Anchor Hanover Group (202004337)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004337

Anchor Hanover Group

21 December 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

1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the quality of works carried out to the bathroom and heating including the level of compensation.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports in relation to increased energy costs whilst works were being carried out.
3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

4. The residents occupied their home together under a joint assured tenancy in a first floor one-bedroom flat in sheltered accommodation. They will be referred to as resident A and resident B.

Legal and policy framework

5. Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord was obliged to keep in repair and proper working order any installation provided for space heating and sanitary ware.
6. The repairs handbook set out that the landlord planned for the replacement of major items. Before undertaking any major work, the landlord would discuss its plans with tenants.
7. The complaints process consisted of two stages. The timescales for each was 14 calendar days.
8. Under the compensation policy, it might pay discretionary compensation in relation to:
   1. Failure to provide a service in line with published standards.
   2. Loss of heating and hot water.
   3. Loss of service or facility due to the landlord’s action or inaction.

Chronology

9. On or shortly prior to 16 October 2019, (the date is not clear from the documents provided by the landlord), Resident A wrote to the landlord that she was unhappy with delays in completing works to the bathroom “due to incorrect or damaged items being delivered or items not being delivered on time”. Her partner had remained in occupation in the property during the works. He was unable to use the bathroom or listen to the radio or TV due to the noise. She reported that there was “dust everywhere”, the contractors left the lights on in the property and had left the front door open, letting out heat. The contractors did not communicate their movements to the residents. They did not explain whether it was safe to use the cooker which had been isolated while the works in the bathroom were being carried out.
10. The landlord inspected the property on 17 October 2019. It reported that the living room and bedroom door was closed and the living room was spotless. The landlord reported that Resident B had cleaned up the dust from the day before, so it was difficult to ascertain the extent of the dust. However, it considered the dust would have been minor as it would have been due to cutting tiles. The working areas were well protected. The bathroom electrics had been isolated on 9 October 2019. It suggested to resident B that he could check with anyone on site or on the phone in relation to the cooker. The door (which is understood to be the front door), which the resident had propped open, would be kept closed. The operatives had been told to let the resident know when they were leaving the property so that Resident B could lock the door after them. It confirmed that Resident B was unable to use the shower because of the renovations which were expected to be completed in the following two days.
11. On 31 October 2019, resident A submitted a complaint. The improvement work was due to commence on 9 October 2019 and due to be completed on 18 October 2019 but was still not completed. Resident A described the stress the works were causing, including dust, noise, and Resident B having to wash in the sink. Her partner suffered from a long–term back injury. They had not been told they could have used the toilet in the “guest room”. They were left three nights in a row without any heating. The works had caused the heating system to trip out. She was seeking compensation.
12. According to the landlord’s internal emails of 20 November 2019, even if the night storage facility was not on, the heating still worked. The resident was informed that the works would create dust. The tiles were cut using a manual tile cutter which emitted a “minimal” amount of dust. A carpet protector was used on the stairs and landing area outside the bathroom. At every visit the living room door was closed.
13. The landlord wrote to the residents on 26 November 2019 as follows:
    1. On 19 August 2019, it had discussed with the residents the work involved, the timescales involved, how to prepare for the works, and left written information with contact details including the contractors’ emergency number. The landlord wrote to the resident with its start dates on 23 September 2019 and again with revised dates, which letter was delivered by hand to the residents. The landlord and contactors attended the property on a number of occasions before and throughout the process.
    2. Works to the bathroom were due to commence on 9 October 2019 and to be completed on 16 October 2019. Instead, the bathroom works commenced on 9 October 2019 and completed on the 18 October 2019. The delays were due to damaged materials, and sanitaryware, and the unavailability of the specified electric storage heaters. Works to the heating were due to commence on 16 October 2019 and be completed on 18 October 2019. Instead, they began on 24 October 2019 and were completed on 28 October 2019.
    3. The overall delay to the overall heating programme was two days, during which time the residents had heating throughout, including in the bathrooms.
    4. Works undertaken on a rolling programme “seem” to take longer than domestic one-off projects.
    5. It had fitted additional wall tiling to the side of the wash hand basin as a gesture of goodwill.
    6. Compensation was usually set at £10 a night for complete loss of heating. It offered £20 compensation due to the issues with the overnight storage heating, although the heating was operational, as a gesture of goodwill. 
14. On 5 December 2019, Resident A replied that the offer of £20 compensation for loss of heating for two nights was derisory and that the landlord’s letter did not address the other aspects of her complaint. On 28 November 2019, she had also reported flaking paint and a poor finish around the bathroom.
15. The landlord escalated the complaint on 10 December 2019, saying it would respond in 14 days. According to the landlord’s internal emails of 10 December 2019, one of its officers had visited the property on 28 November 2019. Resident B reported that the sink and the shower were too small and the decoration was not to standard. He also wanted the top of the consumer unit to be “finished off”. The landlord stated in its internal emails that the sink and the shower were of standard size and that the decorations had a few minor defects, including marks on the wall.
16. On 13 December 2019, the landlord inspected the property again. It found numerous areas of flaking paint around the window, marks to the walls, some minor settlement cracking to the walls adjoining the new tiles and finishing around the new distribution board. It was agreed the contractor would undertake corrective decorative works and check the extractor fan.
17. The decorative works were completed on 6 January 2020 with the exception of making good around the consumer unit.
18. The landlord wrote to the residents on 11 January 2020 with its second complaint response. It set out the steps it had taken and declined to increase its offer of compensation.
19. The landlord emailed the residents on 4 February 2020 referring to its complaint response and informing them the next steps would be to seek an independent review by this service. It set out that it was satisfied it had carried out a review of the case and it had not amended its response since.
20. On 5 February 2020, resident A complained she was unhappy with the outcome of the complaint and the delay in the complaints process, as she did not receive the response letter and the landlord did not contact them by telephone.
21. On 10 February 2020, resident A wrote to the landlord saying they would take the matter further. She was disappointed about the lack of care and concern from the landlord’s senior management because no one from senior management telephoned to ask after her partner after he suffered a heart attack three weeks prior.
22. The MP wrote to the landlord on 5 March 2020 with the residents’ complaints. The letter added that the resident was unhappy that the work was done on all 12 flats at once, which caused the maximum disruption. She felt that the issues were wholly inappropriate for sheltered accommodation. She felt it caused the resident’s partner’s heart attack. The electricity bill had almost doubled for the period that the work was carried out. She had not received a response from the landlord.
23. The MP sent resident A’s email of 12 March 2020 to the landlord stating that the residents should have been decanted, and the newly-installed equipment in the bathroom had increased the energy costs.
24. The landlord replied on 6 April 2020 to the residents’ MP that although the works were completed by 18 October 2019, there were some small issues that were not rectified until January 2020. The work took three and a half months to complete to the satisfaction of all parties and to an aesthetically–pleasing standard. It had informed the residents that refurbishment works could create some fine building dust. It acknowledged that carrying out a refurbishment in the autumn months was not ideal. The new bathroom items should be more energy efficient. It had invited the residents to provide bills with meter readings for the last two years. With regards to alternative accommodation and compensation, when refurbishments are carried out on facilities such as bathrooms and storage heaters, it did not offer alternative accommodation or compensation. Carrying out this kind of work was disruptive and could cause inconvenience. This was discussed with the residents and before the work was carried out. It had applied compensation for total heat loss at £10 per full day, despite the fact there was heating in the property, as a gesture of goodwill. It Invited the residents to state how much compensation they wanted.
25. On 12 May 2020, the landlord, the residents having requested the equivalent of two months’ rent as compensation, wrote to offer the residents £100 for any disturbance and inconvenience. On 19 June 2020, the residents wrote to the MP who forwarded the email to the landlord, stating that they may give notice due to the energy costs.
26. The landlord wrote to the residents’ MP on 17 July 2020 that the resident had supplied their energy bills as requested. It provided a detailed analysis of the electricity bills. The average daily usage had slightly increased, but not significantly. It identified that the resident was not on the cheapest tariff, as they previously had been. It suggested that they move to the cheapest tariff. It noted that the cheapest tariff would save £606.55 per annum. It signposted the resident for advice. It had previously signposted the resident on 27 February 2020.
27. According to an internal email of 28 August 2020, the landlord noted that the residents had given notice on their tenancy. It had identified issues with the redecoration and had proposed remedial works. The defects included to the wash handbasin, the shower failed prematurely, the towel rails had been removed as they kept falling off, and restricted access into the bathroom. There was a potential leak causing damp and a small mould patch. There was a design issue with the shower. Grout to tiling had started to discolour. One of the heaters needed attending to. A supplier had admitted liability. It had been agreed with the residents that the landlord would not rectify the majority of the outstanding defects until after they moved out.
28. The residents wrote to this service on 15 December 2020 stating they had moved out of the property as they “had had enough”.

Assessment and findings

29. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the quality of the works carried out to the bathroom and heating including the level of compensation.
30. There is no doubt that the resident found the refurbishment works disruptive. It had effected their use of the property while the works were carried out. They were disrupted by the presence and noise of the operatives, the works generated dust and the use of the bathroom was interrupted. The role of the Ombudsman is to consider whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable and proportionate, whether it followed its own policy, and managed the residents’ expectations.
31. The landlord’s repair policy did not specifically address refurbishment works. The Ombudsman would not expect a landlord to eliminate disruption but to use its reasonable endeavours to minimise disruption.
32. It was appropriate of the landlord to have discussed the works with the residents involved some two months before it began and reasonable to update the residents as regards timescales and provide written information. Both the bathroom and heating works took two days longer than anticipated. The heating works were also delayed by a week. The landlord’s explanations for the delays were reasonable and beyond the control of the landlord.
33. The landlord’s explanation that the heating continued to function despite the issues, and that it offered compensation in any event was reasonable.
34. While the disruption was inconvenient, and impacted the residents, the impact, in the Ombudsman’s view, was not significant or long–lasting. The overall delay to 6 January 2020 was not significant, bearing in mind the issues took time to manifest themselves and given the remaining snagging, although would have required further visits by contractors, were decorative issues. It was reasonable that the landlord did not dispute it should make good any defects in the refurbishment and to respond promptly by inspecting the property and arranging to correct the defects.
35. The Ombudsman was not provided with the landlord’s policy regarding a decant, or any evidence this was discussed prior to the works being carried out. There is insufficient evidence in order to ascertain whether the landlord informed the residents that they could use the “guest bathroom”. There was no evidence whether the landlord considered a decant or clear evidence that the works were sufficiently disruptive for a decant to be appropriate. The landlord did not explain to the resident the reasons why it did not decant the residents once they had raised the issue through their MP, as part of their complaint. It would have been reasonable to do so in order to manage the residents’ expectations and in order to be clear and transparent.
36. The Ombudsman is of the view that the landlord had an obligation to take special care in relation to residents in sheltered accommodation, although no particular vulnerabilities were disclosed during the refurbishment, apart from resident B’s bad back. However, a decant is usually offered when it is not possible to carry out works when residents are in situ. In the circumstances, while the refurbishment was inconvenient for the residents, its explanation that it did not offer a decant in these circumstances was reasonable and proportionate. In any event, a decant is inconvenient in itself and is not always a helpful or practical solution. 
37. The landlord was entitled to arrange for the works to be carried out at the same time on the estate. It was entitled to work cost-effectively and efficiently. Moreover, while this accounted for the timescale, there was no evidence that doing so created the delays. The evidence shows that the reasons for the delays were due to damaged sanitaryware, as Resident A had noted. It was also entitled to select its sanitary ware and the Ombudsman does not find service failure in that the residents found the basin and shower small.
38. In relation to the residents’ complaint that the refurbishment caused resident B to have a heart attack, the Ombudsman cannot assess whether a landlord’s service failure or maladministration had contributed to or exacerbated a complainant’s physical and/or mental health. It cannot assess medical evidence and does not make findings on matters such as negligence. However, the Ombudsman may set out a remedy that recognises the overall distress and inconvenience caused to a complaint by a particular service failure by a landlord.
39. The Ombudsman appreciates that the residents suffered inconvenience caused by the refurbishment. It has, however, noted that the landlord sought to manage the residents’ expectations, kept the residents updated, it was responsive to the residents’ reports and sought to address the issues. The evidence shows that there was no actual loss of heating, however the landlord treated the complaint as if it there had been. That was reasonable as the contractor may not have explained fully how the heating worked. The Ombudsman is also mindful that the inconvenience of a refurbishment should be reduced but cannot be eliminated. In its view, the delays were minor and the evidence showed that they were not of the landlord’s doing. The landlord’s offer of £120, together with the tiling of the bathroom was, in the Ombudsman’s view, reasonable redress for the delays, inconvenience and distress, and the need for the snagging. The offer was in line with the remedies the Ombudsman would order in these circumstances. Guidance on remedies (housing-ombudsman.org.uk)
40. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports in relation to increased energy costs whilst works were being carried out.
41. It was reasonable of the landlord to offer to consider any increases in the residents’ energy costs. On receiving the evidence, it undertook a detailed analysis of the bills. The landlord’s explanation that the residents were not on the lowest tariff was reasonable. This was for the residents to arrange, and furthermore, the landlord had signposted the residents several months previously. In the circumstances, there was no evidence that the refurbishment caused additional energy costs to the residents.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

42. There was a delay to the second response of 14 days. Given the Christmas period in between, the delay was not significant but the landlord should have written to the residents to inform them of the delay. There is no evidence that the landlord telephoned the resident on receipt of the complaint, as required by the policy and indeed the landlord appeared not to have contacted the residents at all by telephone as part of the complaints process. However, there was considerable contact with the staff who inspected the property on a number of occasions.  
43. The residents were of the view that the landlord had not responded to their complaint. The second response of 11 January 2020 was sent by post so there is no evidence when the residents received it. However, the evidence shows that the residents were aware of the second response at least by 5 February 2020. The residents expected to hear from the landlord further, however the landlord explained that its response 11 January 2020 was to be its final response and the next step was a referral to this service. It reasonable for the landlord to continue the correspondence with the residents’ MP, which resulted in a revised offer of compensation.
44. The Ombudsman notes that at 28 August 2020, there were defects with the sanitaryware, including a defective shower and washbasin, towel rails, and a leak. The Ombudsman would not normally investigate events that occurred after the conclusion of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. While the final response was dated 11 January 2020, there was further correspondence with the residents’ MP. The landlord considered that the complaint process concluded on 17 July 2020. The evidence shows that the further issues arose before the conclusion of the complaints process. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman considers it would be fair and proportionate to consider this as part of its investigation. It would not be fair for the resident to make a fresh complaint.
45. The evidence shows that the landlord offered to remedy those defects, however the residents made the decision not to undergo the disruption of effecting the repairs. In the circumstances, the landlord identified corrective steps in relation to the defects. However, given the extent of the defects and the timing at which they arose, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have reconsidered its offer of compensation.
46. This is because these issues should have been identified sooner, and whilst it is not clear why they were not, once the outstanding defects were noted the landlord should have reviewed its final offer of compensation.  It was aware that the residents had given notice on the property and reviewing its offer of compensation, in the light of the further information about the extent of the defects and remedial works needed would have been a proactive approach to resolving the situation.  This would have ensured that the residents received a fair resolution to their concerns, and that the landlord had ‘put it right’ in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles. The Ombudsman will make an award in relation to the complaint handling to encompass any inconvenience caused by the further defects.

Determination (decision)

47. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the quality of the works carried out to the bathroom and heating, including the level of compensation.
48. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports in relation to increased energy costs whilst works were being carried out.
49. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

50. While the resident suffered inevitable disruption during the refurbishment of the bathroom, the landlord offered reasonable compensation.
51. The landlord considered and investigated in depth the residents’ report that their energy bills had increased. The landlord’s explanation for the increase was reasonable. Furthermore, the increase was not due to any fault of the landlord and was outside its responsibility and control.
52. However, further defects in the refurbishment, that were not merely decorative, became apparent toward the end, or close to the end, of the landlord’s complaint process. The landlord offered to address these, however, the landlord should have reviewed its offer of compensation.

Orders

53. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £150 in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendations

54. The landlord considers contacting its residents by telephone, particularly during an extended complaints process.