Sanctuary Housing Association (202015763)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202015763

Sanctuary Housing Association

26 August 2021

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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to adaptations at the resident’s property.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant. His tenancy began on 8 April 2009 before it was assigned solely to his ex-partner (who had been a joint tenant) on 29 January 2018. The resident subsequently became the tenant of the property again on 27 May 2020 following a mutual exchange with his ex-partner.
The resident has advised that his son is severely disabled with quadriplegic cerebral palsy and is blind. He receives care in a full-time care facility but major adaptations were made to the property during 2019 to allow for his son to live there.
The tenancy agreement obliges the landlord to maintain and keep in proper working order the structure of the property, including ‘heating and hot water equipment’, ‘internal walls, floors and ceilings’ and ‘basins, sinks, baths and sanitary conveniences’. It shows that the landlord is not responsible for ‘internal decorations’.
The landlord has a repairs policy that shows that it is required to complete emergency repairs within 24 hours and ‘appointed repairs’ within 28 days.
The landlord has an aids and adaptations policy that sets out that it will:
1. support residents to access funding for major works
2. ‘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’ and that ‘specification for the works should be agreed jointly by all parties’
3. ‘complete approved major adaptations within 26 weeks of receipt of the OT referral’
4. have a surveyor post-inspect ‘all major adaptations irrespective of who funded the works’
5. assume ‘full responsibility for repairing/servicing an aid or adaptation that has been fitted’ by its contractors.
The landlord has a two stage complaints process with responses required within 10 working days (at the first front line resolution stage) and 20 working days (at the final investigation stage).
The landlord has a compensation guidance policy that allows for it to make financial awards where it has delayed in providing a service or where there has been a loss of facilities. The guidance sets out that it does not consider financial redress for loss of earnings.
The resident was not the tenant of the property at the time of the major property adaptations during 2019 so it is not within the jurisdiction of this Service to investigate the handling of these works. However, the Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s handling of repairs (to adaptations made in 2019) that were reported by the resident since he moved to the property in May 2020.

Summary of Events

The landlord’s records show that the resident spoke to it on 7 May 2020 and advised that the property tenancy was due to be transferred to him. It later recorded that the resident had moved into the property on 27 May 2020 and that the transfer was related to legal action.
The local authority wrote to the landlord on 28 May 2020. It confirmed that the resident had moved into the property and that there were concerns about a sewage smell in the wet room (this is sometimes referred to as the first-floor bathroom in later correspondence), windows not closing, a problem with an internal lift and an incorrectly placed ceiling track hoist.
The landlord’s records show that an initial assessment was conducted with the resident on 3 June 2020. It noted that the resident had advised that a shower had been removed from the ground floor and the upstairs shower was not large enough for him. The resident also wrote to the landlord on 3 June 2020 and reported a range of concerns, including faulty windows, stains to the second-floor flooring and a smell of sewage.
The landlord’s repairs records show that a job was initially raised for a shower leak on 10 June 2020. It was noted that follow-on works were needed to heat seal a bathroom floor at the property.
The resident submitted a complaint on 20 July 2020. He requested compensation due to outstanding repairs which he listed as a leaking kitchen sink, a kitchen window that could not be opened, a leaking wet room, an unsecured rainwater pipe in the garden, a broken gas meter box and no adequate flooring on the upper level. He added that he had been required to pay privately for heating and hot water repairs and that the disabled lift and window repairs had only been completed the week previous. He asked for the landlord to factor in his loss of earnings and explained that his son was unable to return home from care due to the incomplete repairs.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 20 July 2020.
The landlord’s internal records show that it had reviewed the history of the works to the property on 27 July 2020 and determined that the local authority had agreed in January 2019 to pay for remodelling works to the property to allow the former tenant and her son to stay in the property. It noted the works had been conducted during February to September 2019 but that snagging issues had been passed to a surveyor on 12 June 2020. It added that progress was ongoing to inspect the property and address items such as those raised by the resident in his complaint of 20 July 2020.
The landlord issued a resolution response on 27 July 2020. It advised that it was in discussion with the defects contractor and would request a full update which it would pass on to the resident.
The landlord’s complaint records noted on 31 July 2020 that its surveyor had written to the resident and reported that flooring for the stairs and second floor had not been part of the original specification but that the drainage of the first-floor bathroom was being reviewed. It also sent an email to the resident that day, listing the repairs items that it said it would attend to as soon as possible, namely:
1. the ground floor sliding door
2. windows to the kitchen, bathroom and second floor bathroom
3. heat sealing of a bathroom floor area
4. a shower aid repair
5. a kitchen sink leak
6. a loose garden drain cover, loose fence boards, a drainpipe and a gas meter enclosure.
The landlord’s contractor proposed on 11 August 2020 to attend to all snagging items (except the wet room floor). The resident replied on 12 August 2020 and offered some dates in late August and early September.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 31 August 2020 to again raise the outstanding repairs and his claim for compensation and loss of earnings. The landlord replied on 7 September 2020 – it advised its contractor was due at the property that day but it noted that the resident had only permitted access for a half day so all works may not be completed.
The resident and landlord exchanged further emails during October 2020 when it was reported by the resident that the wet room shower bench was still faulty and a second-floor toilet and shower were leaking. The landlord advised that an electrician would attend to the shower bench on 3 November 2020 and a contractor was scheduled to assess the wet room flooring on 5 November 2020.
The landlord and resident exchanged emails during early November 2020 that demonstrate that the shower bench was fixed on 3 November 2020, a plumber had been unable to gain access on the same day to address the second-floor shower leak and that the landlord requested the resident test the first-floor shower to check if there was a leak from this.
The landlord’s complaint records show that it discussed the case with the resident on 12 November 2020. It noted that the resident had mentioned three issues that had prevented his son moving in – wet room drainage, a leak from a shower causing mould growth to a ceiling below and a toilet leak.
The resident reported on 15 November 2020 that the kitchen sink was leaking, window handles had been incorrectly fitted, the upper floor shower/toilet was leaking and mould growth needed to be treated. He added on 23 November 2020 that contractors had attended and diagnosed lack of silicon sealant and poor condition tiles as being the cause of the shower leak but they had told him they could not return until late December. However, he confirmed on 30 November 2020 that the contractor had attended that day to address the shower leak, replace a kitchen tap and treat mould but he contested whether the screen solution for the wet room was appropriate and asked for alternatives to be considered.
The resident submitted video footage of the leaking shower on 4 December 2020 and chased a response on wet room alternatives. The landlord replied on 5 December 2020 – it advised the leak report had been passed to its contractors again and explained that the wet room proposal had been viewed and agreed by the local authority occupational therapy team and adjustment of floor levels was not possible due to fixed items such as the bath having been installed.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 5 December 2020. He asked for information about the signing off of remodelling works and said the proposal was a poor ‘stop gap’ solution. The landlord approached him on 14 December 2020 to arrange for a different surveyor to attend the property and consider the wet room drainage issue.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 15 December 2020. It advised that an inspection was planned for 17 December 2020 and that, as repairs had been part of a legal process, information had not been readily available. It offered compensation of £2084 that it said was in recognition of the impact of the delays (the landlord’s internal records show that the compensation included £150 for vinyl flooring that was never replaced).
The resident accepted the compensation proposal on 15 December 2020 although he also advised the landlord on 16 December 2020 that he would raise the complaint again if the situation was not resolved in a reasonable timescale and that the landlord should look at how it had denied his son access to the property. The landlord explained on 16 December 2020 that it would await the outcome of the inspection the following day before releasing payment given this may mean that compensation needed to be increased.
The landlord’s complaint records show that it noted on 18 December 2020 that the surveyor who attended the day before had agreed to appoint a wet room floor specialist to ascertain the correct recourse in resolving pooling water. It was added that her initial thoughts were that an adjustment to the floor level may be needed.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 21 December 2020. He said that he expected the surveyor to report that more repairs were needed and that these would not be quickly resolved. He therefore suggested the landlord make the compensation payment and award a further payment should this be necessary in future. He added that the surveyor had told him that the wet room floor was practically level, meaning it would not drain.
The landlord replied to the resident on 22 December 2020. It confirmed that the surveyor had offered feedback that more repairs were needed and that it would increase the compensation award to £2425 to take into account the likelihood that these would not be completed until the end of March 2021. The landlord recorded that it processed the payment on 22 December 2020 following a further email exchange with the resident.
The landlord’s surveyor wrote to the resident on 23 December 2020. She advised that they had not been able to arrange an inspection with a wet room floor specialist until the new year and they would be in touch further.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 7 January 2021. He reported that a lift contractor had attended the previous day and the lift was still not working so he wished to raise a complaint (a separate complaint was logged for this and the landlord awarded £150 compensation on 17 February 2021 and noted the repair had been completed).
The resident wrote to the landlord on 15 January 2021. He advised that water damage and mould had returned despite the contractor having attended to stop the shower leak and queried why a working shower had previously been removed from the property. The landlord subsequently replied to attempt to arrange access but advised that two days were required as contractors intended to remove the shower try to locate the leak.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 1 February 2021 to provide the results of its second surveyor visit on 17 December 2020. It set out that it had reviewed the original project and spoken to the relevant project manager and concluded that:
1. it would not reinstate the ground floor shower as this had been removed on the request of the tenant at the time due to a desired layout change
2. the original plans did not show a shower within the first-floor bathroom but this was added later in the project at the request of the local authority to support the functioning of other facilities
3. a revised fall to the first-floor bathroom floor had been found not to be possible due to service to the bath and a hoist that are run under the floor
4. it would therefore continue to propose ‘use of a trip-safe threshold and portable screens’ to ‘help to contain the water from the shower area and make the bathroom useable’ and offered to demonstrate this on site
5. a budget request had been made for the second-floor flooring given the stains to this and that it was not part of the original project
6. as well as repairs to the second-floor shower leak, the landlord intended to renew the gas meter cover, apply missing sealant to the first-floor bathroom, connect bath drainage, ensure that window handles were positioned correctly, reline sliding doors and replace handles to the door to the lift area.

The landlord asked the resident to confirm what dates he had booked off work to allow works to progress.

The landlord issued a complaint escalation acknowledgement to the resident on 5 February 2021.
The resident expressed continued concerns on 10 February 2021 about the signing off of works, the failure to give a reason as to why a ground floor shower would not be installed, the decision to keep using the same contractor and the lack of transparency on budgets and what specialists had been consulted with.
The landlord’s complaints records show that it spoke to the resident on 11 February 2021. It noted that he was unhappy with the original contractors returning to the property although he clarified he was not refusing access. It added that the resident had asked for a specialist contractor to look at the wet room floor.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 1 March 2021. He reported that nobody had called him about the wet room concerns and queried whether a feasibility study had been obtained from a wet room specialist as he was of the view that the landlord’s proposed screens solution was dangerous. He added additional concerns about the size of the drainage hole in the wet room floor, the failure to install a bath, the need for the downstairs shower to be reinstated, stains to second floor flooring, an upstairs shower causing mould growth, the lack of details about the sign off of works and the landlord’s stance that its contractor should rectify problems they had created.
The landlord issued its final complaint response to the resident on 1 March 2021. It provided background to the circumstances, setting out that it had worked with the local authority to agree funding to allow remodelling and adjustments to the property so that the resident’s son could return and that the funding agreement was reached in January 2019. It noted that works were conducted during February-October 2019 and that the tenant of the property at this time was the resident’s ex-partner. It concluded that:
1. there had been no repairs reported between October 2019 and May 2020 related to the remodelling works
2. a list of repairs had been formulated on 31 July 2020
3. it was not appropriate to list the names of all parties involved in the sign off of completed remodelling works to the property
4. the resident may have been given an incorrect view that the first-floor bathroom was designed to be a wet room for which an apology was offered but it was advised that this was not the case following checks of the original specification
5. an initial inspection led to a proposal of installation of non-trip thresholds and screens to alleviate the problem of water pooling on the bathroom floor and this had been checked and approved by an occupational therapist
6. a second opinion inspection in December 2020 looked into the possibility of relaying the floor but this was established not to be appropriate given major installations and services running underneath the floor
7. the resident had reported a problem with the bath connection in December 2020 and this was added to the list of works its contractor was asked to complete (it added that its contractor was best placed to perform the repairs given it had been responsible for the original installation works)
8. a second-floor bathroom shower repair had been reported on 20 October 2020 and completed on 30 November 2020 (following an attempt on 24 October 2020) but no issues had been reported with this following the original installation
9. given the resident had reported on 11 February 2021 that this leak had continued intermittently and there was mould growth to the ceiling below, the landlord proposed its contractors attend without further delay
10. a shower in the ground floor bathroom had been removed during the original remodelling work as requested by the former tenant and this would not be reinstated although the resident could request permission to do so at his own cost
11. repairs to a gas meter cupboard and paving outside the property were raised following the December 2020 second opinion inspection but cancelled on the resident’s request on 25 January 2021 and he was asked to contact its repairs team to arrange a mutually convenient appointment
12. there were paint splashes to the second-floor sub-flooring but it had been expected that the resident would install a floor covering; nevertheless, it had included an amount of £150 in recognition of this within its £2425 compensation award
13. incorrectly fitted window handles had been reported during the December 2020 inspection and would be attended to; the resident was asked to confirm the number of windows affected
14. ground floor living room sliding doors were attended to in September 2020 and an issue with first floor bedroom sliding doors had been reported in December 2020 so were included in the list of repairs to be completed
15. a lift repair was completed and subject to a separate complaint
16. an issue with variable heating and hot water temperatures had been reported and was subject to a separate complaint so its heating contractor would attend at the same time as its repairs contractor to consider this issue
17. it had found no evidence of discrimination on ground of race or disability but would investigate this further if the resident offered more information and evidence
18. the items it had listed in an email of 1 February 2021 would be considered as ‘snagging’ works and any further issues would be considered routine repairs and it proposed to complete these works on 30-31 March 2021 if the resident could confirm access (by 9 March 2021)
19. its original compensation award of £2425 was reasonable.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 8 March 2021. It asked for him to confirm access for 30-31 March 2021 so that repairs could be completed. It added that:
1. the original specification did not include a first-floor wet room, rather it was designed as a specially adapted bathroom and remodelling would not be carried out following an assessment of this by its surveyors
2. the previous compensation offer included a contribution towards flooring costs as a gesture of goodwill but its policy does not allow for compensation for loss of earnings
3. the gas meter repair had been cancelled at the resident’s request.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 12 March 2021. It advised that the first-floor bath connection issue had exhausted its complaints process and that it would investigate the second-floor shower leak report before conducting any mould remedial works. It asked the resident to confirm access for 30-31 March 2021 and explained that the introduction of a new contractor at this point would cause further delay and it would cancel the works if the resident did not confirm access by 17 March 2021.
The resident replied to the landlord on 12 March 2021. He expressed his view that a new contractor would be preferable and explained that the December 2020 inspection had established the bath had not been connected but this was omitted from the surveyor’s report as was a sewage issue.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 14 March 2021. He queried how they could have signed off works as complete when the contractor had failed to connect bath pipework and questioned why this was not included in the surveyor’s report of 1 February 2021.
The landlord responded to the resident on 16 March 2021. It signposted him to this Service again, reiterated that it wished for its contractors to remedy the snagging issues and said it had evidence that the bath was correctly installed at the time of the remodelling project.
The landlord’s complaint records show that it noted on 19 March 2021 that the resident had declined the offer of the repairs contractor to attend to complete works on 30-31 March 2021 but he had permitted the heating contractor to attend.
The landlord’s repairs records show that a contractor attended the property on 23 April 2021 and 30 April 2021 with a view to completing mould treatment but no access was obtained and a voicemail was left for the resident to make contact and arrange an appointment.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.
It is not disputed that the resident made reports of repairs needed to the property within a week of him moving in during May 2020. These initial reports included reference to items that were part of the adaptation works that had occurred before he moved in, namely a fault on the internal lift, paint and chemical stains to the floors on the second floor, the position of a ceiling track hoist and a concern about shower facilities (due to the removal of the ground floor shower). The landlord should have raised repairs orders and completed them within 28 days according to its repairs policy. The resident advised in late July 2020 that the windows and lift had only been attended to the week before – this was a delay of several weeks beyond the landlord’s obligations and was therefore inappropriate.
By the time that the resident made a complaint in July 2020, he had added further concerns, some of which related to the adaptation works, including a leak from the first-floor bathroom. These, and the other adaptation-related issues, had been passed to a surveyor in June 2020. This led to a property inspection, a review of the original specification for the adaptations and a list of repairs items that the landlord notified the resident of on 31 July 2020 – these actions were reasonable and demonstrated that the landlord intended to resolve the resident’s concerns.
The landlord offered to complete the list of repairs produced by its surveyor during August 2020. However, the resident was only able to offer a couple of dates when he was available, due to work commitments, so the landlord’s contractor was unable to attend until September 2020 – there was no service failure on the part of the landlord during this period.
The resident made a report during October 2020 that the second-floor bathroom (shower/toilet) was leaking and had caused mould growth elsewhere in the property. The landlord’s records show that its contractor attempted to resolve this on 3 November 2020 but was unable to gain access. They attended again twice later in November 2020 and carried out works to the shower area. This was a reasonable timescale in which to attend to remedy the leak, given the initial failure to gain access.
However, the resident reported within a week that the works had been unsuccessful and confirmed in mid-January 2021 that the leak was still ongoing. The landlord failed to take steps to remedy the leak during this period – this was inappropriate.
There were other repairs items that the resident raised during May-June 2020 that also remained unresolved by the point that the resident’s complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaints process in March 2021. These included a kitchen sink leak, replacement of a gas meter cover and a loose external downpipe. It was inappropriate that the landlord was unable to complete repairs to these items within the 28-day timescale that its policy allows for ‘appointed repairs’.
The landlord was made aware at least as early as July 2020 that there was a need to make the property ready so that the resident’s disabled son could spend time there and receive care at the property. There is no evidence that the landlord took steps to prioritise repairs as a result of these circumstances – this was unreasonable.
A major concern of the resident since he moved into the property was the issue of water pooling in the first-floor bathroom (sometimes referred to as a wet room) that he said made the room unusable for his son. He initially raised the problem with the landlord at least as early as July 2020. In response, the landlord:
1. inspected the property
2. explained it had liaised with the occupational therapy team at the local authority
3. made a proposal to use a screen solution to resolve the water pooling
4. passed the matter to a second surveyor in December 2020 to inspect and investigate when the resident raised concerns about the screen solution proposal
5. considered whether a floor level adjustment could be made but determined that this was not possible due to the presence of services running underneath the floor
6. offered to demonstrate the screen solution to the resident at the property.

These actions demonstrate that the landlord took steps to investigate the water pooling issue, proposed a solution that it checked with occupational therapy (as its aids and adaptations policy requires), arranged a second opinion when the resident expressed continued concern, considered the resident’s suggestion to change floor levels and relied on the findings of professionally qualified staff – these were all reasonable actions on the part of the landlord.

The resident raised other concerns about the adaptation works that were conducted during 2019 such as the sign off process and the decision to remove the ground floor shower. Although the resident was not a tenant of the property at the time of the adaptation specification being drawn up and works being conducted, the landlord took reasonable steps to answer his questions about those works. It explained the sign off process (and that any individuals involved were acting on behalf of the landlord), confirmed it had evidence that a bath had been connected when works were completed and provided information as to why the ground floor shower had been removed – these were reasonable responses on the part of the landlord and demonstrated that it attempted to be transparent about the adaptations even though these were conducted prior to the resident’s tenancy.
Overall, although there were occasions when the landlord was awaiting confirmation of access from the resident, there was service failure on the landlord’s part as it delayed unnecessarily in completing repairs, some of which the resident said had deteriorated the condition of the property and prevented his son being able to return to the property. The landlord recognised this when it reviewed its handling of the case in December 2020 and March 2021. It apologised, explained what steps it was willing to take to put things right and awarded £2425 compensation. This is a level of compensation that the Ombudsman would expect for maladministration that has had a severe long-term impact on the complainant and it included specific reimbursement for items such as the flooring damage to the second floor (the landlord’s decision not to award compensation for loss of earnings was in accordance with its compensation policy). This was therefore an appropriate remedy in combination with the assurances offered by the landlord that it wished to resolve the repairs to the property by the end of March 2021.
The landlord repeated its offer to complete outstanding repairs on several occasions and asked the resident to confirm he would allow access for this purpose during 30-31 March 2021. Evidence seen by this Service and information on the landlord’s records indicate that the resident did not allow access and it is therefore assumed that most of the repairs issues remain outstanding. It is of concern that there is no record that the landlord has since followed up with the resident to take any further steps to resolve the repairs and offer to ensure the property is ready for his son’s return – a recommendation has therefore been made below in this regard.
In summary, the landlord took reasonable steps to:
1. identify outstanding repairs
2. propose a solution to a water pooling issue to the first-floor bathroom
3. answer the resident’s concerns about earlier adaptation works.

However, it delayed unnecessarily in its initial response to the resident’s repairs reports in May 2020 and in completing repairs after it produced a schedule of works in July 2021. Nevertheless, the combination of its assessment of the service failure, apologies, offers to put things right and compensation award represented reasonable redress for this service failure.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered the resident reasonable redress to the service failures identified in its handling of repairs to adaptations at his property.

Reasons

The landlord delayed unnecessarily in completing repairs to the resident’s property linked to past adaptations but its apology, proposal to complete works and compensation award were appropriate given the circumstances of the case.

Recommendations

The landlord to write to the resident within the next four weeks to:
1. provide an updated list of outstanding works that it remains willing to complete to the resident’s property
2. offer potential dates when its contractor can attend to complete these works and, if these are inconvenient to him, confirm how the resident can provide alternative dates
3. reiterate its offer to demonstrate the screen solution to the wet room water pooling and check if the resident is now willing to allow this potential remedy to be progressed.

The landlord should provide a copy of the letter to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.