Saffron Housing Trust Limited (202312486)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202312486

Saffron Housing Trust Limited

28 January 2025

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 a floorboard repair.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of a 2-bedroom house. He lives with another adult, and the resident’s daughter. His daughter has a physical disability.
3. The resident reported a loose floorboard on 13 December 2022. The landlord logged this as a routine repair. It did not have staff availability for the repair to be scheduled at that time and the repair was forwarded to the scheduling team. The resident contacted the landlord on 30 January 2023 as the repair had not been completed.
4. The landlord reviewed the repair internally and arranged for it to be logged as an emergency appointment. On 29 March 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to advise that a member of its staff had come to the property but that the appointment could not be completed, as the resident had not lifted the carpet. The resident asked whether the repair would be completed if he lifted the carpet at that time. He was advised that an inspection would be done, and the area would be left safe, but that the repair would not be completed on that day.
5. The resident raised a complaint on 3 April 2023. He stated that he was unhappy about the delays to the repairs. He also advised that he had not been informed about the need for the carpet to be lifted prior to the previous appointment, or that the repairs would not be completed on the same day. He raised concerns that the loose floorboard was a health and safety risk to his daughter.
6. On 4 April 2023, the resident cancelled a repairs appointment for 6 April 2023 due to illness. He advised that he would call back to reschedule the appointment.
7. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 response that the resident was not told to lift the carpet. It advised that it was the resident’s responsibility to reschedule the cancelled appointment.
8. On 30 May 2023, the landlord spoke with the resident who remained unhappy with the complaint. He repeated that he had been unaware he needed to lift the carpet. He further advised that he had been contacted by an external contractor in relation to this repair, but he had not given his permission for this to happen.
9. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 31 May 2023. It acknowledged that the appointment should have been raised as an emergency or urgent appointment, due to the possible health and safety risks. It also acknowledged that when it was raised as an emergency appointment, this was not attended to within the 24-hour timescales. It apologised that it had not advised the resident that he would need to lift the carpet before the appointment on 29 March 2023. It advised it had amended its call scripts to ensure staff provided this information to residents in the future. It also apologised for not recognising the vulnerability in the household when the repair was reported, not repairing the floorboard sooner, and for passing the residents information to an external contractor without getting the resident’s consent. It confirmed that the new repair would take place on 12 June 2023 and offered £200 compensation.
10. The resident has advised that the repair has now been completed. He remains unhappy with the landlord’s communication during the repair, and he has concerns about how the repair was managed. He would like the Ombudsman to consider this.

Assessment and findings

11. On being made aware of the loose floorboard the landlord should have assessed the repair inline with its repairs policy. The landlord’s repairs policy states that floorboards should be attended to within 7 working days. However, the landlord should have also considered whether there was any vulnerability within the property. In this case the landlord was aware there was a child in the property with a physical disability. The landlord confirmed it booked the appointment as routine. It acknowledged in its stage 2 response that the appointment should have been either emergency or urgent, and that it failed to assess the risk on the matter being reported. The landlord has acknowledged its failings and provided an apology.
12. When the resident chased the appointment on 30 January 2023, he noted that the floorboards were dangerous. The landlord should have considered the risk to the resident. Internal emails confirm that the landlord reviewed the appointment and acknowledged that it had not considered the risk when the matter was originally reported. The landlord provided feedback to relevant staff and raised an emergency appointment. In its stage 2 response the landlord stated that it also spoke with the resident to check whether any injury had occurred. It is encouraging that the landlord considered what had gone wrong and took action to rectify this.
13. An emergency appointment should take place within 24 hours, in line with the landlord’s repairs policy. The appointment did not take place within 24 hours, and the landlord acknowledged this in its stage 2 response. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord failed to follow up on the appointment to ensure it had been completed. This is particularly concerning given the risk identified.
14. As the initial timescales had not been met, the landlord should have been in communication with the resident regarding the appointment. It should have ensured the resident was contacted before the landlord attended any rescheduled appointment. There are no records between the time the appointment was raised as an emergency until the time the landlord attended in March 2023. In subsequent internal emails it was identified that a call was made to one of the residents to discuss the appointment for 29 March 2023. The landlord appears to have acted correctly in notifying the resident in advance of the appointment, however it should consider whether it kept appropriate records in relation to this call.
15. Prior to the appointment, the landlord should have notified the resident of any actions the resident needed to take to allow the appointment to be successfully completed. The landlord failed to notify the resident that the carpet needed to be lifted prior to the appointment. The landlord acknowledged this in its stage 2 response and has subsequently amended its call scripts to ensure that residents are informed of this in the future. It is positive that on recognising a failure to the resident, the landlord took action to improve its service to residents.
16. The landlord should have been transparent about what would happen at the appointment. There is no evidence to support that the landlord did this. The resident reported that they were unaware that the appointment was for an inspection and not a repair. Failing to be transparent caused frustration to the resident, and further delayed a repair which was considered an emergency. This also resulted in a complaint being made by the resident.
17. As the appointment did not go ahead, the landlord should have rescheduled this. As it was identified as an emergency appointment this should have taken place within 24 hours. The appointment was scheduled for 4 April 2023. This is not a significant delay, however the landlord should reflect on why it was not treated as an emergency, given the potential risk to the resident.
18. The resident cancelled the appointment for 4 April 2023. The landlord advised the resident that it was his responsibility to reschedule the appointment. The Ombudsman considers that it was fair to place responsibility to reschedule the appointment on the resident. However, we also consider that where there is a potential risk, the landlord should have also been proactively contacting the resident, when they did not hear from him. The landlord advised the resident in its stage 1 response that he needed to reschedule the appointment. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord had an opportunity at that time to speak with the resident and attempt to get the appointment completed.
19. When the resident escalated the complaint, he raised concerns that his details have been provided to an external contractor without his permission. The landlord has acknowledged this should not have happened and has provided an apology. It also provided internal feedback. The Ombudsman considers the landlord took the appropriate action to rectify the resident’s concern.
20. The landlord’s stage 2 response provided an apology and identified failings, already mentioned in this report. It identified areas of improvement and confirmed it had taken action to prevent the same issues moving forward. It offered £200 compensation. The Ombudsman considers this is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. As the landlord took steps to rectify what had gone wrong during the repair, and provided appropriate compensation, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of a floorboard repair.
21. Although the Ombudsman considers there to be reasonable redress in this complaint, we recognise that the time taken for the repair to take place was significantly out with the timescales. We also note that there is a lack of evidence to support that the landlord was taking proactive steps to get the appointment rescheduled. The landlord did not complete the appointment until the stage 2 response had been issued. The landlord should consider reflecting on how it can proactively work towards resolving repairs, while the complaint process is ongoing. It should ensure that an ongoing complaint does not delay repairs being completed.

Determination

22. In accordance with 53b there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of a floorboard repair.

Orders and recommendations

23. It is recommended that the landlord review the record keeping, specifically in reference to calls made with the resident. It should consider whether it is keeping accurate call notes and ensure that these are passed to the Ombudsman for future investigations.
24. It is recommended that the landlord review the delay to the repair being completed and consider whether the complaints process impacted on this. If it finds that the ongoing complaint caused further delays, it should consider how it can avoid this in future repair cases.