Southern Housing Group Limited (202120753)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120753

Southern Housing Group Limited

17 May 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the bathroom following a leak from the ceiling.

Background

The resident lives in sheltered accommodation and has an assured tenancy. It is a bedsit flat, located on the second floor.
On 15 March 2021 there was a leak from the bathroom ceiling. This was responded to as an emergency, and the leak was resolved. Further work was needed to finish the repair, but the landlord advised that an asbestos survey was needed before the repair could be completed. During the survey, it was found that the leak had damaged the bath, it had a dent in it that was preventing it from draining properly. The landlord said that it was ‘unhygienic’ and that it would need to be replaced. The resident raised her concerns about the asbestos being disturbed when the bath was removed.
The resident wanted to understand what work would be done to the wall above the bath, as she wished to install a shower. There was someinternal miscommunication around the resident’s request to have a shower cubicle instead of a bath, suggesting the resident had requested a wet room, which delayed any work being done. The resident continued to chase the landlord for updates. She was concerned that the situation had been ongoing for five months and no work had been done.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 18 August 2021. The resident’s complaint was.
1. There had been a lack of courtesy and response from the landlord about her concerns.
2. There had been a lack of communication from the landlord around her concerns, and any work to be done.
3. Being advised the bathroom was safe, when the access panel above the bath contained asbestos, and why it had not been removed.
4. The bath was to be removed as it was a health & safety risk, and the removal would present a risk to the asbestos in the bathroom.
5. The layout proposed would reduce the space further in an already too small bathroom.
6. The situation had caused stress and anxiety.
The landlord issued its stage one response but did not address all the points in the complaint. As a result, the resident escalated her complaint.
The stage two complaint response was sent on 9 November 2021. The landlord agreed that there had been miscommunication around a quote for a wet room. It also confirmed the bath was too short to sit in and suggested that the breakdown in the resident/landlord relationship, could be the reason there had been no progress made with the ongoing repairs. The landlord agreed on the following work to be done.
1. Over bath shower to be installed, preferably electric.
2. Aqua boarding to the three walls around the bath.
3. Boxing in to be formed at the end of the bath.
4. Resident to be offered choice of curtain or screen.
The resident brought her complaint to the Housing Ombudsman Service on 26 April 2022, as the agreed work was still outstanding. In addition, the bath had to be changed for a shower cubicle, as the landlord could not get a bath to fit the space, this resulted in some further changes to the work agreed upon.
The resident confirmed that all the work was completed on 30 May 2022. The outcome the resident is looking for is compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused, and for the landlord to learn from the complaint and apologise.

Assessment and findings

Following the leak from the bathroom ceiling on 15 March 2021, the landlord advised it needed to check for asbestos before it could complete the repair, this was reasonable under the circumstances. However, the landlord left the resident with a hole in her ceiling, it did not cover it or take any measures to protect the resident from any potential asbestos that may have been present. This Service considers this service failure on the landlord’s part. The landlord should have taken measures to make sure the hole was safe pending any survey being undertaken, and not left it exposed. The resident had to chase the landlord on 23 March 2021 for an update on the survey.
The asbestos survey was done on 7 April 2021. The landlord advised the resident that the report would be available in a “few days”. Whilst there, the surveyor covered the hole with plastic and sticky tape as a temporary measure. Whilst this was appreciated by the resident, this Service feels that the landlord should have done more to make sure the resident felt safe using her bathroom, pending the results of the survey. The resident had to chase the landlord on 26 April 2021, as she had still heard nothing further.
On 26 April 2021, the landlord raised an order to remove the asbestos inspection panel (AIB) above the bath. It also confirmed that the ceiling did not contain asbestos, and the ceiling repair could be completed. A patch repair to the ceiling took place on 9 June 2021, and the full repair completed on 2 September 2021, six months after the leak.
The survey confirmed that there was asbestos in the wall panel in the large storage cupboard and panel on the lounge cupboard door. This Service has not seen any evidence to suggest that the landlord explained to the resident what, if any risks, this might pose, or if they needed to do anything about it. This Service would have expected a report to be produced following the survey and shared with the resident. There is no evidence to show that the landlord explained the findings of the survey to the resident. Had the landlord done so, it could have offered the reassurance the resident needed about any future work required.
The resident contacted the landlord on 27 April 2021 to ask if the tiles around the bath and sink could be removed safely. She had been wanting to install a shower herself since moving into the property in 2019. The landlord advised she would need to get permission giving a detailed description of what she would like to do. This request was sent by the resident on the same day, there is no record of any response back to the resident.
On 5 May 2021, the landlord’s surveyor attended and advised it would be three weeks before it could proceed with the work to remove the asbestos. The resident asked if the work being proposed would leave her with a safe wall that would allow her to install a shower. She also asked if there would be any further issues working around the asbestos. The resident was advised that tiles would be fitted to the rear and end walls and that this would offer protection enabling an over bath shower to be installed. The resident was advised that an inspection panel would still be required, but that it would be finished to enable it to be removed if needed, but still provide adequate protection. This explanation to the resident about what work was needed and why was reasonable. This addressed the concerns around a safe wall and the ability to install a shower at a later date.
On 4 June 2021, thelandlord’s surveyor attended to discuss the work to be done in respect of the tiling. Whilst there, he noted that the bath had a dent in it and was not draining and would need to be replaced as it was ‘unhygienic’. The resident raised her concerns about the asbestos behind the bath and wanted to understand what work would be done before any tiling was carried out. The tiling had already been booked for 9 June 2021. The resident chased the landlord on 7 June 2021 for a response, as no one had been in touch to answer her concerns.
On 8 June 2021, the landlord requested a quote to raise the splashback tiles around the bath, aqua board or similar to be installed, and for it to be increased in height by one course. There is no evidence the landlord communicated with the resident, or that she was updated of what work will be done when, and what the impact of replacing the bath might have on the asbestos present.
On 9 June 2021, there were internal communications about the resident preferring to have a shower cubicle. It was suggested that it might be cheaper overall, and more practical in sheltered accommodation. This suggestion was miscommunicated internally and as a result, it suggests that the resident wanted a wet room, this was incorrect and not what was requested. This Service understands that if the resident needed a wet room, an Occupational Therapist (OT) referral would have been required. However, the resident had not asked for a wet room at any point, and this was an error on the landlord’s part. This miscommunication was confirmed in the stage two response. It also states that this miscommunication prevented work from being carried out, as well as the breakdown in communication between the resident and the landlord.
The resident chased the landlord for an update on the work to replace the bath, and the rest of the work to be done. The resident said that she had been living in an unfinished bathroom for five months and it was causing her a lot of distress. The resident heard nothing more from the landlord and raised a formal complaint on 18 August 2021, the complaint was acknowledged on 1 September 2021.
On 2 September 2021, the landlord’s operative confirmed that he had recommended a wet room rather than repairs, and not the resident. The landlord arranged a further quote for the renewal of the bath on 13 September 2021. During this time, the resident was not kept up to date or contacted and no further work was done. This Service would expect the landlord to update the resident and to apologise for any errors, this is not the case and demonstrates poor communication by the landlord.
The stage one response was sent to the resident on 21 September 2021. Despite the admission that the error regarding the wet room was the landlord’s, the response given only references that an OT referral will be needed if the resident needs a wet room and does not respond to the points the resident listed in her complaint, this is not in line with the landlord’s complaints policy.
The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated and the points addressed. The landlord acknowledged that it didn’t get things right. It confirmed with the resident its intention to communicate and work with the resident to put things right. This was an appropriate response by the landlord.
On 14 December 2021, the landlord spoke to the resident about the scope of work to be done. It explained why it intended to use aqua boarding instead of tiles to enable access to the stop cocks. It also agreed to skim the ceiling following the patch repair and paint it. This was reasonable under the circumstances as it would mean that the resident was put back to the position she was in, prior to the leak occurring.
The work was scheduled to start on 15 December 2021 however, the landlord was unable to source a bath that would fit the space in the bathroom. It advised that the only alternative would be to install a shower cubicle. It also advised that it would tile the splashback instead of using aqua boards and that an inspection panel be formed to allow access to the stop cocks. The landlord advised they would need to get a further quote for the changes. The work was completed on 20 December 2021. The situation with the bath had taken six months to resolve due to several failings on the landlord’s part. This Service considers that to be unacceptable.
On 12 January 2022, the work was inspected and some ‘snags’ were identified. This included cracked tiles not replaced during the initial work. The landlord advised that the tiles did not need to be replaced as the asbestos was not exposed, and so not a risk. The resident felt the tiles were even more exposed to water now with the shower installed and was concerned for her safety. Had the landlord provided the resident with an asbestos report following the survey carried out or taken the time to explain to the resident what is safe and what is not in regard to asbestos, the resident may not have been so concerned about the presence of asbestos in her bathroom. It failed to do this, and the resident remained concerned.
The resident contacted the landlord on 10 February 2022 to ask again about the broken tiles. The landlord responded in a letter dated 11 March 2022. The landlord said that the broken tile was fixed to an asbestos board and as it was not exposed or damaged, posed no risk. The landlord stated that the damage was purely cosmetic. Whilst the landlord did respond to the resident, it took them a month to do so. The resident was already concerned about the presence of asbestos in her bathroom and given that the landlord had already acknowledged there had been poor communication on their part, this Service considers a month to respond as unreasonable. This Service would expect the landlord to acknowledge the residents’ concerns and address them. As part of the stage two complaint, it had also stated that there would be a single point of contact for the resident, this does not appear to be the case from the evidence presented, this is a failure on the landlord’s part.
On 13 April 2022, internal emails requested for the asbestos contractor to attend to support the stage two resolution, and to try to avoid the resident taking her complaint to the Ombudsman. On 22 April 2022, the landlord’s surveyor attended the property and agreed to remove the asbestos panels. It agreed on who would manage the project and discussed timescales with the resident. It involved the resident moving out of her home for two days and due to the availability of the guest bedroom, the work would need to be booked after 18 May 2022. This was a positive outcome for the resident, and she was relieved that the asbestos would finally be removed and that she would have a safe environment after 15 months. The work was completed on 30 May 2022.
In summary, the landlord failed in its duty to provide a safe environment for the resident to live in. It has admitted to poor communication with the resident and admitted to internal miscommunications leading to a breakdown in the relationship, which it said led to significant delays in any work being done. The presence of asbestos added to the resident’s concerns. The landlord had a duty to inform the resident on what was safe in respect of asbestos, but also how it would manage any work where the asbestos was, it failed to do that. The evidence also demonstrates a lack of empathy on the part of the landlord or any acknowledgement of the impact the situation continued to have on the resident. It initially left her with a hole in the ceiling, pending the results of an asbestos survey, and it did so for over a month. It identified the bath as being unhygienic, but it was not replaced for over 6 months, all of which demonstrates service failures.
This Service recognises however, that although the landlord demonstrated service failure in how it handled the repairs to the bathroom, it did attempt to put things right and resulted in the resident having a shower unit installed, and this is reflected in the level of compensation awarded by this Service.
The landlord should offer £400 compensation to the resident in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays to provide the resident with a safe and usable bathroom. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Guidance on remedies which suggests that we may make awards ranging from £100 – £600 for failures by the landlord that have adversely affected the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the bathroom following a leak from the ceiling.

Orders

To write a letter of apology to the resident acknowledging the failings identified within the report.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident £400 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the delayed repairs, poor communication, and breakdown of relationship with the resident.
The payment and apology should be made within 28 days of the date of this decision.