Hyde Housing Association Limited (202416463)

Background

1. The resident lives with her children. The landlord completed poor tiling work in the bathroom, which meant the resident did not have access to bathing facilities for a week. The landlord said it would install aqua board throughout the bathroom, move the shower and install a shower screen. It subsequently advised it could not do the works it agreed to, due to practicality, health, and safety.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of:
   1. Tiling in the bathroom and subsequent installation of aqua board.
   2. A request to move the shower and install a shower screen.
   3. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Tiling in the bathroom and subsequent installation of aqua board.
   2. A request to move the shower and install a shower screen.
   3. The complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of tiling in the bathroom and subsequent installation of aqua board

4. The landlord acknowledged that there were poor tiling repairs initially, and it paid reasonable compensation in line with its compensation policy to recognise this. It initially said it would install aqua board throughout the bathroom. However, on doing the works it discovered that this was not practical. It advised the resident as soon as it identified it could not fully install aqua board, which was reasonable. However, the landlord did not recognise the resident’s concern that she had been unable to use the bath for a period of time, and the impact this had on her.

The landlord’s handling of a request to move the shower and install a shower screen

5. The landlord initially said it would move the shower and install a shower screen. It subsequently said that it could not do this because of health and safety reasons. It was reasonable for the landlord to change the scope of the works on identifying health and safety concerns. However, the resident had also raised concerns with the anti-slip surface in her bath being ineffective. The landlord did not fully address this which was not in line with its complaints policy, to fully address all complaints points.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

6. There were delays in the landlord’s complaints process. The landlord awarded £50 which was reasonable in line with its compensation policy. However, it did not address all issues raised by the resident in the complaints process. This was not in line with its complaints policy.

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.

What we did not consider.

7. The resident told us that she was injured by a cracked tile. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. The landlord has signposted the resident to its insurance for any claim. We have not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did consider.

8. On 5 February 2024 the resident reported cracked tiles in the bathroom. She said some had come off the wall. The landlord’s repairs policy says it is responsible for tiling repairs. Its repairs procedure says it will attend routine repairs within 20 working days. The landlord attended in 20 working days. As such it followed its repairs policy.
9. The landlord’s repairs log say it started the repairs on 6 March 2024. It completed the work on 11 March 2024. On 12 March 2024 the landlord completed a damp and mould survey. It identified that the tiling work was poor. The resident raised a complaint on the same day regarding the tiling work. The landlord’s repairs policy says it “has a statutory duty to ensure an efficient and good quality repairs service.” The poor tiling work was not in line with its policy. The landlord awarded £50 compensation in its stage 1 response for poor workmanship. This is reasonable in line with its compensation policy where there is no permanent impact.
10. On 13 March 2024 the landlord acknowledged it needed to remove the tiling due to the poor finish. The landlord agreed with the resident that it would install aqua board. It is unclear from the repairs records whether the installation was on 18 March 2024 or 21 March 2024. This is due to conflicting records on these days. The landlord has acknowledged it initially said it would aqua board the whole bathroom. However, when it went to do the work, it noted that it would need to remove pipework to fully install aqua boarding. This would be complex and at an increased cost. It therefore said it would only aqua board to a point. It noted that there were no issues with the remaining tiles. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will ensure its repairs are value for money. We expect the landlord to manage its resources effectively to ensure it can deliver a robust and sustainable service. The landlord advised the resident as soon as it was aware it needed to change the scope of the aqua boarding. The landlord acted in line with its repairs policy, when changing the scope of the works.
11. We note the resident has continued to raise her concerns that the whole bathroom is not aqua boarded. She has requested that the partial aqua board that the landlord had installed be removed and the landlord re-tile the bathroom. The landlord said in its stage 2 response that it will not do further work in relation to the aqua board and tiling. As per the landlord’s repairs policy it needs to ensure any works are cost effective. Whilst we recognise the resident’s frustration, we consider that the landlord has acted reasonably in line with its repairs policy.
12. On 4 April 2024 the resident said that her and her children had been unable to take a bath for a week. She noted that due to a health condition, she needed to be able to bathe each day. It is unclear when the resident first raised that she could not use the bath. In the stage 1 response, the landlord noted that the resident informed it the reason the bath could not be used was due to a tile falling on the resident. The resident reported there had been an injury due to a falling tile on 12 March 2024. As the landlord was aware of an injury due to the poor tiling work, it would have been reasonable for it to consider whether it was safe to use the bath, until remedial works could be done. There is a lack of clarity on how long the resident was unable to use the bath. However, if it was from the time the resident reported injury, on 12 March 2023 until the landlord completed remedial works by installing aqua board, this would have been 11 days.
13. We note in the stage 1 response the landlord said it grouted the tiles so the resident could use the bath, however we have not seen it did this. There is a lack of clarity around the useability of the bath. However, on balance, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to discuss the useability with the resident, at the time she reported injury due to the tiling. We have not seen it did this.
14. In her escalation request dated 9 April 2024, the resident raised the time without a bath again and the impact this had on her and her children. The landlord’s complaints policy states that at stage 2 it will address all points in the complaint, demonstrate empathy and provide an apology where appropriate. The landlord did not acknowledge the time the resident was without a bath in its stage 2 response. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider the impact on the resident and provide an apology. We have not seen it did this. This was not in line with its complaints policy.
15. The landlord’s response in relation to its decision to partially install aqua board was reasonable. The landlord has also offered reasonable compensation for the initial poor workmanship, which is likely to have been an inconvenience to the resident. It noted in its stage 1 response that the resident could not use the bath for a period of time. We consider the time without a bath was between 7 – 10 days. Whilst the landlord acknowledged poor workmanship, it has not demonstrated that it considered the impact on the resident in not having a bath, due to the poor tiling works. As such there was service failure.
16. We consider an apology for the failure to acknowledge the impact on the resident due to loss of bathing facilities to be reasonable, in line with the landlord’s complaints policy. We also consider compensation payment of £100 to be reasonable, in addition to the £50 awarded in the complaint responses. This is in recognition that the loss of bathing facilities was likely to have had an impact, especially in consideration of the resident’s circumstances. However, we note that the period was short, and we have not identified any permanent impact. The amount is in line with our remedies guidance, where the impact was moderate.

17. On 5 February 2024 the landlord noted that it removed the shower so that tiling could take place. The repairs records said the landlord agreed to move the shower to a new position. The resident’s shower is part of a bath/shower combination. On 27 March 2024 the landlord said that following visits from 2 supervisors, it identified it could not move the shower position due to health and safety concerns. In its complaints response the landlord said this was due to there being a slope in the bath, and due to the position of the non-slip surface within the bath. The landlord’s repairs policy says it complies with standards set by the regulator of social housing. As per their safety and quality standard, the landlord must take all reasonable steps to ensure health and safety in the resident’s home. As such it was reasonable for the landlord not to move the shower on health and safety grounds. The landlord advised the resident as soon as it identified it could not move the shower, as previously promised. It was reasonable for the landlord to update the resident at the earliest opportunity.
18. In the stage 2 acknowledgement letter dated 22 April 2024 the landlord said the resident had advised the non-slip surface in the bath had worn out. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said the resident had not raised this as a concern when the surveyors visited her property. We have not seen the exact dates the surveyor’s visited, however in internal communications dated 16 April 2024, the landlord noted 3 surveyors had been out to agree works. We therefore consider the surveyors visits were prior to 22 April 2024. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider if the resident’s concerns regarding her non-slip surface was a new repair. Its repairs policy said it will have a clear, transparent approach to repair responsibilities. Although the landlord noted that the repair had not been raised to its surveyors, it has not expressly said that it was satisfied the non-slip surface was fit for purpose. The communication with the resident regarding the repair was not clear and transparent, as per its repairs policy. It is unclear at this time, whether the landlord has assessed the non-slip surface, and whether the landlord needs to complete any repair. This is likely to have caused frustration to the resident.
19. The landlord has acknowledged it initially agreed to install a shower screen. When the landlord recognised that it could not move the shower, it said that the shower screen would be ineffective. As such it said it could not install the shower screen. It said it would need to arrange for this to be returned to the supplier. The landlord’s repairs policy states any repairs will be efficient. As it would have been inefficient to install the shower screen, the landlord’s decision was reasonable.
20. The landlord said it would fit a shower curtain and handrail instead of the shower screen. We understand that it installed this on 9 May 2024. The landlord noted on 10 April 2024 that the resident was refusing works. As per the resident’s tenancy agreement, resident’s must provide access for works to be completed. The landlord continued to try to gain access until it could complete the works. This was reasonable.
21. In her escalation request the resident said that she was unhappy that the shower screen was still in her home. The landlord agreed it needed to collect the shower screen. It is unclear from the records how long the shower screen was at the property as we do not know when it was delivered to the resident. In the stage 2 response the landlord said it collected the shower screen on 10 May 2024. It acknowledged that it should have done this sooner, and recognised inconvenience to the resident. It offered £100. This was reasonable in line with its compensation policy, for failures that did not cause a permanent impact.
22. Whilst we acknowledge that the resident is unhappy that the landlord changed its decision on moving the shower and installing the shower screen, the landlord’s decision was in line with its policies. The landlord recognised the inconvenience to the resident in not collecting the shower screen. However, it did not respond to the resident’s concern regarding the anti-slip surface. As such there was service failure.
23. We have made an order for the landlord to address the concerns regarding the anti-slip surface. At this time, we are unable to determine from the evidence whether the anti-slip surface was fit for purpose. As such we cannot say what level of detriment there was to the resident. Once the landlord has responded to the resident regarding the anti-slip surface, it should consider its response in line with its compensation policy. If there has been detriment to the resident, it should consider whether compensation is payable.

24. The landlord’s complaints policy says a complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction. It says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy complies with our complaint handling code (the Code.)
25. The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint in 8 working days. It responded to the stage 1 complaint in 11 working days. The acknowledgement and the complaint were outside of the timescales in its complaints policy. The landlord offered £50 for these delays. We consider this to be reasonable in line with its compensation policy where there is no permanent impact.
26. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint in 9 working days. This was not in line with the timescales in its complaints policy. It responded to the stage 2 complaint in 18 working days which was within the timescales of its policy. We note that the overall delay in the stage 2 complaints process accumulated to 2 working days. While this is not in line with its policy, we do not consider this to have had a substantial impact on the resident. As such we would not consider additional compensation for this.
27. The resident’s initial complaint was about poor tiling work and an injury resulting in this. The landlord’s complaints policy says that once a complaint is made, the landlord will contact the resident to discuss the reason for the complaint. The landlord did this, which provided the resident an opportunity to raise all outstanding issues. The landlord followed its complaints policy. However, its complaints policy also says it will address all issues raised in the complaint. The landlord acknowledged that the resident raised issues with her skirting board in the bathroom in its acknowledgement letter. It did not address this in the complaints response. We have also identified that the complaints responses did not address issues with the non-slip surface and did not acknowledge the impact on the resident not having bathing facilities for a period of time. This was not in line with its complaints policy.
28. In the stage 1 response, the landlord said it had raised additional works in the bathroom, to those we have investigated in this report. These were:
    1. A chip in the bathtub.
    2. Switching around hot and cold taps on the sink.
    3. Work to a radiator valve in the bathroom.
    4. A mould wash in the bathroom.
    5. Fitting a new bath panel.

We cannot see that the resident raised these repairs during the complaints process. As we have not seen that these repairs were raised as a formal complaint by the resident, we have not investigated these matters as per our Scheme. However, the landlord said in its stage 2 response that “all bathroom works had been completed”. The resident has since raised that some works are outstanding. We have ordered the landlord to review the complaint and respond to any outstanding repairs.

29. There were some delays in the landlord’s complaint acknowledgement and responses. The landlord has provided reasonable compensation for this. However, the landlord did not address all points raised in the resident’s complaint. This was not in line with its policy. As such there was service failure.
30. We consider an additional payment of £100 to be appropriate for the distress and inconvenience in the landlord’s complaints handling. This is in line with our remedies guidance, where there has been no permanent impact.

Learning

31. We note that there were failures in how the landlord initially handled the repairs. This included providing incorrect information about the work it could do to the bathroom. This is likely to have caused frustration to the resident. However, the landlord subsequently ensured it sent supervisors to assess the work. It provided detailed reasons for why it could not complete the repairs it initially agreed to. It offered alternative solutions, such as installing a shower curtain and handrail. The landlord has shown it was considering how it could put matters right for the resident.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

32. Overall, the record keeping was good. There were some records, such as the decision to move the shower, which could have been clearer. Clear and robust records ensure the landlord can give accurate information to the resident regarding its repairs decisions.

Communication

33. The landlord has shown that it tried to provide explanations to the resident regarding its decisions. We note that communication was difficult at times, as the resident was frustrated by the landlord’s decision. However, the landlord continued to attempt to communicate and offer solutions.