Call for Evidence on housing maintenance now open! Respond by 25 October 2024. Submit evidence online.

Anchor Hanover Group (202119769)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119769

Anchor Hanover Group

26 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

  1. The complaint is regarding:
  1. the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a walk-in shower to be installed in the property’s bathroom.
  2. The installation of the walk-in shower.

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling as part of this investigation.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of a studio flat in a retirement housing scheme. Her flat is on the first floor. Her tenancy started in June 2020.

3. The landlord’s repairs policy provides that where adaptations are required due to a disability or illness, residents should contact their local manager for information about how to access funding for works. Its Aids and Adaptations Policy identifies the installation of a level access shower as a major adaptation. In order to qualify for such an adaptation, the resident would need an evaluation letter from an Occupational Therapist with a specification of the work. The policy further states that the landlord will support and provide part-funding towards any adaptation that is both necessary and appropriate to meet the person’s identified need and reasonable and feasible given budgetary constraints at the time of application. 

4.  The landlord operates a two stage complaints procedure. A stage one complaint should be responded to within 14 calendar days from the receipt of the complaint. This may be extended up to 20 working days but the landlord should provide an explanation for the delay and estimated date by which the response will be received. If a resident is dissatisfied with the stage one response they can escalate their complaint to stage two. A stage two response should be provided within 14 days of the request.

5.  The landlord’s compensation policy states that compensation may be paid in a number of circumstances including where the landlord has failed to provide a service in line with published standards and where the property is in an unsatisfactory condition.

Summary of events

6.  When the resident first viewed the property in June 2020 she reports that she informed the landlord she would not be able to mobilise in and out of the small bath in the flat as she has cervical spondylosis. She states that she requested at this time that the bath be replaced with a walk-in shower. This Service has not been provided with evidence of the landlord’s response to this request and whether a date for these works had been proposed.   

7.  When the resident moved into the property in August 2020 she was unhappy to see that the works to the bathroom had not been completed. She advises that she was told by the landlord that the request had been raised and that, in the meantime, she could use the shower in the guest accommodation located on the ground floor. The guest accommodation was also used by family members of residents and visitors. 

8.  The resident reports that she chased the landlord for updates regarding the shower installation after she moved into the property but she did not receive a satisfactory response. This service has not been provided with copies of this correspondence. However, documents provided by parties show that she did follow this up with the landlord in May and June 2021 and while the landlord assured her that this was being followed up, when she did not receive any further update she raised a formal complaint on 16 July 2021.

9.  In the resident’s complaint she stated that she was disappointed with the lack of communication from the landlord regarding her shower installation and she was frustrated as she had gone to great effort to chase this up with no satisfactory response. As she was not able to use her bath, she had no option but to use the shower in the guest accommodation on the ground floor of the scheme from the date that she moved into the property in August 2020. She said she felt embarrassed having to pass through the communal areas in order to have a shower. Further, when the guest accommodation was booked she had no access to the shower. She said that on one occasion she had to go without a shower for nine days which she found upsetting and humiliating. Although she has since been told that the works would start the following week she had yet to be informed of a date. The resident said that she had recently had a fall and as a consequence her health had been further impacted.  

10. The resident received an email from the landlord on the 26 July 2021 informing her that works would be starting on her bathroom that morning and that they should be completed in four days. She was informed that the bathroom in the guest accommodation would be available all week for her to use pending completion of the works. In response the resident said that, while she was happy that the shower was being installed, she had not been given notice and felt she had very little time to prepare for the works to start that day.

11. On 30 July 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to report that, four days into the job, the contractor told her that the shower had not been installed to specification and that it would need to be stripped out with a new replacement shower installed. She reported to the landlord that she was upset about the further delays and that the contractor had been rude to her.

12. On 31 July 2021, the resident sent a further email to the landlord to inform it that a manager from the contractor’s firm had visited her to explain why the shower that had been installed that week had to be removed, to apologise for the conduct of the other operative and to assure her that work would begin again on Monday 2 August 2021 as agreed.

13. On 1 August 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to report that her bathroom had flooded and there was a problem with the flush mechanism on her toilet as water was no longer filling up in the cistern. She explained that she had to use the communal toilet on the ground floor on three occasions during the night and had to use the guest shower that morning. The resident said that she felt very upset by the experience and was feeling unwell and in pain.

14. On 2 August 2021 the resident received an email from the landlord apologising for the situation and enquiring if the operative had arrived that morning to complete the works. The resident responded to advise that the operative had arrived that morning. She said that she had been upset by the approach of the landlord who had not communicated with her or offered her support. 

15. The following day the resident contacted the landlord to report a data breach as the landlord had left a voicemail informing her of the provisional start date of the works for the shower installation on her neighbour’s phone in error.

16. On 3 August 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to enquire about the progress of her complaint. It is unclear from the records provided whether she received a response.

17. On 19 August the landlord wrote to the resident apologising for the data breach explaining that this was because the resident had called the landlord using a neighbour’s mobile phone and this number had been logged as the resident’s number in error. The landlord assured the resident that this had been raised with the customer relations team as a training issue. 

18. On 26 August 2021 the landlord issued its stage one complaint response in which it:

  1. Apologised for not contacting the resident in response to her emails of the 30 July and 1 August and explained that the relevant officer’s working days were Monday to Thursday and that she contacted the resident when she returned to work on Monday 2 August. 
  2. Advised that the data breach had been referred to the in-house data protection team who had responded to the resident directly. 
  3. Outlined that the works started on 26 July 2021 and had been planned for five days to be completed on 30 July however, due to an error by the contractor, it was decided that the works would need to be restarted on the following Monday 2 August. The works should have been completed by 6 August. No further details were provided by the landlord in the complaint response as to why the works needed to be started again.
  4. Apologised if the resident felt that her concerns had not been dealt with in a timely or effective manner. 

19. The resident asked for the complaint to be escalated on 30 August 2021 as she did not feel that her complaint had been dealt with satisfactorily, particularly in relation to the lack of communication from the landlord.

20. On 27 September 2021 the landlord issued its stage two complaint response in which it:

  1. Apologised for the delay with the complaint response and for issues raised by the resident in relation to the replacement bathroom.
  2. Explained that the relevant team had been informed in early 2021 of the need to replace the resident’s bathroom as it had been missed from the previous Asset Investment Programme.
  3. The team had advised that the works were to be added onto their delivery programme for the financial year of 2021/2022, which would mean that expectations for delivery would have been by the end of March 2022 to complete the works. 
  4. There had been no service failure as the works had been completed and within the financial year of 2021/2022.
  5. Acknowledged that there had been a data breach when a message for the resident was left on her neighbour’s voicemail but advised that any messages had been followed up in writing. 
  6. There had been issues during the shower installation but the contractor had met with the resident to apologise and the works had been completed within a couple of days of being highlighted.  The works were completed as of early August 2021. 

21. On 7 October 2021, the resident sent an email to the landlord in response to its stage two complaint letter.  She said that she had moved into the property on the assumption that the shower would be installed before she moved in and was dismayed when this did not happen as she had relocated to a new area in order to take up the tenancy. She was subsequently informed that the request had not been actioned and it would have to be added to the next financial year. The resident also raised concerns about the landlord’s communication and the problems since the shower installation including problems with the shower tray and the taps in the bathroom. The landlord responded on 23 October to inform the resident that she had reached the end of its complaints procedure and she was signposted to this Service or to the landlord’s Independent Customer Complaints Panel. 

22. On 8 November 2021 the resident requested an independent review of her complaint which she followed up on 26 November 2021. The resident withdrew her request the following day on 27 November 2021 and advised that she would instead be making a referral to this Service.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

23. Since the works were completed the resident has raised with the landlord that the shower tray fills with water and floods her bathroom floor every time she uses it which increases the risk to her of falls. The resident has also reported that the taps in the bathroom sink are faulty. While this Service acknowledges the resident’s dissatisfaction, as this matter had been raised with the landlord only at the conclusion of the complaints procedure, this matter cannot be considered as part of the investigation. This is because, in the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation must be limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint outlined at paragraph one above. The landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. The resident would therefore be advised to address this issue directly with the landlord so it can be progressed as a new formal complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a walk-in shower to be installed in her bathroom.

24. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:

  1. Be fair
  2. Put things right
  3. Learn from outcomes

25. This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

26. From the landlord’s records it appears that all the bathrooms in the scheme were replaced as part of planned works for the year 2019/2020. The resident’s bathroom was not replaced however as the previous tenant did not wish for the works to go ahead at that time.

27. The resident reports that she first mentioned to the landlord that she would need her bath replaced with a shower when she came to view the property in June 2020. No works were raised by the landlord to carry out a bathroom refurbishment during the void stage. When the resident moved into the property in August 2020 she states she was informed by the landlord that her request for a walk-in shower had not been actioned due to a staffing change and it would instead be added to planned works for the next financial year.  No records have been provided by landlord or resident for this period and as a result it is unclear what was agreed regarding the shower installation. The landlord has advised it does not have any documents or records on file from this time regarding the resident’s health needs or the extent of them.

28. The landlord’s internal documents dated January 2020 record that the resident’s bathroom had not been replaced as part of the bulk renewal for 2019/20 programme but that as the property was being relet that this would be added  to the next planned works year for 2020/2021. The landlord’s internal correspondence show that works for the next financial year are considered in the autumn of the preceding year and that any works agreed after the autumn meeting would need to be included as an addition to the list of works. The correspondence suggests that this was not done and that no records were available to evidence why this did not happen.

29. The records do indicate that some of the planned internal works may have been cancelled for the year 2020 to 2021 in response to the Covid-19 pandemic while others were cancelled due to budgetary constraints. The resident’s bathroom renewal was then added to the 2021/2022 programme to commence April 2021 to March 2022. It was later decided that the works would be undertaken by the repairs team rather than the planned works section. A job was raised with them in June 2021 and works were undertaken in July 2021 and completed by the 6 August 2021.

30. Planned works are works that are scheduled to take place at defined intervals and can include bathroom or kitchen renewal or works to communal areas. As the bathroom renewal had been missed from the year 2019/20, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to add this to the works schedule for the following year 2020/2021 when the flat became available for relet. 

31. While it is evident that this may not have been actioned in error, even if the landlord had added the bathroom renewal to the works schedule for 2020/2021 when the flat became void, the works may have been delayed because of the Covid-19 pandemic which caused a backlog repairs works across the sector. Further, extra precautions would have had to be taken in retirement housing schemes where some residents may have been elderly or clinically vulnerable and therefore at higher risk regarding virus transmission.

32. The Ombudsman acknowledges the challenges faced by landlords in delivering services during the pandemic which resulted in a backlog of repairs and renewal works causing delays throughout the sector. Although far from ideal, in this instance the landlord arranged for the resident to have access to a shower in the guest accommodation while she was waiting for the works to be completed. It is noted, however, that the shower was not always available for the resident’s use which meant that she sometimes was not able to wash for several days. This was upsetting for the resident and impacted her mental wellbeing. Further, there is no evidence that the landlord completed a risk assessment of the resident’s health needs to determine whether the guest bedroom was an appropriate temporary solution or that other alternatives were considered for the resident such as a temporary move to another flat. If other options were not available at the time, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to prioritise the resident’s daily access to the guest bathroom over other guests, pending the completion of the works to her bathroom and it is regrettable that this was not facilitated. 

33. As noted above, is unclear from the records provided by parties the full extent of the resident’s medical issues, when they had been reported to the landlord and how they affected her. If it had been flagged with the landlord that a resident’s health condition significantly impacted her mobility it would have been good practice, and in line with its Aids and Adaptations Policy, for the landlord to support the resident to request an Occupational Therapist assessment to decide whether she met the criteria for adaptations in the property. If so a referral could have been made to the local authority for funding. It is noted, however, that this course of action may not necessarily have resulted in the works being undertaken at an earlier stage given the impact of the pandemic overall on repair and renewal works as discussed above.

34. In these circumstances, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to ensure that a resident was given clear information about timescales for works. If delays are anticipated, a resident should be given a clear explanation for any delays and adequate notice should be given of when works are due to start. The records provided by parties show that the resident had been given conflicting information as to why the works had been delayed and while she was told that her enquiries were being followed up with the relevant departments, an update was not forthcoming. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to provide the resident with updates to reassure her that the works were in hand and to manage her expectations. It was not reasonable for the landlord to fail to keep the resident informed and she was put to time and trouble in following this up. The resident has expressed how upset she was about having to use the guest bathroom and having to go without a shower when the guest accommodation was in use. The uncertainty about when the works were to be completed would have added to her frustration.

35. When the landlord became aware of the date that the works were due to commence, it should have taken due care to ensure that this information was passed to the resident. This service has been informed that a voicemail message was left for the resident with details of when works were due to commence, however this message was left on another resident’s mobile phone voicemail in error. This was later reported as a data breach and investigated appropriately with the landlord providing assurances that this would not happen again. 

36. It would have been good practice for the landlord to write to the resident in advance to notify her of when the works were due to start. While the landlord has advised that it had done so, a copy of the letter has not been provided to this Service. The resident’s emails to the landlord reveal that she had not been notified in advance that works were due to commence on 26 July 2021. She would, no doubt, have wanted to prepare her home in anticipation of the works starting and make arrangements to minimise the disruption to her day and she was not afforded this opportunity.

37. The resident has said that she was most upset about the landlord’s “lack of sensitivity, communication and empathy to my needs”. Effective communication would have gone some way to alleviating some of the resident’s concerns. Opportunities were missed to provide the resident with updates which led to her losing confidence in the service. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to offer the resident compensation in recognition of its communication failings and the distress and inconvenience she had experienced. In recognition of the detriment caused to the resident, therefore, the Ombudsman considers that an amount of £350 should be paid to her in order to satisfactorily resolve this aspect of her complaint.

The installation of the shower

38. In relation to the works, it is noted that the works were started on 26 July 2022 and completed on 6 August 2022. It was initially anticipated that the works would be completed by 30 July 2022 however it was discovered after four days that the contractor had not completed the works to specification and the installation had to be removed with the works to start again. The resident reported to the landlord that the operative was rude to her and that this had upset her.

39. A manager from the contractors visited the resident at home on the 30 July 2022 to apologise to her for the operative’s conduct and for the mistakes with the installation. He gave assurances to the resident that the works would start on the next working day (2 August 2022) and would be completed by the end of that week. It was appropriate for the contractor to visit the resident to apologise to her and to explain the reasons for the delays and it appears that this offered some comfort and reassurance to the resident. The works were restarted on the next working day and were completed within the agreed timescales. 

40. Although the issues with the shower installation caused inconvenience and distress to the resident, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the contractors apology and prompt action to put right the works amounted to reasonable redress in the circumstances. As noted above, the resident has since reported problems with the shower tray but as this has not been raised as a complaint to the landlord, this Service cannot consider this as part of the investigation. A recommendation for the landlord to liaise with the resident regarding these works has been included below.

Complaint handling

41. The landlord’s stage one complaint response was unreasonably delayed by 25 days. The landlord’s policy states that a complaint response should be provided within 14 calendar days and that this can be extended to 20 working days if agreed with the resident in advance with an explanation for the delay. No evidence has been provided to this Service that an extension was agreed with the resident and no apology or explanation was offered for the delay in the complaint response. A complaint’s procedure should be applied consistently and fairly. If a landlord is to depart from the complaints procedure, they should provide a resident with a reasonable explanation for doing so. A failure to keep to timescales outlined in the procedure with no explanation will impact detrimentally on a resident’s confidence in the service. While the landlord offered an apology to the resident for delays in responding to her concerns, the landlord’s communication with the resident was not explored or addressed in the complaint response despite being raised by the resident in her complaint letter. 

42. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 30 August 2021 and the landlord’s response was sent on 27 September 2021 which was 14 days outside of the timescales outlined in the landlord’s complaints procedure. An apology was offered by the landlord with an explanation for the delay, which was a reasonable response as it acknowledged that it had failed to respond to the resident on time. However, the wider issue raised by the resident in relation to poor communication were, again, not addressed by the landlord. The resident was put to time and trouble in escalating her complaint and referring the matter to this Service as her concerns regarding the landlord’s communication had not been addressed. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, encourages landlords to set out it’s understanding of the complaint and clarify the outcomes the resident is seeking. This approach provides a framework to ensure that all aspects of the resident’s complaint are covered in the complaint response. It is the Ombudsman’s view that as the landlord neglected to consider the wider communication issues raised by the resident in her initial complaint and escalation request, this constitutes service failure for which redress is warranted. This service considers that compensation of £100 should therefore be awarded to the resident.

  Determination (decision)

43. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s request for a walk-in shower to be installed in the property’s bathroom.

44. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, redress was offered to the resident prior to investigation in respect of the installation of the walk-in shower which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

44. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling.

 

Order

45. Within four weeks the landlord is to write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.

46. The Ombudsman orders that within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £450 comprising:

  1. £350 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its service failures regarding its handling of her request for a walk-in shower;
  2.  £100 for its ineffective complaints handling.

Confirmation should be provided to this Service once this payment is made.

Recommendation

47. The landlord should investigate the issues raised by the resident in relation to the shower tray and her bathroom taps and advise her of any remedial action and timescales. It is recommended that the landlord bring in a contractor within the next four weeks to review the function and safety of the residents shower tray, and ensure remedial or replacement works as recommended by the contractor are carried out within this timeframe.

48. The landlord to review its communication processes with residents as to planned works and repairs. 

49. The landlord should ensure that it adheres to its own complaints procedure and ensure that all relevant staff are aware of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.