Sanctuary Housing Association (202127336)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202127336

Sanctuary Housing Association

28 September 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 is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repair issues with the bathroom.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The landlord uses a contractor for its repair obligations.
3. The landlord’s repair records show that a repair job was raised to repair an issue with the resident’s “dripping” bath tap on 28 September 2021. A previous repair job had been postponed as the resident had been unable to allow access due to ill health.
4. The landlord’s repair records also show that a further repair job was raised to repair to the resident’s “blocked and up surging” bathroom sink on 6 October 2021. The job was originally arranged to be undertaken on 12 October 2021, but was rescheduled for the 14 October 2021.
5. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord in October 2021 as she was unhappy that it had rescheduled the appointment. She was also dissatisfied that it had failed to unblock her bathroom sink despite several further follow-on visits. She further advised that an operative who attended the repair did not have the correct equipment and left a mess in her home.
6. Following a further visit in November 2021, the resident added to her complaint that the repair operative had damaged her bath panel. She asked the landlord to inspect the panel as she believed it should replace this.
7. After making enquiries with its contractor, the landlord agreed to replace the bath panel and the bath tap (as this also had not been resolved) once the issue with the blocked sink had been rectified. The resident’s sink was unblocked in December 2021. The landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s home to replace the bath panel in January 2022, however, its records noted that the resident refused the replacement bath panel as it did not match the previous one.
8. The landlord issued its final response on 1 March 2022. It apologised that there had been miscommunication regarding the resident’s agreement with its contractor to source/inform it of her preferred choice of bath panel, in order for this to be installed. Given, however, that the bath panel was functional, the landlord clarified that it would not approve additional expenditure on a further bath panel. It offered £460 compensation, being £300 for the resident’s time, trouble and inconvenience, £100 for the resident to install a bath panel of her choice if she preferred, £10 for the missed appointment, and £50 for the time it had taken to resolve the complaint.
9. The landlord also advised it could still install the current bath panel at the resident’s home in addition to the compensation offered if she preferred. It confirmed that the repair to replace the bath tap remained outstanding and advised the resident to contact it to arrange a suitable time for this to be actioned. It confirmed that its complaints process had been completed and included referral details for this service if the resident remained dissatisfied.
10. In the resident’s complaint to this service she advised she was unhappy with the landlord’s decision to not install a bath panel of her choice. She was also unhappy with the total compensation offer of £460. To resolve the complaint, she wanted the landlord to agree to her choice of panel and to install it. She also wanted it to increase the compensation. It was unclear if the resident felt that the overall amount was unreasonable, or whether she did not consider the amount was sufficient to cover the cost of her having to purchase and install her own bath panel.

Assessment and findings

11. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is obligated “to keep in good repair and proper working order any installations… for water heating and sanitation and for the supply of – water, gas and electricity, including basins, sinks, toilets, flushing systems and waste pipes.” It was therefore appropriate that the landlord raised works to address the leaking tap and blocked sink.
12. The landlord’s repairs policy notes that ‘appointed’ (routine) repairs are expected to be responded to within 28 days.
13. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out it that will award compensation in recognition of time, trouble and inconvenience for instances where it fails to “follow policy and procedure leading to a delay or inaction, lack of or delays to respond to enquiries within a suitable timescale; and providing incorrect, insufficient or partial information.”  It will award up to £400 depending on the impact of these issues. It will also pay up to £150 in recognition of time, trouble and inconvenience experienced as a result of poor complaint handling.
14. In this case, it is not disputed that the landlord exceeded what would be a reasonable timeframe in the circumstances to resolve the repairs, particularly the blockage to the resident’s bathroom sink (almost three months after it was reported). The landlord acknowledged the delays to unblock the sink were a result of multiple visits by its operatives that failed to rectify the blockage, an occasion where an operative did not have the correct equipment, and that on occasions following these visits that the resident’s bathroom was not left to an acceptably clean standard. The landlord appropriately apologised for the issues experienced by the resident and for its service falling below its usual standards.
15. The resident’s particular outstanding concern, is that the landlord has not agreed to replace the bath panel with one of her choice. However, the landlord was under no obligation to agree to this request due to the resident’s aesthetic preference, as it is only obligated to keep installations it is responsible for repairing, in good working order. The Ombudsman understands it would be preferable to have matching panels, however, given that social landlords have a limited budget, which they would understandably need to use efficiently. The landlord’s refusal to approve a “higher spec” panel, and its offer to install a “standard” one, was therefore reasonable in the circumstances. The landlord would also not be expected to install a bath panel that the resident has purchased herself, as this could be considered ‘improvement’ works for which the landlord is not obliged to undertake, or to subsequently maintain.
16. However, the landlord’s communication regarding the bath panel replacement, for a time, was misleading. It set the expectation throughout February 2022 that it would install a bath panel of the resident’s choosing. The evidence shows that the resident was chased several times during this period to determine if she had chosen a replacement. Having made enquiries with its contractor, the landlord later decided it would not approve the costs for the extra work involved in sourcing and fitting a panel of the resident’s choice, and it utilised its complaints process to communicate its position to the resident. This would have likely caused the resident understandable frustration. Nevertheless, the landlord appropriately acknowledged that there had been miscommunication with its contractor and apologised. It also appropriately increased its total offer of compensation in light of the added inconvenience and due to its delays in resolving the complaint.
17. The Ombudsman considers that the £460 compensation offered by the landlord is sufficient redress and proportionate to the inconvenience and distress the resident will have understandably experienced as a result of the combined issues, and the time and trouble she would have been put to in pursuing the complaint. This included an amount for if the resident wished to install her own choice of panel. The £100 it offered for this aspect was reasonable, given that the landlord has also agreed to go ahead and fit a standard panel in addition to its compensation offer, if the resident prefers. The overall amount appears to be broadly in line with the landlord’s compensation policy, and it is also in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for instances where there has failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy, for example to address repairs, but where there has been no apparent permanent impact on the complainant.
18. It was unclear from the evidence why the landlord advised the resident in its final response that works to replace the bath tap had been on hold while the matter was resolved. It is the Ombudsman’s understanding that this was held up by the delay to unblock the sink via the pipes that were located beneath the bath, but it was not apparent why the tap replacement was not actioned following the completion of these works in December 2021. The landlord’s records indicate that it discussed this repair alongside the replacement of the bath panel with the resident and its contractor following the sink repair, but it appears that the dispute regarding the replacement bath panel took precedent. Nevertheless, the landlord appropriately acknowledged that this repair remained outstanding in its final response, and advised the resident to contact it to arrange for this to be completed before any form of bath panel was installed. As it is not apparent from the evidence if any arrangements were made to install the replacement tap since, a recommendation has been made in light of this.

Determination

19. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

20. The landlord to reiterate its offer of £460 to the resident (within four weeks of this report) if it has not done so already.
21. The landlord to write to the resident and propose a schedule of works for the tap replacement if it has not already done so. In light of this investigation, it should also consider contacting the resident and clarify if she requires it to go ahead and replace the bath panel with a standard replacement.