Sanctuary Affordable Housing Limited (202207477)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207477

Sanctuary Affordable Housing Limited

29 November 2022


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 concerns:
    1. The landlord’s decision to decline the resident’s request to install a shower.
    2. The associated formal complaint into the matter.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a flat in a communal building.
  2. On 10 October 2021, a surveyor inspected the resident’s property as part of a legal disrepair case. On 4 January 2022, the landlord’s contractor confirmed that the schedule of work recommended following the inspection had been completed. The contractor also informed the landlord that the resident had complained about poor water pressure in the bathroom. The contractor recommended replacing the mixer tap on the bath to individual taps. The landlord raised a work order and the taps were replaced on 8 February 2022.
  3. The resident called the landlord on 8 February 2022 and requested to raise a complaint. The landlord’s records described the elements of the complaint as:
    1. The resident was not made aware that the bathroom taps were being replaced.
    2. Due to his medical conditions, the resident was unable to use a bath to bathe and required the use of a shower.
    3. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested to have an electric shower installed in the bathroom.
  4. In its complaint response, the landlord:
    1. Explained that the property’s bathroom was not designed to have a shower and that there were no wall tiles or shower curtain fitted. The landlord also explained that the shower head that was part of the mixer taps was designed to clean the bath and wash hair over the bath rather than to be used as a stand-up shower.
    2. Informed the resident that if he had a medical condition that prevented him from using a bath, that he would need to contact his GP to arrange an assessment by an occupational therapist (OT). If the OT’s report recommended the fitting of a shower, this work would then be undertaken by the landlord.
    3. Apologised for the not providing a formal response at stage one of the complaint process and for the delay in escalating the complaint. The landlord offered the resident £200 compensation for its admitted service failures, which it broke down as £150 for failing to provide a stage one response, and £50 for the delay in escalating the complaint.
  5. In referring the case to this Service, the resident described the outstanding issues of the complaint as the landlord refusing to make the necessary adjustments in order to make the bathroom suitable for a stand–up shower. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested that a shower be installed in the bathroom by the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s aids and adaptations policy explains how it will consider a request from a tenant to make changes to a property for medical reasons. The policy states that the landlord will install adaptations to a property “to support residents with a disability or infirmity affecting their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities, to live independently in their home and enjoy a good quality of life”. The policy goes on to state that the landlord will “seek the advice of an independent Occupational Therapist (OT) where necessary in determining whether work is required or if assistance is required to identify the most appropriate adaptation for a resident”.
  2. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. When a complaint is received, the landlord aims to provide a response at stage one within ten working days. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the response, they can request an escalation of the complaint to the next stage. The landlord will then undertake a review of the complaint and provide a stage two response within 20 working days. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.
  3. The landlord’s compensation policy states, in part, that it will consider offering financial redress for “time, trouble, and inconvenience due to its action or inaction; delayed or poor responses to customers’ complaints; and/or lack of, or unreasonable delay to, the provision of services”. For failures in complaint handling, the policy recommends a payment of up to £50 for “a minor delay in raising a complaint” and a payment of £101-150 for “significant difficulties in raising a complaint, delayed response and poor quality correspondence”.

Scope of investigation

  1. The landlord provided this Service with evidence that the replacement of the mixer taps in the bathroom was part of the schedule of work from the resident’s legal disrepair case. Therefore, while the Ombudsman can consider the landlord’s decision to decline the resident’s request to install a shower, we cannot consider the landlord’s decision to replace the mixer taps.
  2. This position is in line with paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that “the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of legal proceedings”. The replacement of the mixer taps was part of the outcome of the legal disrepair claim and the Ombudsman cannot consider matters which the resident had the opportunity to raise through the legal disrepair case.

The landlord’s decision to decline the resident’s request to install a shower

  1. Following the replacement of the mixer taps, the resident requested that the landlord install a shower as he was unable use a bath to bathe due to his medical conditions. The landlord declined on the grounds that the property had adequate washing facilities and that in order for it to make changes on medical grounds, it would first require a referral from an OT.
  2. The landlord’s position is reasonable and was made in line with its aids and adaptations policy detailed above. The landlord does not have the necessary expertise to make determinations of medical need. It is therefore appropriate for it to rely on the information and advice of an appropriately qualified professional, such as an occupational therapist, in making the decision as to whether the installation of a shower is required. It is understood that the resident has explained why he feels a shower is necessary, but the landlord is entitled to request a medical opinion on this rather than relying solely on the resident’s own request to ensure that the most appropriate type of shower is fitted which will be suitable for the resident’s needs.
  3. The landlord has followed its. The landlord also provided information on how the resident could request an assessment from an OT and assured him that any work recommended by the OT would be completed in a timely manner. Page 14 of the landlord’s repairs handbook states that it aims to complete work to install aids and adaptations within 28 calendar days. Therefore the landlord would be expected to complete the shower installation within 28 days of receiving and assessing an OT report.
  4. It should also be noted that while the resident has informed the landlord of the difficulties his medical conditions cause in using a bath to bathe, the landlord has stated that it has no vulnerabilities flagged on its system relating to the resident’s health. Therefore, it is recommended that the landlord contact the resident to ensure that its records are up to date and that any vulnerabilities have been correctly recorded.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord has accepted that there were service failures in how it handled the complaint. It noted that the resident did not receive a formal complaint response at stage one of the complaint process and that there was a delay in escalating the complaint to stage two. The landlord also recognised the inconvenience caused to the resident by these delays caused. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident, offer compensation and explain what steps it had taken to improve its service. This position is also in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  2. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistakes and apologising to the resident. It looked to put things right by ensuring the complaint was escalated to stage two and offering £200 compensation. It looked to learn from its mistakes by providing a formal complaint response at stage two in line with its complaint policy that addressed all the outstanding issues highlighted by the resident and informed the resident how to progress the complaint further if he was dissatisfied with the resolution it offered.
  3. It was appropriate, and in line with the recommended payment guidance set out in its compensation policy detailed above, for the landlord to compensate the resident for its admitted service failures and the inconvenience that this had caused. The payment is also broadly in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (which is available on our website). The remedies guidance suggests a payment of £100 to £600 for considerable service failure or maladministration by the landlord which has adversely affected a resident, but resulted in no permanent impact. Examples of when this level of redress should be considered would include the landlord not correctly following its complaint policy and failing to meet its service standards and published timescales. The £200 awarded by the landlord for failing to follow its published complaints policy therefore represents reasonable redress and resolves this element of the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its decision to decline the resident’s request to install a shower. 
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident in respect of its complaint handling which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves this element of the complaint.

Recommendations

  1. As the decision of reasonable redress was reached based on the landlord’s compensation offer of £200, it is recommended that the landlord pay this to the resident if it has not done so already. It is the Ombudsman’s position that compensation awards should be treated separately from any financial arrangements between the landlord and resident and should not be offset against any rent arrears.
  2. It is further recommended that, if it has not done so already, that the landlord contact the resident to ensure that its records are up to date in regard to the resident’s health and that any vulnerabilities have been correctly recorded.