Sanctuary Housing Association (202109211)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202109211

Sanctuary Housing Association

27 September 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. Damp and mould at the property and associated repairs.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.
3. Physical and mental health issues experienced by the resident.

Jurisdiction

What we 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.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
1. Physical and mental health issues experienced by the resident.
Part of the complaint to the landlord and the Ombudsman includes a claim that the landlord is responsible for effects to the resident’s physical and mental health.
Paragraph 39 (i) of the Scheme says that: “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure”.
The Ombudsman does not have the authority to determine physical and mental health issues or liability or award damages in the way that the courts can. If the resident wishes to pursue these aspects of the complaint, he should seek independent legal advice.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord at the property, a one-bedroom flat and is subject to the terms and conditions of the tenancy agreement. The landlord is a Housing Association.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints policy. The policy requires that the complainant is kept updated throughout the complaints process. If the resident makes a complaint at the first stage, the landlord should respond within 10 working days. If the resident is dissatisfied with the response, the resident can request a review of the decision and the landlord should aim to provide a response within 20 working days.
Under the tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible for the repairs and maintenance of the internal walls, floors and ceilings, major internal plasterwork, skirting boards, sinks, basins, baths and heating and water heating equipment that was provided by the Landlord.
Under the tenancy agreement it is the responsibility of the resident to ensure that all rooms at the property are properly ventilated to help prevent condensation. If there is any condensation, it is the resident’s responsibility to wipe it down and clean any surfaces when necessary to prevent mould build up or damage to the property or its fixtures and fittings.
Under the landlord’s responsive repairs policy it aims to perform emergency repairs within 24-hours, minor day to day maintenance within 28 days and planned works within three months of it being reported.
Under the landlord’s compensation policy it can make a compensation payment to a resident for their time, trouble and inconvenience where it has failed to follow its policies and procedures leading to a delay or inaction; that there was a lack or delayed responses to inquiries or it provided incorrect information.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that where appropriate it would compensate the resident £2 per-day for running a dehumidifier.

Summary of events

On 9 February 2021, the resident contacted the landlord in relation to the aging condition of the bathroom at the property and made an enquiry about the installation of a shower.
On 2 March 2021, a telephone inspection of the resident’s property was carried out by a Maintenance Surveyor who confirmed that the bathroom suite appeared to be aged and that a physical inspection would need to take place. It was also determined that the plastering and skirting board in the bathroom and living room needed to be inspected.
On 8 March 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and informed it that there was a possible leak coming from under his bath, he advised that he had washed away mould but it was returning at an alarming rate. The landlord repairs records show that urgent works were booked for 15 March 2021.
On 13 March 2021, the resident contacted the landlord in relation to the suspected leak and stated that the issue with the mould had grown worse and was informed by the landlord that repair works had already been booked. The resident reported further heavy moisture around the electric heater and sockets and told the landlord that he would have to sleep in the living room due to mould and insufficient heat.
On 15 March 2021, the landlord’s contractor attended the property and it was discovered that the overflow had become disconnected under the bathtub causing water to leak underneath and soak the area. The contractor repaired the issue and highlighted that more extensive renewal works needed to be performed in the bathroom.
On 22 March 2020, the team contacted the resident and advised that two dehumidifiers would be supplied in an attempt to improve the damp issue. It also booked an electrician to visit the property to assess the electrical sockets and radiator and assess the need for a dehumidifier in the bathroom.
On 23 March 2021, the resident contacted the landlord and asked as part of the bathroom renewal that a larger hot water cylinder be installed.
On 24 and 25 March 2021, an electrician attended the resident’s property and deemed that no moisture was getting into the sockets and that the radiator should be switched back on to aid the drying process. The resident was supplied with one dehumidifier and the contractor raised issues regarding the damp bathroom floor tiles and stated that they could be asbestos.
On 25 March 2020, the resident contacted the landlord about the damaged tile in the bathroom and advised that due to mould in the bedroom he was sleeping in his living room and that the bathroom had insufficient functioning facilities (which had been superficially rectified), meaning that he had to go to a family members house to properly bathe. He raised that when he had contacted the landlord, there was confusion among its staff members about what had and had not been reported.
On 26 March 2021, the resident contacted the landlord and advised that the second dehumidifier was not dropped off at the house as planned.
On 29 March 2021, the landlord delivered a second dehumidifier to the property however it was deemed to be missing a part. The resident said that he contacted the landlord and was spoken to in an inappropriate manner by a member of staff.
On 29 March 2021, the resident made a formal stage one complaint to the landlord in relation mould and damp issues at the property and associated repairs. The resident provided a chronology and highlighted that there had been confusion about what repairs needed to be performed at the property and that he was unhappy with the overall repair experience. He raised that he wanted help seeking clarity and getting his home back to a normal and an acceptable living condition. The complaint included a breakdown of repair issues raised and how they had been dealt with including potential asbestos.
On 31 March 2021, the resident contacted the landlord and stated that he was unhappy with the repairs progress and the landlord stated that it needed to perform a physical inspection however this was not possible at the time due to Covid-19 pandemic and government regulations.
On 9 April 2021, a surveyor attended the property and made a number of recommendations which included the installation of fans in the bathroom and kitchen, the relocation of the bedroom heater and replacement skirting boards in both the bathroom and the kitchen. The surveyor identified damp in the resident’s bedroom and recommended that the dehumidifier be moved into the bedroom.
On 9 April 2021, the landlord contacted the resident and apologised for the inconvenience that he had experienced in relation to his complaint. It advised that his complaint had been logged and it provided a reference number and highlighted that once the repairs had been completed it would investigate offering compensation.
On 28 April 2021, the landlord contacted the surveyor and agreed to perform all recommended works at the property which included repairs to the kitchen unit, assessment of the hot water system, plastering, bath works, installation of new fans, electric heater and thermostat. Emergency repairs were raised in relation to the bath and heating.
On 30 April 2021, the landlord stated that emergency repairs to the bath had been performed and it was waiting on a quote for the electric heater in the bedroom and had given the contractor two working days.
On 12 May 2021, following an asbestos inspection asbestos was removed from the bathroom at the property. The landlord also provided the resident with a list of carpentry, plumbing and electrical works to be performed.
On 13 May 2021, on the advice of specialist surveyors the landlord cancelled scheduled plastering work at the property due to dampness.
On 17 May 2021, the landlord contacted the resident and confirmed the list of repairs and set a date of completion for 30 June and 1 July 2021.
On 24 May 2021, the landlord issued the resident with its stage one response and advised that the resident’s matter had been referred to its senior surveyor for review. It advised that works were already arranged for 30 June and 1 July 2021 and it had spoken with the Maintenance Surveyor about the works that are to be carried out.
On 24 May 2021, the resident asked for his complaint to be escalated.
On 21 June 2021, the landlord issued the resident with its final stage two response and addressed the following:
1. It apologised for the distress, inconvenience and time and trouble that the resident experienced in chasing repairs works at the property.
2. It noted that planned works were scheduled for 13 and 14 May 2021 however they had been cancelled. It also highlighted that there was a differing view between it and the resident’s contractor in relation to the plastering works. It advised that it had relied on the expertise of its professional in making the decision.
3. It apologised that the resident was informed that a shower could be installed at the property but upon further investigation it discovered the cost of the installation was too high and was not something that could be offered.
4. It apologised to the resident for his dissatisfaction with the quality of works and the lack of professionalism shown from operatives and it accepted that due to the delays to the repair works the resident had been unable to install flooring and settle into the property. The landlord offered the resident £150 for the inconvenience caused for the time it had taken to resolve the repairs issues.
5. The landlord offered the resident £25 for the delay in providing a formal response at stage one of the complaints process.
6. The landlord offered the resident reimbursement for the cost of running dehumidifiers at the property at a rate of £2 per-day-per dehumidifier. It offered £70 for the cost of one dehumidifier from 25 March to 28 April 2021 and £92 for the cost of two dehumidifiers from 6 May to 28 May 2021.
On 23 June 2021, the resident contacted the landlord and stated that he was unhappy with its final response and provided clarification on a number of issues. He raised that it was the surveyors who disapproved of the operative’s findings and that it was inexcusable that this was the landlord’s excuse for why works could not be carried out on 13 and 14 May 2021. He highlighted the distress and inconvenience that was caused due to the works having to be rescheduled and also raised further concerns about issues in relation to his front door and that the landlord had originally said that he would receive £3 per day for the dehumidifier.
On 25 June 2021, the landlord contacted the resident and increased the amount of compensation offered including:
1. £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.
2. £10 in recognition of a missed appointment and stated that the total of the new offer was £397.
3. It noted that consideration was given to the resident’s front door but stated it would not be included in this complaint as it was at its final stage.
4. It apologised if the resident had previously been advised that dehumidifier costs would be reimbursed at a rate of £3 per day, however, the landlord advised it checked its policies associated with the use of a dehumidifier and its compensation rate was £2 per day.
5. It highlighted that its response may not fully reflect all conversations that the resident may have had with the individual operatives that had attended his home but it highlighted that this was not intended to dismiss any issues raised as there was some clear confusion.

Assessment and findings

Damp and mould at the property and associated repairs.

The resident raised issues of a potential leak at the property on 8 March 2020 which had caused mould and damp to appear within the bathroom. The landlord has an obligation under its repairs policy to make the appropriate repairs within 28 days of it being reported by the resident. It is clear from the evidence provided that the landlord responded in a reasonable timeframe and an urgent repair was booked for 15 March 2020 in line with the landlord’s repairs obligations.
The resident contacted the landlord on 13 March 2021 and reported that the damp and mould issue had got worse. A contractor attended the property on 15 March 2021 and performed repairs to an overflow pipe but highlighted extensive further works were required to update the ageing condition of the bathroom. The landlord appropriately provided the resident with dehumidifiers to combat the condensation at the property however there were a number of issues in relation to the number of dehumidifiers that were needed and issues with the landlord’s service delivery. The landlord advised the resident that a physical inspection of the property would be needed to establish what planned works were required; however, due to government Covid-19 guidelines this could not be performed at that time. The landlord appropriately offered the resident £162 for the running of the dehumidifiers for the period which was reasonable and in line with the £2 per-day-per-humidifier compensation amount highlighted in its compensation policy.
Contractors inspected the property on 9 April 2021 and a list of works was advised, the landlord took a resolution focused approach and agreed to perform all recommended works. Works were scheduled for 13 and 14 May 2021 however they were cancelled due to damp plasterboard. The resident raised that it was not only due to damp plasterboard, but also due to conflicting opinions of the works required; however, the landlord is entitled to rely on the opinion of its contractors when making decisions in relation to repairs.
The landlord apologised to the resident for his dissatisfaction with the quality of works and the complaint handling from its operatives and it acknowledged that due to the delays to the repair works the resident had been unable to install flooring and settle into the property. The landlord appropriately offered the resident £200 in recognition of distress and inconvenience caused due to the cancellation of the works and the subsequent delays. The landlord also offered the resident a further £10 for its missed appointment in May 2021 for a total of £372 compensation offered for this part of the complaint.
Overall, the landlord took a resolution focused approach and had the initial leak inspected and performed the recommended works in line with professional recommendations. The landlord acknowledged that there were delays in the associated repairs being performed and that its complaint handling was not always approprate however it offered the resident compensation totalling £372, which was proportionate to its failures and sufficient put things right.

The landlord’s complaints handling

There were acknowledged failures by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s complaint at stage one of its complaints process and it offered him £25 compensation. The documentation provided shows the initial formal complaint by the resident was made on 29 March 2021 and the landlord supplied a formal response on 24 May 2021. This represents a one month delay however given that the landlord had communicated with the resident throughout this period and offered £25 compensation the action taken by the landlord was reasonable to compensate for its acknowledged failure.
There was no failure at stage two of the landlord’s complaints process.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55 of the Scheme, there was an offer of reasonable redress by the landlord in respect to the resident’s complaints about:
1. Damp and mould at the property and associated repairs.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delay with respect to the handling of the repairs and offered an amount of compensation which this Service has assessed as being sufficient to put right its failures.
The complaint handling by the landlord was not in line with its policies and procedures at stage one of the complaints process. The landlord acknowledged its failure and offered the resident £25 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. This was appropriate to compensate for its failure.

Orders and recommendations

If it has not already been paid, the landlord should reoffer the resident the previously offered £397 compensation for its acknowledged failures.