Anchor Hanover Group (202118688)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202118688

Anchor Hanover Group

12 January 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 handling of repairs to the resident’s bathroom and the level of compensation offered.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a flat within a block of similar properties. The resident lives in the property with his wife, who gave birth whilst the repairs were ongoing, and two young children. The resident advised that his wife experienced post birth complications affecting her mobility.
3. The landlord’s records show that the resident had experienced historical issues with leaks from the shower in his bathroom. He reported a leak in June 2020 which was causing damage to his bathroom floor. The evidence shows that this was attended to on the same day. The records suggest that operatives identified that the flooring required exposing to assess the extent of the damage caused in August 2020. The resident advised that work to expose the floor in his bathroom began on 10 September 2020.
4. The resident raised a complaint in September 2020 as he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the repairs. He said he had initially asked the landlord to put works on hold as his wife was due to give birth on 15 September 2020 and had then experienced post birth complications affecting her mobility. He said that he had not been informed of how long the works would take and that there had been a lack of progress between 14 and 18 September 2020. He further explained that the disruption caused by the works had- a negative impact on his family and his wife’s health. He noted that the landlord had given access to alternative bathing facilities around 600m away to use, but said that these were not accessible to his wife due to the distance. He acknowledged that the toilet and sink were left functioning at the end of each day but said that the toilet was unstable and there were large gaps in the flooring which were a health and safety concern. He added that his wife could not access the toilet due to the gap in the flooring. He was also dissatisfied that the landlord had refused his request for alternative accommodation and had not taken steps to complete works sooner given his wife’s condition.
5. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord confirmed that the works had been completed on 2 October 2020. It acknowledged that the works could have been handled differently and explained that the works required to the property had been complex. It advised that the floor required periods of drying time to ensure that new flooring was not laid over wet wood and that it was not possible to know how long this would take. It further explained that due to the condition of the floor, it had not been able to risk leaving the work for a few months until the family was better prepared. It confirmed that alternative facilities had been made available during this time and apologised that these had not been up to standard and did not suit the resident’s needs. It apologised that the works had impacted the residents use of the property and offered £100 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused.
6. The evidence shows that the resident contacted the landlord in March 2022 and advised that he was still awaiting a response to his complaint. The landlord confirmed that its final response had been sent on 24 November 2020 and provided a copy. 
7. The resident then referred his complaint to this Service as he remained dissatisfied with the length of time the repair works took to complete and the level of disruption caused to him and his family. He was also dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered by the landlord. He noted that he and his family were living in unsafe conditions for a month and the disruption had an impact on his family and his wife’s mental health. He was dissatisfied that the landlord had refused his request for alternative accommodation given his wife’s condition at the time and felt his family’s needs had been neglected.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

8. As part of his complaint to both the landlord and this Service, the resident explained that the issues affecting his property had impacted his family’s mental and physical health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments. However, it is beyond the remit of this Service to decide on whether there was a direct link between the repair issues experienced and the resident’s family’s health or award damages. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord.
9. It is noted that the resident has experienced further leaks in his bathroom since the repair work in September 2020. As these are separate issues to the complaint raised with the Service, this is not something that this Service can adjudicate on at this stage, as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of recent leaks, he will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to get this matter resolved, prior to the Ombudsman’s consideration.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s bathroom and the level of compensation offered.

10. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for maintaining and repairing the internal walls and floors of the property as well as water pipes and bathing facilities. The landlord’s repairs policy states that emergency repairs should be attended to and made safe within 24 hours. Routine repairs, including where a shower tray is damaged or faulty, or redecoration following a leak, should be completed within 28 days. The landlord would be expected to communicate with the resident, explain the reason for any delays where appropriate and provide an estimated completion date to manage a resident’s expectations.
11. As part of this investigation, the landlord was asked to provide contemporaneous documentary evidence, including contact logs and repair records. Only limited information was provided, which did not include communication logs or records of the reported repair issue. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contacts and repairs, yet the evidence has not been comprehensive in this case. It is acknowledged that the complaint issues occurred over two years ago, however, this is not an excessive period of time to provide records for. In addition, the landlord provided records of repairs as early as 2017 which indicates that the records should have been available to provide for the 2020 repair. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. The onus would be on the landlord to provide documentary evidence showing how it satisfied itself that the repair work had been completed to a satisfactory standard and that it had followed its own policies and procedures.
12. In this case, it is not disputed that work to expose, dry out and reinstate the flooring and shower in the resident’s bathroom following a leak took place between 10 September 2020 and 2 October 2020, a period of 22 days. It remains unclear as to what work took place on each day or the cause of the issue. The landlord has acknowledged that the works impacted the resident and his family’s use of the room and offered £100 compensation in recognition of the impact. However, the landlord’s offer of compensation is not considered proportionate given the impact on the resident and his family in this case.
13. The resident explained that he had two young children in the property and his wife was due to give birth whilst works went ahead. The landlord reasonably explained that it was not able to put works on hold due to concerns about the condition of the floor and noted that it was not able to give a timeframe for the works as it was not able to predict how long the floor would take to dry.  Whilst the landlord’s explanations were reasonable, given the household vulnerabilities, the impact the loss of bathroom was likely to have and the uncertainty regarding the length of time works would take, the Ombudsman would have expected to see evidence that the landlord had considered offering temporary accommodation to the resident and his family in order to lessen the disruption from the outset. There is no evidence to suggest that temporary accommodation was discussed with the resident until 30 September 2020, 20 days after works had begun which was likely to have caused inconvenience.
14. The landlord has advised that it did not offer temporary accommodation at this time as there was a lack of available family rooms in hotels in the area and it had been informed that the works were only due to take three further days to complete. Where there are no available rooms of the right size, the landlord could have offered alternative options such as two rooms or partially relocating the family in order to lessen the impact. The resident and his family would be within their right to refuse any offer if the alternatives did not suit their needs, however, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have explored alternatives as a means to support the resident from the outset given the likely impact on the household.
15. It is not disputed that the toilet and sink in the bathroom were reinstated at the end of each day. This would usually be acceptable as a minimum requirement whilst major works are carried out. However, this is usually only acceptable for a short period of time as the circumstances are likely to cause inconvenience. In this case, the lack of shower or bath was likely to cause a greater level of inconvenience to the resident’s wife given her medical vulnerabilities at the time.
16. The resident also raised concerns about the safety of the flooring in the bathroom whilst works went ahead, expressing concern that his children may fall, that the toilet was unstable and that his wife could not cross the plank of wood in place to access the toilet. The landlord and its contractors would be responsible for ensuring that the bathroom was left in a safe condition at the end of each day. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord had attended the property or checked the floor for any health and safety risks following receipt of the resident’s concerns. This would have been appropriate as a means to ensure that the bathroom was safe or to put additional measures in place to ease the resident’s mind. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord responded to his concerns which was likely to have caused inconvenience and distress for the resident who maintained that the conditions were unsafe.
17. Whilst the landlord acted with the right intentions by providing access to alternative bathing facilities within the building, it is unclear when access was provided and it would have been appropriate for the landlord to ensure that alternative facilities were made available from the outset. It is also noted that the alternative bathroom was reported to be some distance from the property and the resident advised that it was not accessible for his wife as she could not walk 600m to use the facilities given the post birth complications which had arisen. Given the reports of household vulnerabilities and the presence of young children, who would need to be supervised when accessing the alternative facilities, it is understandable that the resident felt that the alternative bathroom was not suitable.
18. Within its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged that the repairs could have been handled differently and that the alternative facilities were not suitable for the resident’s family’s needs. However, it has not demonstrated that it had taken points of learning from the complaint or explained what it could have done differently. Once it became apparent that the alternative facilities were not suitable, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have communicated with the resident, provided alternative options and clearly explained any limitations it faced. There is no evidence to suggest that it did so which indicates that it had not fully acknowledged the circumstances at the time.
19. The resident has also raised concern that he was not informed of how long the work would take and that there were days where no work was completed. The landlord may not have been able to provide an estimated timescale for the works as detailed above. However, there is a lack of evidence to suggest that the resident was regularly updated during the works or provided with a schedule of works once the floor was found to be dry which would have been appropriate in order to manage his expectations effectively. The lack of communication was likely to have caused frustration and uncertainty for the resident especially given the disruption caused by the lack of accessible facilities.
20. It is the Ombudsman’s view that more could have been done by the landlord to support the resident and lessen the disruption caused by the works required. Whilst it did take steps to reinstate the toilet and sink at the end of each day and provide alternative bathing facilities, these were not suitable given the individual circumstances of the case. In addition, there is a lack of evidence to confirm that the landlord had communicated or managed the resident’s expectations effectively during this period. In this case, a significant amount  of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and his family could have been avoided had an offer of temporary accommodation been made prior to works beginning. The landlord has failed to demonstrate that it had fully considered the impact on the resident’s family or taken points of learning when assessing the complaint.
21. Overall, the landlord’s offer of £100 compensation in recognition of the impact on the resident is not considered proportionate in view of the additional failings identified and the inconvenience caused. As such, the landlord is to offer an additional £300 compensation, bringing the total to £400 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and his family. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (available on our website), which states that amounts in this range are considered proportionate where there has been considerable service failure or maladministration but there may be no permanent impact on the resident.

Determination

22. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs to the resident’s bathroom and the level of compensation offered.

Orders

23. Within four weeks, the landlord is to pay the resident £400 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failure to communicate or fully consider the household vulnerabilities. This is inclusive of the landlord’s previous offer of £100 if this has not yet been paid.
24. Within eight weeks, the landlord is to review the case to identify points of learning and establish what could have been done differently to avoid similar situations in the future. A copy of the review should be sent to both the resident and the Ombudsman for compliance purposes.

Recommendations

25. It is recommended that the landlord conduct a review of its record keeping processes, ensuring that there is a clear audit trail for complaints, which provides details of specifically when contact was made, what was said and what the agreed next steps and expectations were. It should also ensure that records of repairs, including when these were raised, actions taken throughout the repair and the completion date are recorded so that these can be provided to the Ombudsman when requested.