Cross Keys Homes Limited (202119455)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119455

Cross Keys Homes Limited

14 July 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 about repairs.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of a three-bedroom house owned and managed by the landlord. The resident has confirmed household vulnerabilities.
3. The resident’s complaint to the landlord (July 2021) originated with a report he made about a leaking toilet in March of that year and associated repair issues. As his complaint progressed through the landlord’s complaints process, it became apparent that his dissatisfaction also included concerns about his patio, a rear entrance door and follow-on works associated with the leak from the toilet.
4. The landlord’s final response to the resident (13 September 2021 – following a panel hearing) stated the landlord’s position on eleven separate repair issues and offered a £500 goodwill gesture in relation to three of these issues, the quality of re-plastering/coving in the kitchen, the flooring in the utility room and its poor communication over the blinds by a bay window. The landlord also agreed that it would ensure that works to a gazebo, the guttering, the back door and a shower switch would take place. It also agreed that it would replace the bath panel, the silicon sealant, skirting and bath trim in the bathroom.
5. In correspondence with this Service, the resident confirmed that he remained dissatisfied and wanted a total of £1,000 in compensation (to include £500 towards flooring damaged in the utility room), plus for the landlord to complete works it agreed to do, including a full refurbishment of the bathroom, restoring the kitchen to its original condition and for the patio to be corrected to resolve sloping/drainage issues.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

6. The Ombudsman’s role is to investigate issues that have been raised as a complaint by the resident of a member landlord, which remain unresolved by the completion of the landlord’s complaints process. This case has been complicated as new issues have been raised (and responded to by the landlord) that were not included within the original complaint. In this instance, the Ombudsman has considered these new issues in the context of the landlord’s overall repairs service.
7. It is apparent that the original leak, reported by the resident in March 2021 formed the basis of the original complaint of 7 July 2021, with ‘very poor’ quality remedial works having been completed, dissatisfaction with the response time for the original issue and consequent damage caused to the bathroom and kitchen beneath it. The resident also raised concerns about the rear door, which had been letting in water for two years and had damaged the walls and flooring; he said that this might be related to a poorly laid patio. In addition, the resident questioned why he had originally been offered £350 towards re doing the bathroom, only for the landlord to rescind this offer. He also requested a wetroom as his partner was now unable to use the bath.
8. This investigation shall consider the landlord’s response on the above issues, but will also consider the additional issues referred to in the landlord’s final response. This included guttering, the sealing to the bay window and the blinds to the bay windows. It is evident that the landlord’s complaints process, which culminated in a stage two panel hearing, included a landlord inspection of the property with the resident in attendance (2 September 2021), during which all outstanding repair issues were discussed. As this inspection included these new issues and the landlord’s final response (13 September 2021) confirmed its position on these issues, as well as those listed in the original complaint, it would be both fair and appropriate to clarify the Ombudsman’s position here.

Repairs

9. The issues under investigation originated with the resident reporting of a leak from the upstairs WC on 25 March 2021. The details of the resident’s original report are not available and this investigation is reliant on the landlord’s repairs log for this initial period. The repairs log states that the job was given a target resolution timescale of 22 April 2021 and that the work was completed on 13 April 2021, meaning that the landlord resolved the issue in accordance with its ‘routine repair’ timescale of 28 days.
10. The resident was of the view that the landlord erred in classifying the WC leak as a ‘routine’ as he had reported that the leak was causing damage elsewhere. Whilst the landlord’s repairs log does not provide detail of the resident’s initial report about the leak, hesitated in his subsequent correspondence with the landlord that he had been clear to the landlord from the outset that the leak was causing an issue elsewhere in the property as the water was leaking to the kitchen below.
11. In an email to the resident dated 27 July 2021 the landlord said that, in its view, the leak was of a ‘minor’ nature as it could be contained using a bowl or bucket. The resident disputed this position, stating that it was not possible to contain the leak given its position and that it continued to leak after the resolution works of 13 April 2021.
12. It is appreciated that the landlord has clarified its position in respect of its classification of the original repair report. However, it is of concern that it has not responded to the resident’s reports that the original issue was causing damage elsewhere and that its records do not adequately identify what was discussed at the time. In the absence of such records and clarification of its final position through its complaints process, a finding of service failure has been identified here as the landlord has not demonstrated that it took reasonable and proportionate action at the outset. Had it classified the repair more urgently, further damage to other parts of the property (bathroom and kitchen) may have been avoided. This would also have been in accordance with the landlord’s repairs policy, which states that repair issues that might cause further damage if not dealt with urgently should be classified as ‘urgent’ with a seven day resolution timescale.
13. It is not known to what extent this service failure might have exacerbated the water damage at the property, as even a seven day resolution would likely have caused some damage in the circumstances described. However, the failure will be considered in the context of the landlord’s overall failures in its repairs service.
14. The landlord has not disputed that damage was caused elsewhere in the property by the leak, including within the bathroom itself and to the kitchen beneath, where coving and plasterwork saw significant water damage. It attended the property on 7 June 2021 and identified remedial works to the bathroom and kitchen. It was also clear by this point that the resident’s dissatisfaction extended beyond the leak issues, but now also included concerns about the general condition of the bathroom and the rear door.
15. The landlord also offered the resident £350 towards the costs of refurbishing the bathroom himself during the 7 June 2021 meeting. He did not believe this was sufficient given the work he would have to undertake and, in any case, it later transpired that there had been a misunderstanding here and the landlord rescinded its offer as the resident had not intended to complete a full refurbishment. Whilst the resident was dissatisfied with the landlord decision to rescind this offer, it was reasonable for the landlord to explain that it had misunderstood and that, as such, the offer was unable to stand.
16. The landlord accepted responsibility to resolve the issues it had identified in the June inspection and then arranged for contractors to attend the property over the following weeks in order to correct these issues, however, the resident was dissatisfied with both the delay in completing, and the quality of the works that took place. This resulted in his formal complaint of 7 July 2021 – detailed in the scope of investigation section above.
17. The landlord’s stage one response to the resident’s complaint (15 July 2021) acknowledged communication issues and relayed the contact that had taken place between 9 and 24 June 2021 between its repairs service and the resident. The landlord apologised for ‘past experiences’, outlined its commitment to complete outstanding repairs, confirmed the point of contact that would oversee these works and also offered £200 as a goodwill gesture for flooring that had been damaged in the rear porch, with the rear door repair one of the outstanding repair items scheduled for completion.
18. The resident remained dissatisfied however, requesting escalation on 20 July 2021. He said that the landlord had failed to address several issues, including the delay in resolving the original leak/WC issue, the number of visits it had taken to complete boxing in in the bathroom, the mismatched tiling in the bathroom, the rescinding of the £350 offer for bathroom costs, his concern that he had been informed previously that the bathroom would be renewed and the landlord’s failure to respond to his request for a wetroom. The resident raised additional issues – the sloping of the patio, the sealing of the new windows and the guttering to the new garage roof. He also raised quality concerns about the quality of re-decoration works in the kitchen and renewal works in the bathroom, that were ongoing at the time of his escalation request.
19. In terms of desired outcome, the resident explained that he wanted a total of £1,000 for bathroom upgrade works, explanations for any points that had not been addressed, a meeting with the landlord’s management team and corrective action for the quality issues he had raised about ongoing works. He also detailed that the whole experience had been highly stressful and that he desired for someone at the landlord’s end to take ownership of his case. He detailed ongoing medical concerns and expressed his concerns that the landlord’s actions were making him ill.
20. The landlord arranged a stage two panel hearing. It also emailed him (27 July 2021) regarding items that had not been addressed. This included:

1. A response to the time taken in resolving the leak/WC issue (as discussed earlier in this report).
2. An apology for the additional appointments required for boxing in the bathroom.
3. Confirmation that it had been unable to source suitable replacement tiles for the bathroom.
4. It said that it had no record of having confirmed that the bathroom would be replaced sooner than 2033.
5. It stated that it was not its policy to allow wetrooms within two storey properties.
6. Confirmation of the withdrawal of the £350 offer for bathroom renewal costs.
7. It detailed the senior officer who would progress the case to resolution.

21. The resident responded to this email on 16 August 2021. He stated that he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to the leak/WC issue, that three visits for boxing in remained unacceptable, that more recent re-tiling works had matched the existing tiling and requested a copy of the relevant policy regarding the wetroom response. When the landlord subsequently confirmed the panel hearing for 25 August, it included a copy of its aids and adaptations policy within the pack it sent to the resident in advance.
22. The panel hearing took place on 25 August 2021 as scheduled. This was followed by a property inspection in relation to all outstanding repair issues (2 September) and the landlord’s final response of 13 September. It was both reasonable and appropriate for the landlord to arrange the property inspection before it provided its final response. This gave the resident the opportunity to articulate his outstanding concerns about the property condition and for the landlord’s final response to draw conclusions from an informed perspective. Having completed this inspection, the landlord summarised the outstanding concerns under 11 separate headings:

1. Gazebo – the landlord appropriately identified that this structure belonged to the resident and was therefore his responsibility to maintain. Nonetheless it acknowledged that it had moved this structure as part of roof works and therefore agreed to fix the structure in position.
2. Guttering to new roof – the landlord agreed to instruct its contractor to rectify this issue.
3. Back door leaks – the landlord acknowledged this leaked with ‘minimal’ water application. It agreed to instruct the contractor responsible to rectify this issue.
4. Kitchen wall and ceiling – the landlord identified that the works done here had left the area in a suitable state of repair and that it could not guarantee any improvement if works were re-done.
5. Patio – the landlord stated the patio was the resident’s responsibility.
6. Bath items – the landlord agreed to replace the bath panel, silicon sealant, skirting board and bath trim.
7. Flooring in the utility room (by rear door) – the landlord stated that this was the resident’s responsibility and could be claimed on contents insurance.
8. Sealing of bay window – the landlord said no further action was required here.
9. Tiling in bathroom – the landlord acknowledged the aesthetic element of the non-matching tiles, but said that those it had installed were fit for purpose.
10. Electric shower switch pull cord – recommended for replacement and re-positioning.
11. Blinds to bay window – the landlord acknowledged that it had not communicated well on this issue, but that it would not generally re-fit blinds after works.

23. The landlord offered £500 as a goodwill gesture in relation to the issues relating to the works done in the kitchen, the flooring in the utility room and the communication in relation to the bay window blinds. Further consideration of  the landlord’s compensation offer can be found below, however, it is noted here that the landlord had effectively offered no further compensation for the other issues that it responded to.
24. It is also noted that the resident had expressed at points during the complaints process that, in his view, the slope of the patio had contributed to water ingress to the rear door. Whilst patios are listed as resident responsibility under the landlord’s repairs policy, the landlord would remain responsible for such an issue if it was causing a repair issue to the property itself. It is noted that the rear door had been replaced as the previous door had reached a state of poor repair and that the new door was also causing issues. The resident raised a reasonable doubt about the patio and it presents as unsatisfactory to have dismissed this concern as resident responsibility. Given the potential implications for the landlord, from a repair/maintenance perspective, it would have been appropriate to inspect the resident’s reports about the patio and offer its conclusions to the resident.
25. The resident’s concern with the works done to the kitchen included his dissatisfaction that he had paid for re-plastering throughout the property prior to the issues under investigation and that the landlord’s works had not been completed to the same level. This was also a concern with the tiling in the bathroom, which had left a mis-match of colour schemes in this area. Whilst the resident’s concerns were understandable, the landlord was within its rights to conclude that its responsibilities lay in ensuring that the areas were left in a state of reasonable repair.
26. That said, given the overall failures on this case, the landlord had the option of using its discretion and increasing the level of compensation in respect of these issues. The kitchen works were acknowledged as one of the issues for which the landlord would pay compensation, but the tiling was not. In the Ombudsman’s view, it would have also been reasonable to offer an amount in relation to the tiling as this would have recognised the resident’s frustration at having to live with the mis-matched tiles.
27. The landlord did not break down its £500 goodwill gesture. In any case, in the Ombudsman’s view, the amount offered did not reflect the failures it had identified, nor the overall failures on the case, including the delays, communication failures and the overall experience of the resident and his household.
28. The resident stated in correspondence with the Ombudsman that he has paid for additional flooring to the utility room at a cost of £500. In the Ombudsman’s view, this sum, once evidenced to the landlord should be reimbursed. The landlord acknowledged that the rear door let water in with only minimal application; it is also clear that this is a long-standing issue that the resident has reported on multiple occasions, including a previous replacement of the door. As such, it would be appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge its responsibility for this issue and for it to offer the full sum as recompense.
29. In addition, a further sum of £500 is considered appropriate to reflect the additional failings identified, both those acknowledged by the landlord, and those additional issues identified here, including the overall delay in getting works completed, the mis-matched tiling and the clear distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident’s (vulnerable) household during this time. In addition, an order has been included for the landlord to inspect the patio issue to consider whether this is contributing to the water ingress issue at the rear of the property.
30. It is not clear from the landlord’s repairs log whether all of the works identified in its stage two response have been completed, though it is apparent that the gazebo and shower cord works have at least completed. In the absence of this information, a further order has been included for the landlord to clarify, in writing, the works that have completed following the end of the complaints process, including the likely timescales for any outstanding works.
31. It is noted that the landlord included a single point of contact as part of its final response. This was a reasonable action given the resident’s reports of frustration on the issue.
32. The landlord also provided its aids and adaptations policy to support its position on the resident’s request for a wetroom. Having reviewed the contents of this policy (February 2021 version), it is not clear which section the landlord relied upon when stating that its policy was to not consider wetrooms in two-story properties. In any case, having raised this question, the resident might reasonably have expected the landlord to ensure that it took appropriate action to ensure that he was living in a property suitable to his household needs.
33. The landlord, a housing association, would not typically have any responsibility in identifying property adaptation needs as this would sit more suitably with the Local Authority Occupational Therapy Team (OT). The OT can assess needs and make recommendations which can then be progressed by a landlord, including consideration as to whether the property itself is suitable. In the circumstances, it is recommended that the landlord contact the resident and provide him with any support it can (signposting, liaison with the OT, clear reference to relevant policies and procedures etc…).
34. It is clear from more recent correspondence with the resident that he remains dissatisfied with the condition of the bathroom, both in terms of the suitability for disablement needs, but also in terms of the landlord decision to not replace the bathroom for some time. On this latter point, the landlord clarified that it had no evidence of having informed him that the bathroom would be replaced any sooner than 2033. Whilst no doubt the resident remains frustrated with this position, no finding of service failure has been attached to this element of the complaint as the landlord investigated the issue and clarified its position.

Determination

35. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with respect to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about repairs. Orders

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

36. The landlord to pay the resident a total of £1,000 in compensation, broken down as follows:

1. £500 for the utility room flooring (once the resident has evidenced these costs).
2. £500 for the additional failures identified.

37. The above sum to include any amounts already paid by the landlord.
38. The landlord to write to the resident (ensuring that a copy is sent to this Service), confirming all repairs completed following the completion of the complaints process, with expected timescales for any outstanding works.
39. The landlord to arrange an inspection of the patio area, to identify whether this area is contributing to excess water ingress at the rear of the property.
40. The landlord to evidence compliance with the above orders to this Service within 28 days of this report.

Recommendations

41. The landlord to contact the resident in relation to his request for a wetroom, detailing the specific area of policy that prevents it from installing a wetroom in two storey properties. The landlord to also confirm what support it can provide in order that he can have his household needs assessed.