Swan Housing Association Limited (202205072)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205072

Swan Housing Association Limited

18 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 response to the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs.
The Ombudsman will also consider the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured shorthold tenant in a two-bedroom flat. She moved into the property in February 2017.
The resident lives with disabilities, incontinence issues, arthritis, fibromyalgia and is undergoing chemotherapy for an auto-immune disease.
Following occupational therapy assessments, the resident has had various adaptations made to her property, both to her bathroom in February 2021 and to her kitchen in September 2022.

Policies & Procedures

Under the Tenancy Agreement, the landlord is responsible for maintaining installations it has provided for heating, water heating and sanitation, which includes wash basins, sinks, baths, toilets, flushing systems and water pipes. This is also in line with Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The Tenancy Agreement also states that, in exceptional circumstances, where the resident has special requirements, the landlord may carry out repairs for which the resident is responsible and charge them the cost of doing so.
Under its Maintenance Repairs Policy, the landlord has four categories of repair. Immediate repairs are attended to and made safe within four hours. Emergency repairs are completed within 24 hours, standard repairs within 15 working days and planned repairs within 45 working days. Where a resident has a known vulnerability, the landlord uses a flag system to highlight this to the partnering contractor. The policy states that, whilst repair response times for vulnerable residents have not been differentiated, the landlord’s partner contractor will provide an accelerated repairs service. The landlord also states, in its current policy, that it provides additional services for residents who need additional support due, for example, to age or disability.
The landlord operates a two stage formal complaints procedure. The policy states that it must acknowledge stage one complaints, in writing, within two days of receipt. The response time for stage one complaints is six working days. If the resident remains unhappy, the landlord must make contact within 10 days to confirm why the resident wishes to escalate. The response time for providing a full written stage two response is 15 working days. The landlord also has an informal complaint stage for minor expressions of dissatisfaction, where a complaint can be resolved quickly and without the need for a written response.
The landlord has a compensation policy, which pays £20 for a missed appointment, where the resident has not been notified of a cancellation at least 24 hours in advance. A further £25 is paid if the appointment is missed a second time and £50 for any further missed appointments thereafter. Discretionary payments are made for service failures, which include unacceptable delays in providing services, unacceptable responses to upheld complaints and additional costs incurred. Compensation amounts of between £50 and £500 are paid, depending on the impact of the service failure on the resident.

Summary of events

On 11 October 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord to raise several concerns, which included the following:
1. The resident had spoken to a member of staff who was rude and said she could not book some repairs without evidence there was a legal requirement.
2. She had a leaking shower hose, which dripped over the back of the bath and soaked the floor. As a result, silverfish were entering through a crack.
3. The light in her bathroom was flickering and, due to her disability, it was not safe for her to shower.
4. She was unhappy the landlord had told her, despite her disability, that it was her responsibility to change the light and that, if she could not do it herself, she should ask a neighbour or family member.
5. She did not understand why the landlord was asking her for images of the leak and faulty light as this was only delaying the repair and causing her further inconvenience.
6. The landlord had still not given her a key fob to access the bin area.
7. The resident also made a subject access request.
The landlord dealt with the complaint under its informal complaint stage and responded on 20 October 2021. In its email, it stated the following:
1. It confirmed that a repair job had been raised to fix the resident’s toilet and bathroom light.
2. It said the advice the staff member gave was correct and that, while there were exceptions, light fittings and shower hoses are the resident’s responsibility. It confirmed that it was standard advice for the landlord to suggest that family or friends could provide assistance.
3. The landlord explained it had requested photos in order to escalate the issue and provide the information to a senior staff member, and this was done to assist her.
4. It confirmed that the resident was listed as a general needs resident and that, if this was not the case, she should discuss this with her neighbourhood officer.
On 30 November 2021, following work carried out by the landlord to replace the bathroom light and shower hose, the resident wrote to the landlord and said she wanted to escalate her complaint. In her stage one complaint, she stated the following:
1. She said she had not asked for her shower hose to be replaced. She said that the leak was coming from the actual shower on the wall. When adaptations were made, her shower screen was replaced by a curtain and that, since then, water fell over her bath and onto the floor and bath panel.
2. There was a problem with the water pressure and her water temperature had changed from scalding hot to cold, which affected her joints. Due to her incontinence issues, she needed access to hot water.
3. Her kitchen cabinets were broken and she had cracks on her walls and ceilings caused by heavy vehicles that were making the building shake.
4. She confirmed her bathroom light had been fixed but there were other repairs that remained outstanding.
On 8 December 2021, the landlord’s contractor spoke to the resident and told her a supervisor would be visiting to assess the work that needed to be done. On 10 December 2021, the landlord sent the resident its stage one response, which stated the following:
1. It defined the resident’s complaint as being about the disputed responsibility for bathroom repairs.
2. It accepted that the repairs the resident had mentioned in her complaint needed to be done and booked an appointment for 15 December 2021, so that a supervisor could to attend and assess all outstanding repairs.
3. The landlord understood there had been confusion over the resident being registered disabled and the works being raised as general needs. The landlord confirmed the contractor’s records had been changed but that she would also need to make her neighbourhood officer aware she was registered disabled so all future appointments were correctly raised.
4. The contractor would remain in contact with the resident until the works were completed.
5. It upheld the resident’s complaint due to lack of communication and apologised that her concerns had not been correctly addressed.
On 14 December 2021, the landlord spoke to the resident after the supervisor failed to attend. It apologised and explained that the missed appointment was due to human error and that it would be able to send a plumber in the meantime. It asked the resident if the inspection could be booked for the following week but the resident stated she would be having surgery, and would not be well enough. She questioned why the landlord could not just complete the repairs rather than send a supervisor, and the landlord explained that the supervisor would be able to create a schedule of all outstanding works in order to expedite them.
On 15 December 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord, asking for her complaint to be escalated. In her correspondence she stated the following:
1. Rather than raising the repairs, the landlord was prolonging the delays by booking a surveyor and then not sending him, and then offering to send a plumber instead.
2. She was back to square one and her kitchen cabinets were still damaged, water was leaking from the shower and falling onto her floor, black mould was forming and silverfish and other insects were coming through the cracks.
3. She said she had lukewarm water coming from her taps but nobody was coming to address this and she had still not been given a key fob to access the bin area.
4. She had cracks in her bedroom ceiling due to the building shaking, and the landlord had still done nothing.
The landlord replied on 20 December 2021 to ask the resident to clarify the issues she wanted it to investigate and the resident wrote back on 22 December 2021 to confirm that her stage two complaint concerned the following:
1. Kitchen doors hanging from the cabinets and a mouse hole above a broken panel.
2. A leaking shower with water soaking through the floor and causing mould to grow.
3. Poor water pressure causing the water not to heat up.
4. Cracks to the bedroom and living room ceilings.
5. The possibility of a mutual exchange.
6. The resident’s disability not being registered on the landlord’s system.
On 23 December 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to say she had just had surgery and had no warm water in her property. The landlord attended the same day, completed the repair and confirmed the heating system had been tested and was working. The resident contacted the landlord again the following day to report that her radiators were not heating up, and that her water was still lukewarm. The landlord sent an operative the same day, who tested the system and reported that the water was heating up and had reached 40 degrees Celsius while they were on site.
The landlord hand delivered the key fob on 6 January 2022, which allowed the resident to access the bin area. On 11 January 2022, the resident spoke to the landlord and said she had encountered hostility from other residents because, due to her disability, she was unable to put her rubbish in the dustbins and had to leave it around the bin area. She also asked if she could use the caretaker’s gate to access the bins. During the conversation, the landlord discussed mutual exchanges with the resident and other moving options. On 12 January 2022, the resident reported that the main entrance door was broken.
The landlord carried out an inspection of the property on 17 January 2022 and, following this, the operative recommended works to the bathroom to address the shower leak, reported there were no issues with the main entrance door, recommended a fresh occupational therapy assessment and advised that a surveyor check for the cause of the cracks and possible building movement.
On 19 January 2022, the landlord sent the resident its stage two response, which stated the following:
1. It had hand delivered the new key fob for the bin area on 6 January 2022 and was pleased to note it was working.
2. It said that it could not allow her access to the caretaker’s gate because this was only for the caretaker to use. It said the building had two entry and exit points for residents to use.
3. It told the resident she could not continue leaving refuse sacks around the bin as this leaves the area unsightly and would attract rodents. It advised that, as she had a disability, she could consider using smaller bags to place directly in the bin or ask a family member to assist her.
4. It acknowledged that the landlord had spoken to her on 11 January 2022 about the mutual exchange process and her banding, and it encouraged her to keep bidding for properties on the local authority’s choice based letting system.
5. It confirmed that a plumber would attend her property on 24 January 2022 to address the leak on her shower and an operative would attend on 7 February 2022 to complete the bathroom repairs.
6. The landlord explained that the inspection on 17 January 2022 found that the marks on the bedroom ceiling were caused by adhesive tape being stuck on and peeled off and said that, as this was classed as decorative, it was the resident’s responsibility. It also found only minor wear and tear to the underside of the kitchen worktops and said a member of the Property Services team would contact her if she wanted details of when her kitchen was due for renewal.
7. It said it was sorry to hear the resident had cockroaches and advised her to spray the area and to move the cat food to a different area. The landlord confirmed that pest control in individual properties was the resident’s responsibility but that it could provide her with details of a pest control expert.
8. It apologised for the missed appointment on 14 December 2021 and offered the resident £50 compensation, which it said was in line with its Compensation Policy. It also apologised for the amount of time it had taken to resolve the issues.
On receipt of communication from this Service, the landlord responded on 2 February 2023 to confirm that, with regard to the resident’s concerns that the property shakes, a surveyor had recently attended the building and reported no visible signs to indicate any movement. It stated that, because the issue was causing the resident anxiety, it would also commission a structural survey to get an independent opinion. It also paid £100, in addition to the £50 it had offered in its stage two response, in recognition that it had failed to pay the initial compensation in a timely manner.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
The resident raised concerns to this Service that were not part of her complaint to the landlord. These were about the delay in completing adaptations that were recommended in March 2022 and the delay in replacing the front door after police had broken into the property in February 2022.
In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, we will not investigate complaints that are “made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure”.. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the issues, she can raise a formal complaint to the landlord. The resident may refer this matter to the Ombudsman if she remains dissatisfied once she has received the landlord’s final response to her concerns.

Response to the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs

The Ombudsman has noted and wishes to acknowledge that the resident and her daughter have suffered distress and inconvenience as a result of outstanding repairs in her property. The Ombudsman recognises how upsetting it must have been to be uncomfortable in one’s own home, particularly when living with a disability and long-term health conditions, and while looking after a young child.
However difficult a resident’s circumstances are, there is no absolute requirement or expectation that a landlord can address all of a resident’s difficulties. While the Ombudsman will take this into account, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider the response by the landlord to a resident’s reports, whether it complied with its policies, current legislation and good practice, and whether its approach and actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
The evidence shows that the landlord attended and repaired the resident’s bathroom light, ten days after she had reported it. Although it had initially advised her that replacing light bulbs was the resident’s responsibility, it is positive to note that the landlord had exercised its discretion and repaired the light following confirmation of the resident’s disability. However, it is of concern that, despite the fact the landlord had made some adaptations to the resident’s bathroom, following an occupational therapist’s recommendations in February 2021, the landlord’s records still showed the resident as a ‘general needs’ rather than a vulnerable tenant. The landlord’s Maintenance Repairs Policy states that, whilst repair response times for vulnerable residents have not been differentiated, the landlord’s partner contractor will provide an accelerated repairs service. This suggests that, due to a failure in record keeping by the landlord, the resident could have been unfairly disadvantaged and received a slower repairs service than she would otherwise have had if her status as a vulnerable resident had been properly recorded. Although the repairs policy does not include specific response times for what it would class as an ‘accelerated repairs service’, this error may have had an impact on repair response times. In addition to this, the recording error would have understandably contributed to the resident’s frustration at being informed she was listed as not having disabilities.
It was inappropriate that the landlord advised the resident, in its response of 20 October 2021, to inform her neighbourhood officer of her disability so that her records could be amended. The landlord could have been more customer-focused and not put the onus on the resident to rectify its error, particularly when it should have been aware of her disability when it had made adaptations to the property. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have proactively contacted the resident to confirm the information she wished it to record about her disability and personal circumstances. This would have ensured that it had an up-to-date record which accurately captured her needs .The landlord was also at fault for failing to properly acknowledge this oversight, offer any kind of explanation or provide the resident with a formal apology for the error.
When the resident raised concerns that she did not have a key fob to access the bin area, the evidence shows that, following repeated requests by the resident, it took two months for the landlord to finally deliver one to her. This was an excessive delay, for which the landlord has offered no explanation or apology. It was not unreasonable for the landlord to ask that the resident did not leave rubbish bags around the bins. However, there is no indication the landlord had explored whether there was any support available, either from the local authority or charitable organisations for disabled residents. The landlord suggested the resident could use smaller bags or ask family members to assist, and the evidence shows the resident had a 12 year old daughter living with her at the time, who may have been able to help. However, the landlord’s advice was limited and took little account of the nature of the resident’s disability or the daughter’s own circumstances. Similarly, when the resident asked if she could use the gate while the main entrance door was broken, the landlord informed her this was for the sole use of the caretaker. It did not provide a proper explanation as to why special consideration could not be made for disabled residents.
The evidence of the communications between the resident and landlord seen by this Service showed that the relationship between the parties had broken down over time. It is noted that the landlord followed good practice in the difficult circumstances to maintain regular contact with the resident while her outstanding repairs were being addressed, and to respond to her enquiries in a timely manner.
The resident had raised several repair issues in her stage one complaint and the landlord acted promptly in arranging an inspection of the property to identify all the repair issues and put together a schedule of works. It is unfortunate the surveyor failed to attend the appointment of 14 December 2021 but it is positive that the landlord immediately apologised for this, explained the reason and offered to send a plumber to look at the shower leak instead. It should be noted that there is no evidence the resident accepted a plumber or that one had attended at that time. It was also appropriate for the landlord to offer £50 compensation for the missed appointment, in its stage two response. The landlord offered to re-book the appointment for the following week but, as the resident was due to have surgery, it acted appropriately in re-arranging the inspection for a time when it was convenient for the resident. Following the inspection, on 18 January 2022, and subsequent stage two response of 19 January 2022, it is positive to note that the landlord acted quickly to ensure the repairs to the shower and the bathroom were completed within five and 20 days, respectively. This was within the timescales for standard and planned works in the Maintenance Repairs Policy. The landlord was also correct in advising the resident, following the inspection, where she could find information on when her kitchen was due for renewal, although it could have been more customer focused and made these enquiries on the resident’s behalf.
It was appropriate that the landlord attended within 24 hours after the resident reported she had no heating or hot water, following her surgery on 23 December 2021. Although the evidence shows that the landlord returned the following day to test the temperature of the water, there is no indication the landlord had followed up on the resident’s concerns about water pressure and fluctuating temperature. In addition, although there is no record the resident had raised the matter again after 24 December 2021, it is unclear why the landlord did not address this part of the complaint in its stage two response or whether the issue had since been resolved.
The internal correspondence indicates that the landlord was making attempts to look into the resident’s reports that the building was shaking and causing cracks in her property. It is positive to note that the landlord has carried out an inspection of the building for signs of movement and it is good that it has also agreed, in order to put the resident’s mind at rest, to arrange for an independent structural engineer’s inspection. Although a number of service failures have been identified, the landlord did take reasonable steps to try and address the resident’s complaint. It made efforts to try to resolve the resident’s concerns by communicating regularly and promptly, carrying out inspections to identify and resolve all outstanding repairs, acknowledging its poor initial complaint response and increasing its offer of compensation to £150, in recognition of the delay in paying the original £50 it had offered for a missed appointment.

Complaint Handling

It is unclear why the landlord dealt with the resident’s initial complaint of 11 October 2021 under its informal complaints process. The landlord’s complaints procedure states that the informal complaint stage is for minor expressions of dissatisfaction, where a complaint can be resolved quickly and without the need for a written response. As the complaint included several issues, including a potentially serious outstanding repair issue, it was inappropriate to categorise this a minor expression of dissatisfaction. In addition, despite the aim of the informal stage to address concerns without the need for a written response, the landlord still provided a written response within seven working days, which corresponds to the landlord’s timescale for stage one responses. This indicates that the complaint should have been dealt with as a stage one formal complaint at the outset. The informal stage was therefore inappropriate in this instance. It unnecessarily prolonged the complaints process for the resident and only addressed some aspects of the complaint.
Although the landlord promptly responded to the resident’s stage one complaint, and gave assurances an inspection had been booked for the purposes of resolving the resident’s outstanding repair issues, the response still only addressed some of the issues raised. This left the resident with little choice but to escalate her complaint in order to get a full response to her concerns. However, it is encouraging to note that the landlord later acknowledged, in its internal correspondence, that the response was poor and, as a result, provided a more detailed stage two response.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the way the landlord handled the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

Although the landlord’s initial responses were slow, its communication with the resident became more timely and regular. It also took steps to carry out inspections and repairs as quickly as possible. However, the landlord failed to make a record of the resident’s disability which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, may have prevented her from receiving a quicker response, as per the landlord’s Maintenance Repairs Policy. In addition, it took the landlord two months after the resident’s complaint to provide her with a key fob for the bin area, which was longer than necessary.
The landlord treated the resident’s initial complaint as an informal enquiry, when it should have dealt with it as a formal stage one complaint. This made the process unnecessarily protracted for the resident. Although the landlord responded to the resident’s complaints in a timely manner, both its informal and stage one responses failed to fully address the resident’s complaint, which left her little choice but to escalate her concerns.

Orders

The landlord to pay the total sum of £450 compensation comprising of:
1. Its previous offer of £50 for the missed appointment;
2. Its previous offer of £100 for the delay in payment of the above compensation;
3. £100 for failing to record the resident as disabled on its data management system;
4. £100 for the two-month delay in providing the resident with a key fob;
5. £100 for the poor complaint handling.

As the landlord has confirmed it has already paid the resident £150, the total remaining amount of £300 must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.

The landlord to contact the resident to confirm the information it currently holds for her properly records her individual circumstances and vulnerabilities, so that she receives an appropriate service. The landlord to report back on the outcome of the review within four weeks of receiving this determination.

Recommendations

The landlord to ensure complaints are only dealt with informally when the concerns can be resolved quickly and without the need for a written response. In cases where a written response is required, the landlord must automatically treat these as stage one complaints. The landlord must also ensure that, when multiple concerns are raised, all of these are addressed in the complaint response.
The landlord to update the resident once the structural survey has been completed.
The landlord should notify the Ombudsman of its intentions regarding these recommendations, within four weeks of receiving this report.