Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel - find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Abri Group Limited (202221296)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202221296

Abri Group Limited

15 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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of reports of a faulty shower.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the subsequent complaints.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The resident is disabled and the shower in the property’s wet room is the only washing facility for the resident. The resident has made two complaints that have both gone through the landlord’s internal complaints process. For clarity, this report will look at both complaints as part of the landlord’s overall handling of reports of a faulty shower.
  2. On 12 June 2022, the resident reported that her shower was not working. One of the landlord’s operatives attended the same day and determined that a new pump was needed. A subcontractor attended the following day and determined the same.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 16 June 2022. She was unhappy that on two separate occasions operatives came out and gave the same diagnosis. She stated she was told that the pump was ordered on 12 June 2022, and then was cancelled because the job had been subcontracted to another company who then ordered another pump. She also stated she was given different information each time she called for an update as to when the pump would be replaced. She explained that she was disabled and incontinent and that the shower was her only means to wash.
  4. A new pump was fitted on 21 June 2022, and a new shower fitted on 23 June 2022.
  5. The landlord provided its stage one response on 22 July 2022. It explained that when its operative determined a new pump was needed, he raised an urgent follow-on repair job to replace it. As the landlord did not have an electrician available, it subcontracted the work out. The subcontractor made the same determination and ordered a pump. This resulted in the resident calling daily for updates and not getting any answers. It said that the resident had been offered a decant, but she had declined this offer citing her animals, and that her child was sitting his GCSEs. The landlord recognised it could have accommodated her needs and believed that if the decant was explained correctly with full details it could have saved a lot of distress and inconvenience. It apologised for its poor communication and stated it had given feedback to the relevant departments. It also offered £200 compensation for distress and upheld the complaint.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint because while she felt the landlord acknowledged responsibility for mistakes, she also felt it did not recognise the degrading nature of her situation, had not provided reassurance the situation would not be repeated nor demonstrated sufficient learning that would prevent the situation happening to anyone else.
  7. The landlord provided its stage two response on 17 September 2022, where it agreed with the resident’s reasons to escalate. It explained that its communication process did not always work for individual cases where delicacy and urgency were required. It also explained that the main contributing factor was that the individuals the resident spoke to were not talking to each other and gave the resident different information.
  8. The landlord said that it wanted to put provisions in place for extra reassurance if the wash facilities became unusable in the future: it would give the resident a date of when repairs will be completed by, and if this date was not met or was extended, it would allow the resident to source her own qualified and VAT registered tradesperson or company for the same works if they could complete them sooner. The landlord said that in such a situation it would fully reimburse the cost. The landlord also said that it would research local alternative accommodation and provide a contact list to the resident to allow her to source alternative accommodation on her own terms if a repair meant she was unable to use her washing facilities for an excessive or unspecified amount of time. Again the landlord said that it would fully reimburse the resident for this if a VAT-registered receipt was provided. It was apologetic that anyone would have to go through the resident’s experience and upheld the complaint.
  9. On 24 November 2022, the resident reported that her shower kept cutting out. An operative attended the same day, determined that the shower was working okay and that the issue was possibly due to low water pressure and said that a plumber was needed. On 3 and 5 December 2022, the resident made a further two reports that her shower kept cutting out. In response several operatives attended and came to the same conclusion.
  10. The resident raised a new complaint on 8 December 2022. She was unhappy that her shower was not working and that she had to complain again. She was also unhappy that she had to put in three call outs for emergency repairs and the operatives said the same thing. She stated that she was told she would get a call when a new shower would be fitted and had not received the call. She also stated it was difficult to wash when the shower kept cutting out.
  11. On 12 December 2022, it was determined that the water pressure was not an issue but that a new shower was needed. On 13 December 2022, a job was raised which stated that an electrician and plumber needed to attend together as it was an electrical issue. On 14 December 2022, the shower was not working and it was determined that there was no water pressure. It was also determined by another engineer that the water pressure was fine and that the shower needed replacing. The shower was then replaced the same day and a new pump was added on 22 December 2022.
  12. The landlord provided its stage one response on 16 January 2023, and offered £225 compensation for the inconvenience caused. It acknowledged it did not prioritise follow-on works and identified its communication was poor and led to confusion over the root cause of the shower fault, and delays in completing the works. It had sent feedback to the relevant departments and apologised for the length of time it took to repair the shower and for the distress caused. It offered £225 in compensation, £50 for poor communication, £50 for time and trouble and £125 for the stress and inconvenience caused for. It also upheld the complaint.
  13. The resident escalated her complaint as she felt the amount offered did not reflect what she had experienced. On 2 February 2023, the resident had a discussion about the complaint with the landlord. The landlord raised the compensation offered to £350. The resident asked the landlord about the provisions mentioned in its last stage two response and why it would now not do them.
  14. The landlord provided its final response on 2 February 2023. It apologised that it had previously told the resident it would put provisions in place but could not implement them. It explained that the provisions offered were not services it would ordinarily offer residents and going forward it would not be able to provide these. It stated that while the provisions would not have resolved the shower issue sooner, it nevertheless apologised for not giving the correct information previously. It also acknowledged that it did not respond appropriately to the repair requests, it had not considered the issues the resident was reporting, and that it had not planned sufficiently to ensure there was not a reoccurrence of previous issues.
  15. The landlord also acknowledged that it did not manage or set the resident’s expectations. It stated it would communicate more efficiently and provide correct information in the future as well as agreeing to take a more proactive and connected approach to dealing with the issues the resident had raised. It apologised for how long it had taken to fix the issues with the shower and had given feedback to the relevant departments. It stated that while the issue of the shower was resolved it would send out a plumber to assess and report on any preventative measures such as new pumps as well as liaising with its occupational health team to consider any measures it could take to improve the resident’s situation. It offered £1,500 compensation, £750 for each complaint and upheld the complaint.
  16. On 23 February 2023, the landlord provided its follow-up visit outlined in its final response of 2 February 2023. An occupational therapist, the landlord’s senior operations manager and the landlord’s most senior plumber visited the resident where inspections of the pump and wet room were conducted. The pump was stripped and inspected and found to be in full working order. While the occupational therapist made recommendations, the resident stated she could manage as long as the pump and shower continued to work. The resident was happy with the inspections
  17. The resident brought both her complaints to this Service because she was unhappy with how the landlord handled the repairs to her shower and the subsequent complaints.

Assessment and findings

  1. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are: Be fair, Put things right and Learn from the outcomes. This Service will apply these principles when considering whether the landlord responded appropriately and whether any redress offered by the landlord was appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord is responsible for keeping in good repair and working order installations for sanitisation as per the tenancy agreement.
  2. The repairs and maintenance policy states that the landlord will respond to emergency repairs and make safe within twenty-four hours.
  3. In the landlord’s decant procedure there are no restrictions in regard to decanting a resident when emergency works and decanting are required.
  4. As per the complaints policy, a stage one response will be made within 10 working days. Extensions will be advised with an explanation as to why. All stage two complaints will be reviewed and resolved within 20 working days.
  5. The compensation policy states that for high impact, where a resident has been the subject of a persistent failure over an unacceptable timeframe, a goodwill gesture of £200-£500 can be offered as part of its complaints remedy.

Handling of reports of a faulty shower.

  1. The resident reported her shower was not working on 12 June 2022, and an operative attended the same day. This was in line with the landlord’s repairs policy to respond to an emergency within 24 hours. The next day an electrician attended and came to the same conclusion as the first operative, that the shower needed a new pump. This was reasonable because the first operative was a plumber and it was determined that an electrician was needed. As the landlord had no electricians available, it subcontracted the work out and an electrician visited the next day on 13 June 2022.
  2. The pump was ordered on 13 June 2022 and fitted on 21 June 2022, with the shower being replaced on 23 June 2022. This was reasonable because it can take a period of time for parts to arrive and this was outside of the landlord’s control. It was also reasonable that as the pump could not be ordered on the Sunday; it was ordered on the Monday. It is noted that during this time the landlord did offer to decant the resident, but this was declined.
  3. The resident reported that her new shower kept cutting out on 24 November 2022, and an operative attended the same day. The operative found the shower working okay but suspected the water pressure was low. On 3 and 5 December 2022, the resident again reported the shower kept cutting out. On both occasions an operative attended. On 3 December 2022, they reset the shower and tested it for five minutes without fault. A further operative then attended on 5 December 2022, and found low water pressure.
  4. Between 12 December 2022, and 14 December 2022, the property was attended on multiple occasions. During this time a plumber stated the shower was faulty and an electrician was needed. When an electrician attended he stated the water pressure was low and a plumber was needed. The fault was passed back and forth multiple times until the shower was replaced on 14 December 2022, and the pump installed on 22 December 2022. While it was reasonable that the pump took time to arrive, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not keep the resident updated on this delay because it did not manage her expectations and its response was not in line with its repairs policy. It was also unreasonable that the fault was passed back and forth when it was requested that an electrician and plumber attend at the same time because it caused an unnecessary delay in finding the root cause of the shower’s fault.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord regularly, and on occasion the subcontractor, in June 2022 for updates as to when the new pump would be fitted. The resident also contacted the landlord regularly in December 2022, for updates for when her shower would be fixed. She and her husband were given different information each time they contacted the landlord regarding timeframes. This was unreasonable because it is basic good practice to keep a resident updated on an urgent repair and to manage their expectations. The landlord failed to do either of these. It was also unreasonable that the resident was told different things each time she reached out. The landlord is responsible for the repairs and should be aware of how the repairs are progressing in order to manage the resident’s expectations and keep track of the repairs.
  6. Following the first complaint and its resolution, the landlord assured the resident that it would implement measures to prevent further inconvenience to the resident should she be without wash facilities again. However, when the shower became unusable again between 24 November 2022 and 22 December 2022, the resident enquired about alternative accommodation provision the landlord had previously referred to, but the landlord had not put these measures in place.
  7. The resident experienced a similar situation to what she experienced in June and July 2022, where she had no washing facilities and no alternative accommodation for at least a month whilst not knowing when the repairs/replacement would be completed. The landlord also did not agree a deadline with the resident for fixing or replacing the shower, leaving her unable to source her own trades person.
  8. In its final response to the resident’s complaints, the landlord acknowledged its significant failures in this case and offered the resident £1,500 compensation: £750 for the first complaint and £750 for the second complaint, in recognition of its failings. When considering the landlord’s compensation policy and the £1,500 offered by the landlord was reasonable. This amount of compensation is also in line with the level of compensation suggested in this service’s remedies guidance for situations were a landlord has repeatedly failed to provide a service and where that failure had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident.
  9. The landlord also did what it said it would do and returned to the resident’s property in February 2023, following the replacement of the shower and pump on 22 December 2022, to ensure the shower was still fully operational. In addition, an occupational therapist (OT) visited the resident in February 2023. Whilst the OT did make recommendations, the resident was happy with how things were upon inspection as long as the shower and pump remained working.
  10. Overall, whilst there were significant failures by the landlord, this service is satisfied that the issues raised by the resident have been reasonably resolved and a finding of reasonable redress has been made. This determination being dependent on the £1,500 compensation being paid to the resident, if it has not already been done.

Handling of the subsequent complaints.

  1. The resident raised a formal complaint on 16 June 2022. The landlord responded on 22 July 2022. While it upheld the complaint and addressed all the points raised, it took 26 working days for the landlord to respond. This was unreasonable because it was significantly longer that the 10 working days timescale given in the landord’s complaints policy, and the landlord neither explained or acknowledged the delay in its response.
  2. When the resident escalated her complaint, at some point between 22 and 26 July 2022, the landlord acknowledged it on 26 July 2022 and gave a response target of 20 working days. However, on 22 August 2022 the landlord extended this to 6 September 2022, without providing a reasonable explanation as to why. The landlord then did not provide its first final response until 17 September 2022, again without any explanation, acknowledgement or apology for the delay in its response.
  3. The resident raised her second complaint on 8 December 2022. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 12 December 2022, and should have issued its a stage one response within 10 working days, by 3 January 2023, instead it gave a deadline of 16 January 2023 without a reasonable explanation. The landlord provided its stage one response on 16 January 2023.
  4. When the resident escalated her complaint on 16 January 2023, the landlord acknowledged it on 18 January 2023 and gave a response target of 20 working days. The landlord provided its stage two response on 2 February 2023. On this occasion, the landlord’s response was in line with its complaints policy.
  5. Whilst the landlord acknowledged its failing with regards to its response to the resident’s reports of issues with her shower in its complaint responses, and offered £1,500 compensation for those failures, the landlord failed to acknowledge the above failures with regards to its complaint handling. The failure of the landlord to do so has resulted in a finding of maladministration in respect of its handling of the subsequent complaints, for which it has been ordered to apologise to the resident and pay her an additional £200.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily in regard to its handling of reports of a faulty shower.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the subsequent complaints.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

  1. That within 28 calendar days of the date of this report, the landlord is to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for its complaint handling failures, and pay her an additional £200 compensation for those failures.
    2. Review the complaint handling failures identified in this report. The landlord is then to confirm to this service what steps it has taken to ensure that similar failings do not happen in the future.
    3. Confirm that it has complied with the above orders and what action it intends to take with regards to the following recommendations.

Recommendations

  1. That the landlord:
    1. Pay the resident the £1,500 previously offered, if it has not already done so. The finding of reasonable redress being dependent on it doing so.
    2. Carry out a review of this case to identify if there is any additional learning and improvement it can take, particularly in how it responds to the needs of its vulnerable residents, to ensure that similar situations do not occur going forward.