she felt safe. As there is a dispute about what was said, we have considered whether the landlord’s response was reasonable in the circumstances.
14. In our view the landlord acted in good faith when planning to complete the repair works whilst the resident remained living in the property. It based its decision on the information recorded on its system and what it believed the resident wanted. However, it would have been best practice for the landlord to confirm this change of plan in writing to the resident. Doing so would have helped ensure both parties were clear about the decisions made and the reasons for them.
15. The landlord did not provide the resident with regular updates about the repairs to the bathroom. There is no evidence the landlord provided the resident with an action plan and she was not kept informed of the progress of the repair. The landlord was aware of the resident’s mental health conditions, so it should have taken this into account and ensured she received timely updates and appropriate support during the repair process.
16. The landlord did not show urgency in arranging the repair. The landlord did not raise a repair job until 15 November 2024, which was 21 working days after it identified the bathroom was unsafe. This delay was disproportionate given the seriousness of the repair and the inconvenience to the resident, who had no usable bathroom and the water to the property was turned off.
17. The landlord completed the works in 2 stages, with all repairs finished on 15 January 2025. The bathroom floor was made safe in November 2024 but the bathroom was unusable for 61 working days. This was outside the timescales in the landlord’s repair policy. The delay caused inconvenience to the resident, who had to use family members’ facilities. She also told us she had to buy bottled water each day.
18. We find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the bathroom. The landlord’s offer of £50 goodwill gesture is not sufficient in recognising the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings in this case. The delays in logging and completing the repairs meant the resident lived in an unsuitable situation for an extended period. The landlord did not provide the resident with regular updates or provide any ongoing support.
19. We have ordered the landlord to pay £350 compensation, this includes the £50 it offered as a goodwill gesture. This is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy where a service failure had a significant adverse and demonstrable impact on the individual.

20. The landlord’s complaint policy says it will acknowledge stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within 5 working days. It will issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of the acknowledgment, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days of the acknowledgment.
21. The landlord’s stage 1 acknowledgment provided to us was undated. The stage 1 response was issued 24 working days after the resident made her complaint, which was outside the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaint policy.
22. The landlord issued its stage 2 acknowledgment on time. Its stage 2 response was dated 20 working days after that acknowledgment. The resident’s representative said they did not receive a formal written response until 5 March 2025. We have not seen evidence to establish when this was sent by the landlord.
23. Effective complaint handling helps build trust between landlords and residents. The landlord did not respond to all of the concerns the resident raised in her complaint. It did not show that it investigated the lack of communication, the resident’s concern that the repair was not logged when she first reported it, or the handling of the offer of temporary accommodation. As a result, the landlord did not handle the complaint in line with its complaint policy, which requires it to respond to all issues raised.
24. We have ordered the landlord to pay £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience to the resident because it did not respond to all the issues she had raised. This is in line with our remedies guidance where the landlord did not acknowledge its failings and made no attempt to put things right.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

25. The landlord was unable to provide all of the information we requested as part of our investigation. This included telephone contact notes with the resident. It therefore could not evidence it had taken appropriate action.
26. The landlord has told us that it is implementing urgent improvements including improved complaints handling training and record keeping. It is also working to implement better digital solutions to assist with its record keeping. This is a positive step and we encourage the landlord to consider any relevant learning it can take from this investigation as part of its overall service improvement work.

Communication

27. This case shows the importance of raising repairs promptly, maintaining regular communication, and providing clear information when a resident is living with a significant loss of facilities. The landlord should consider the learning it can take here, including to ensure residents are kept updated through an action plan for more complex repairs.