Sanctuary Housing Association (202115661)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202115661

Sanctuary Housing Association

9 December 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:
   1. Flooring in the property.
   2. A tree in the garden of the property.
   3. The shower at the property.

Background

2. The resident lives in a three-bedroom semi-detached house with private garden under an assured non-shorthold tenancy since 2012, following a mutual exchange. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident, but has referred to his partner as having medical issues.
3. Landlord records indicate that the resident was advised in December 2020 that the landlord would fit flooring, but not floor coverings. In June 2021, the landlord inspected and advised that no water damage had been found to the hallway floor. The resident submitted a complaint that month in relation to the flooring; he also complained about an overgrown tree and the shower at the property, which he said required the installation of a power shower, or a pump as the existing shower facility was not suitable for his partner’s needs.
4. No formal complaint response was issued by the landlord, though it responded to the resident’s concerns. It said that there was no evidence of water damage to the flooring, though it offered to fit a vinyl floor covering to the downstairs WC. The landlord also said that it would not install the shower improvements he had requested as the existing washing facilities were fit for purpose, though it would progress down an appropriate process should it be evidenced that household vulnerability demanded as much. Regarding the tree, the landlord said that it was no longer carrying out tree work unless a health and safety issue was demonstrated.
5. The resident remained dissatisfied and demanded escalation of the issue, resulting in a stage two response from the landlord on 2 September 2021. The landlord said that it was not responsible for flooring, and that the resident was advised of this when he mutually exchanged and there were no defects with the floor. It acknowledged that it had previously cut back trees at the property, but was satisfied that the resident had been made aware in 2012 that it was his responsibility to prevent trees from becoming overgrown. Further it said that an operative had attended in July 2021 and noted that the mixer taps in the bathroom were operational and not designed for use as a shower. The landlord said that on receipt of a referral from an Occupational Therapist, it would consider the resident’s request under its Aids and Adaptations policy. The landlord offered £75 compensation due to its poor complaints handling.
6. Following further contact from the resident, the landlord sent a further response a week later increasing the compensation for poor complaint handling and a delay in respect of a Subject Access Request (SAR) to £150. The resident advised he would accept £1,000 to avoid escalating the matter to this Service. The landlord maintained its position regarding the reported repairs. It said it would replace the flooring in the WC as a gesture of goodwill but was not responsible for flooring. It would not cut back the trees but if the resident wished, it could arrange the work and he could pay the cost via his rent account. It would not fund a shower unless there was a medical referral from OT.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

7. The resident has been paid compensation in respect of the poor handling of his initial complaint. This was not part of the complaint brought to this Service so is not investigated here, though this compensation has been referred to in the body of this report where contextually appropriate.

Flooring

8. The landlord’s online information relating to home insurance says that it does not insure contents of the resident’s home. The landlord insures the building against damage, which includes the structure. It further advises that contents insurance would include carpets or floor coverings. Online information relating to repair responsibilities for renters says that the tenant is responsible for internal decorations. It says the landlord is responsible for the structure of the building, including walls doors and ceilings. The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Procedure effective January 2020 refers to a ‘repair responsibility table’ , however this has not been provided. The mutual exchange letter dated 21 August 2012 lists items that the landlord is not responsible for and includes ‘floor coverings’ as well as curtains and tracks.
9. In this instance, the landlord inspected the property before the complaint was raised and advised that there was no damage to the floor of the property, but that the WC floor was damaged due to poor quality tiles and poor fitting. As a gesture of goodwill, it said it would fit some vinyl to the WC for the resident. It further said that if the resident did replace the flooring in the hallway and found damage which had not been seen to date, that he should contact it again. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman does not take a view on whether the floor was damaged as this is for the landlord’s expert staff to decide, only whether the landlord has responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns. This would usually entail attending the property and considering if a required repair was the landlord’s responsibility under the relevant policies.
10. The landlord has expert personnel who have made the finding that the structure of the floor is sound, and this Service has no basis for making a contrary finding. No evidence has been provided, and it is not suggested by the resident that the floor of the property is damaged, only that the floor covering, in this case laminate, is damaged.  The landlord’s policies indicate that it is responsible for the structure, but not internal decoration which would include flooring. Further the mutual exchange letter provided to the resident prior to moving into the property, states specifically that floor coverings are not the responsibility of the landlord.
11. It seems that the landlord had previously repaired flooring for the resident, and it is noted that it has offered to replace the vinyl in the WC. However, this does not mean there is any obligation on the landlord to do so again, or elsewhere in the property. In this instance, the resident was advised before moving in that the landlord was not responsible for the floor, and when the matter was raised by the resident he was advised again.
12. Although it is suggested that ‘Appendix 1’, referred to in the Repairs Policy would provide some more detail about what repairs fall to the resident or the landlord and this would have been useful, there is adequate evidence elsewhere to support the landlord’s position. There was some confusion when landlord staff said that they would obtain details of the building insurance, but this was clarified, and subsequently £150 compensation paid for the way the initial complaint was handled. There are no grounds to suggest that the landlord should replace flooring in the resident’s property in the circumstances presented. The resident’s belief that the landlord should pay is appreciated but would appear to be an assumption based on the landlord going beyond its responsibilities in the past.

Tree

13. There has been no evidence provided by the landlord which covers responsibility for trees in the resident’s garden. However, gardens and trees are not included in the online list of the landlord’s responsibilities. The landlord has said it was ‘satisfied’ that the resident was made aware from the outset of his tenancy in 2012 that it was his responsibility to prevent the trees from becoming overgrown. There is nothing to support this statement however, and the landlord may wish to avoid inferring that the resident was made aware of something without evidence. That said, the landlord has pointed to a change in policy whereby it would now only take responsibility for trees in cases where there is a risk to Health & Safety, which suggests that it did at some point in the past undertake this repair, whether it had responsibility or not.
14. The landlord has said that it has provided tree surgery services before, but as above this does not compel it to do so again. The landlord has offered to arrange for a tree surgeon and to add the cost to the resident’s rent account, which seems fair on all the circumstances. However, the emails between the resident and landlord suggest that the resident was asked to send photographs of the trees, and the resident stated he had already sent some ‘recently.’   There is no information to confirm that the resident sent further photographs, or the date of the previous photos sent. It would be reasonable if having discussed the matter and the landlord asking the resident to send a photograph, for the resident to send new photos. It is noted however that the landlord has stated that even if work is done of a health and safety basis, this would still be chargeable to the resident.
15. There is no evidence to support that the landlord is responsible for trimming or removing the tree in the resident’s garden. If it is decided that work does need to be done on a health and safety basis, the resident will be responsible for the cost of this, albeit the landlord has said this can be paid back via the rent account. Whilst this may be disappointing to the resident, there is no basis for an alternative outcome. The landlord has provided a resolution that will ensure that any health and safety obligations are met and the Ombudsman is therefore satisfied with how it has responded to this aspect of the complaint.

Shower

16. A previous Aids and Adaptations policy for the landlord states that the landlord will ‘‘seek the advice of an independent Occupational Therapist (OT) where necessary in determining whether work is required or if assistance is required to identify the most appropriate adaptation for a resident.’ However, the current policy provided  by the landlord and also online, says minor adaptations, (those costing less than £750  and include ‘lever taps to wash basins, sinks and baths’) will be considered on a case-by-case basis and are normally completed within 28 days of the date of request. There is an online application on the landlord’s website.
17. The policy goes on to say that major adaptations, those costing over £750,  are funded through the Disabled Facilities Grant via the local authority. The landlord says that ‘the starting point is to call your local authority. An assessment by an Occupational Therapist needs to be arranged. They will then visit you at home to assess your needs. Once the local authority has agreed to the funding, we will work with them to ensure that your major adaptation is completed as soon as possible’. It says that all residents can apply if a permanent member of their household has a long-term condition, are struggling with everyday activities and are restricted by their environment.
18. The landlord’s ‘repair responsibilities for renters’ information online says that the landlord is responsible for repairing bathroom equipment, including baths and showers.
19. In this instance, the landlord promptly sent an operative to the resident’s property, the tap was overhauled, and found to be fit for purpose. The landlord explained that the mixer tap attachment was not designed for use as a shower, but for use when sitting in the bath, or to rinse the bath. It is clear that the resident disagreed with this and his reasons for wanting a more powerful shower for his partner are understood. There are two issues which have been investigated in respect of this repair; the first is that as it stands, there is no evidence which suggests an obligation on the landlord to provide a particular type of shower. It has satisfied itself that the existing equipment itself works and it fit for purpose, and there are no grounds to indicate that it should do more in respect of the shower. The resident may have made assumption that the mixer tap is intended to function as a shower, but there is no evidence of the landlord having misled him in that view.
20. A separate issue is that the resident feels that the landlord should supply different equipment due to his wife’s medical condition. This may be the case, but as the landlord has said from the initial contact, it will respond to a referral from the local authority Occupational Therapist (OT). In the past, it seems the landlord took a more proactive position and contacted the local authority on the resident’ behalf, but the current guidelines do not obligate it to do so. The landlord has advised the resident on several occasion that he requires an OT assessment to be done. The resident has said that he is not in a position to pay for this, but it is not clear why the resident believes he should have to pay for this service, which would usually be free of charge. The landlord’s policy states that adaptation under £750 might include lever taps etc, and it is reasonable to assume that the fitting of a power shower or new boiler would be over that limit.
21. It is not clear if the resident has made any enquiry to the local authority for an assessment into his wife’s needs, but the landlord has directed him to do so on several occasions. Whilst it would be helpful if the landlord had reassured the resident that he would not have to pay for advice from the OT, there is no evidence to support that it was obligated to do so. The resident has not provided evidence he has paid the GP for a letter or that this was sent to the landlord, so in the absence of any proof of the resident’s wife’s needs, there are no grounds to support that the landlord is at fault in respect of the request for a shower to be fitted.

Determination

22. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response  to the resident’s reports about:
    1. Flooring at the property.
    2. A tree in the garden at the property.
    3. The shower at the property.

Recommendations

23. It is recommended that the landlord  follow up with the resident concerning the photographs he submitted and if necessary arrange an inspection of the tree and discuss with the resident how any works will be done and paid for.