The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Sanctuary Housing Association (202205092)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205092

Sanctuary Housing Association

27 October 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 about the landlord’s:

a.     handling of repairs to paving slabs.

b.     response to the resident’s request to carry out repairs to a dividing fence.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant. The property was built and the tenancy started in 2016. The resident has a permanent and substantial disability, which adversely affects her mobility.
  2. The property is accessed via 2 short footpaths. The first footpath leads to the front door of the property and a second footpath leads to the rear gate. The first footpath joins a longer shared footpath, which leads to the road. All 3 footpaths are constructed of paving slabs. The property also has a rear patio, which is partly slabbed. At the rear, a 6ft wooden fence divides the property from a neighbouring property. The fence is supported by wooden fence posts.
  3. In early November 2021, the resident reported loose and uneven paving slabs to the front and rear of the property. The resident also told the landlord that fence posts supporting the dividing fence had rotted, causing the fence to become unstable.
  4. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 23 November 2021. The resident said:

a.     She had reported loose paving slabs to the landlord on countless occasions. While all the paving slabs around the property were loose, the landlord was only carrying out spot repairs. The paving had not been correctly installed by the developer. Wet ground was causing the slabs to move. The resident said she had raised the issues with the paving with her occupational therapist (OT).

b.     The dividing fence had fallen down because the developer had not considered that the property was built on a flood plain, and the area was prone to strong winds. The posts had not been set into concrete and there were no metal stakes, which had caused the fence posts to rot. In the past, the resident had arranged for 2 fence posts to be cemented in. However, she had not previously been aware that the posts were actually rotten. She appreciated that maintenance of the fence was her responsibility. However, on signing for the tenancy, she had expected the property and its fencing to be well built and long lasting. The landlord should have made sure the fence was installed correctly.

c.      To remedy the complaint, the resident wanted the landlord to repair the fence. Furthermore, upon advice from the OT, the resident wanted the landlord to lift all the paving slabs and relay them.

  1. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 29 November 2021. The landlord said that it was investigating the issues raised with relevant teams, following which it would provide its stage 1 response. The landlord emailed the resident 3 times between 13 December 2021 and 12 January 2022, explaining that it was still waiting for responses from relevant teams.
  2. On 12 January 2022, the resident said that she was dissatisfied with the way the landlord was handling the complaint. The resident wanted the complaint escalated to stage 2.
  3. The landlord gave its stage 1 response on 19 January 2022. The landlord:

a.     Acknowledged that the resident wanted the complaint escalated to stage 2. It would escalate the complaint to stage 2 if the resident remained dissatisfied after considering the stage 1 response. It apologised for the delay in resolving the resident’s complaint and for inconvenience caused.

b.     Said it had carried out a property inspection, during which it had identified some wobbly paving slabs. It attended the property on 10 January 2022, with the intention of carrying out paving repairs. However, these works were placed on hold, pending further recommendation from the resident’s OT.

c.      Confirmed that the resident was responsible for maintenance of the dividing fence, in accordance with the tenancy agreement.

d.     Offered £50 compensation, in recognition of inconvenience caused. It offered a further £50 compensation, in recognition of delays completing works.

  1. The resident emailed the landlord on 24 January 2022, to escalate the complaint to stage 2. The resident said:

a.     She signed a tenancy agreement in good faith, that the property had been built correctly and was safe. 

b.     She had given the landlord a copy of the OT report, which stated that all of the paving needed to be laid correctly for her safety.

c.      She had carried out 2 repairs to the fence since taking on the tenancy. The developer did not take into consideration that the property was built on a flood plain when it installed the fence. The fence posts had rotted because they were not set into concrete, nor were they supported by metal stakes.

d.     To remedy the complaint, the landlord should repair the fencing. The resident felt that the landlord’s offer of compensation did not reflect the stress she had been caused.

  1. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 26 January 2022. The landlord said that it could only investigate matters which occurred 6 months prior to the complaint being raised. It said this was in accordance with its complaint policy.
  2. The landlord gave its stage 2 response on 21 February 2022. The landlord said:

a.     No repair issues were identified about the fencing at its 12–month defect inspection on 1 June 2017, at which the resident was present. The landlord had since inspected the fence following the resident’s reports. In its opinion, damage to the fence had been caused by strong winds. The landlord had already confirmed that the fencing was the resident’s responsibility. In view of this, the resident’s complaint in regard to the fencing was not upheld.

b.     It had inspected the pathways on 22 November 2021, following which it raised a works order to attend to 6 paving slabs. On 26 November 2021, the resident asked its repairs operative to re–bed all of the paths. The landlord put all pathway works on hold pending contact from the OT. The landlord had obtained a copy of the OT report from the resident on 12 January 2022. It said it had been unable to evidence receiving this report directly from the OT. Works to the pathway had been ordered on 20 January 2022, the scope of which were further extended to reflect advice from the OT. Its repairs planners were in the process of arranging the appointment.

c.      Increased its offer of compensation to £125. This comprised £50 for inconvenience and £75 for delays in completing works to the pathway.

  1. The resident responded to the landlord’s stage 2 response on 26 February 2022. The resident repeated that rotting fence posts contributed to the fencing falling over in strong winds. The fence had not been installed correctly by the developer. The developer did not consider that the property was built on waterlogged clay soil. While the resident felt that the developer was responsible for the issue, it was the landlord who had signed the property off. She had accepted the tenancy agreement in good faith. The resident said that there was no inspection of the fence at the 12-month defect inspection. The resident questioned how the landlord expected a resident to know if a fence had been installed correctly, without digging around the fence posts.
  2. The resident told this Service on 20 October 2023, that to resolve the complaint she wanted the landlord to repair the fence and find a permanent solution to stop the paving slabs from moving.

Assessment and findings

Tenancy agreement, relevant policies and procedures

  1. The tenancy agreement sets out the repair obligations of the landlord and the resident. The landlord was obliged to maintain and where appropriate, keep in proper working order any communal area. The resident was required to keep any paved area forming part of the tenancy, in good repair and condition. The resident was also responsible for keeping garden fences in good repair, and for their replacement where necessary.
  2. In accordance with landlord’s repairs procedure, the landlord aims to complete all non-emergency repairs within 28 days.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to paving slabs.

  1. Since the development was open plan, any land to the front and side of the property was likely to be under the control of the landlord. As such, this Service has assumed that maintenance of the 3 pathways serving the property fell to the landlord. However, responsibility for maintenance of the rear patio would have fallen to the resident, as this was located within an enclosed garden forming part of the tenancy.
  2. The resident reported loose and uneven paving slabs to the front and rear of the property on 1 November 2021. A works order was booked for 26 November 2021 to “attend and rectify”. However, the landlord later arranged a pre-inspection, after the resident told it on 8 November 2021, that she had fallen on the pathway 4 months earlier. The landlord’s decision to pre-inspect the pathway was sensible, considering the resident’s mobility issues, and to satisfy itself of the adequacy of repair works it had itself instructed.
  3. It is unclear what date the pre-inspection was carried out. The repair logs indicate that the pre-inspection was carried out on 17 November 2021, while the stage 2 response suggested it was carried out on 22 November 2021. At this inspection, the landlord noted 2 slightly wobbly paving slabs on the path leading to the back gate. Inside the garden, it noted 4 slabs that needed lifting and re-bedding onto concrete spots. Evidence provided by the landlord indicates that there were no raised edges that exceeded 2mm – 5mm. A works order was raised to lift and re-lay the 6 slabs. In view of the resident’s repair obligations, it is unclear why the landlord agreed to attend to the 4 paving slabs in the rear garden. Nevertheless, the landlord’s decision to incorporate this work within the scope of works, was of benefit to the resident.
  4. The landlord’s records indicate that the landlord attended the property on 26 November 2021 and 10 January 2022, to lift and relay the6 paving slabs. The landlord’s records for both dates state that on arrival, the resident asked the landlord to lift and relay all of the paving slabs around the property (estimated to cover an area of40 square meters). The landlord placed works on hold, pending sight of an OT assessment, which the resident said she had sought. It was reasonable for the landlord to refuse to complete works that were more extensive than was reasonably required. However, the landlord should have carried out a risk assessment before deciding to place all works on hold, particularly as the resident had fallen previously on the pathway. This Service can see no good reason why the landlord could not have, as a minimum, completed the specific repairs it had instructed. This would have eradicated any immediate risk, pending further consideration.
  5. The landlord has an aids and adaptations procedure, which reminds staff that it has a duty to ensure that residents are not exposed to a risk to their health and safety as a result of the property or services it provides. Furthermore, its staff should consider whether a resident faces a risk from their current arrangements and whether that risk would be reduced or eliminated by adjustments. The landlord’s readiness to consider wider pathway works on recommendation from the OT, was consistent with its aids and adaptations procedure. It also showed that the landlord was giving the matter the attention it deserved.
  6. On 12 January 2022, the landlord collected a copy of a historic OT report from the resident, which was dated 2 March 2020. The OT report recommended that the landlord re-lay uneven paving slabs to the front and rear of the property. It also suggested that the landlord consider finding a more permanent solution, to avoid repeat referrals in the future. There is no evidence that the landlord received a copy this report in 2020. However, after obtaining a copy of the report on 12 January 2022, the landlord took reasonable steps to consider and act upon the OT’s recommendations. This included:

a.     Carrying out an inspection on 20 January 2022, to consider what further works were required.

b.     Raising a works order on 26 January 2022, to re-bed loose paving slabs at the front and rear of the property with concrete.

c.      Providing further clarification to its operatives on 10 February 2022, that works include the whole of the front path, and any slabs that were not already bedded on concrete.

d.     Extending the works order on 14 February 2022, to include a paved ramp in the resident’s rear garden, following a further communication from the OT.

e.     Updating the resident on 21 February 2022, that an appointment would be made to complete instructed repairs.

  1. It is not for this Service to determine whether repairs carried out to the pathways offer a permanent solution. However, the landlord is required to regularly inspect the pathways and take appropriate action thereafter. To reassure the resident and better manage her expectations, the landlord should explain its intended approach to managing the 3 pathways. The landlord should also clarify its repair obligations in connection with the rear patio.
  2. It is not in dispute that there was inconvenience caused to the resident. The landlord also acknowledged there were delays completing repairs. The landlord recognised this and offered compensation in line with its compensation policy. Therefore, in regard to the landlord’s handling of repairs to paving slabs, this Service finds reasonable redress.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to carry out repairs to a dividing fence.

  1. It is not in dispute that the resident was required to maintain the dividing fence. The resident had repaired the fence at her own expense on 2 occasions prior to making the complaint. It is understandable that the resident looked to the landlord for a longer-term solution, after further repairs to the fence became necessary in 2021. The resident said it was unfair to expect her to keep repairing the fence if the developer had installed it incorrectly. The resident said that the landlord should have ensured that the fence was fit for purpose before it accepted handover of the property.
  2. It has not been possible to establish based on fact, how the fence should have been installed by the developer, since this Service has not seen a copy of the contract specification for the development. However, the landlord’s case notes following its inspection state that the fence was erected in accordance with the contract specification. As such, it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude that maintenance of the fence was the resident’s responsibility. Although the landlord told the resident that no issues had been identified at the 12-month defect inspection, it did not explain that it had also reviewed how the fence had been installed. The landlord’s failure to fully address the resident’s concerns about the installation of the fence was unreasonable. This left the resident feeling unheard and perpetuated a feeling of injustice.
  3. While the fence may have been installed according to a contract specification, it is the opinion of this Service, that it would be unusual for a new fence to require repairing with such regularity. This Service considers it reasonable for the landlord to revisit whether the type of fence and method of installation was fit for purpose, when taking into account known environmental factors. A recommendation is therefore made in this respect.
  4. This Service finds service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to carry out repairs to a dividing fence.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s handling of repairs to paving slabs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to carry out repairs to a dividing fence.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must pay compensation of £50 in recognition of the distress caused to the resident, in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to carry out repairs to a dividing fence.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should reoffer the £125 compensation it previously offered to the resident if it has not already paid it. This compensation is in respect of the landlord’s handling of repairs to the paving slabs.
  2. The landlord should write to the resident to explain its intended approach to managing the pathways in the future and clarify its repair obligations in connection with the rear patio.
  3. The landlord should revisit whether the type of fence and method of installation was fit for purpose, when taking into account known environmental factors. The landlord should consider taking appropriate steps thereafter dependent on its findings.
  4. The landlord should write to this Service to confirm its intention in relation to these recommendations within 4 weeks of the date of this report.