Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Sanctuary Housing Association (202120335)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120335

Sanctuary Housing Association

25 May 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 handling of:
    1. Repairs to the resident’s flooring.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a flat within a communal building. The resident appointed a representative to liaise with the landlord on his behalf during this complaint investigation. For ease of reference, both the resident and his representative will be referred to as ‘the resident’ throughout this report.
  2. The resident signed the tenancy agreement for the property on 4 February 2021. On 2 March 2021, the landlord received a petition from a number of residents regarding the floorboards in their properties being noisy. A surveyor attended the resident’s property on 6 May 2021 and informed the landlord that the floorboards were “some of the noisiest floorboards”, they had ever heard. The landlord agreed to complete the repairs to the property following this visit to reduce the noise.
  3. On 6 June 2021, after holding discussions with the resident’s representative, the landlord agreed to allow the resident usage of the ‘guest house’, which the resident subsequently moved into on 22 June 2021. This was due to the resident having anxiety about the noise being caused to his neighbours, from his floorboards. The representative told the landlord that the noise made the property “uninhabitable” because it was so loud.
  4. On 2 November 2021, the landlord contacted the resident to apologise for the delays in completing the floorboard repairs. The landlord informed the resident that it had requested the wrong contractors to attend the property but had since referred the work to the correct contractor. It stated that the repairs would likely be completed at the end of November 2021. The resident was unhappy with this timescale as he said the property was ‘uninhabitable’ and, therefore, requested a complaint be logged. The resident wanted the work to be completed within two weeks, requested compensation for the delay and asked for a carpet to be fitted by the landlord.
  5. The landlord contacted the resident on 15 November 2021 and verbally offered compensation of £150 due to the delayed repairs. The landlord also explained that it would not be able to fit carpets in the property as this was the resident’s responsibility. The resident did not accept this offer and, therefore, the complaint was escalated to stage two of the landlord’s internal process. On 16 November 2021, the landlord emailed the resident confirming this escalation.
  6. On 7 December 2021, the landlord issued its stage two complaint response. The landlord apologised that the resident did not receive a written response at stage one of the complaint process. The landlord said it appreciated the inconvenience caused by temporarily moving out of the property; however, the resident was provided with alternative accommodation which had superior facilities. Therefore, the rent charges for that period would remain. The landlord also stated that it is not its responsibility to carpet residents’ properties and it had made the resident aware of this prior to signing the tenancy agreement. Therefore, it would not consider installing a carpet. However, it stated that the length of time taken to complete the repair and the communication was not of the standard expected. In light of this, the landlord offered compensation of £550; this consisted of £150 for delays in recording, acknowledging the complaint and no formal written response and £400 for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  7. On 8 December 2021, the resident emailed the landlord stating that he had only received one written response from the landlord rather than two responses and therefore they would expect the landlord to carry out a further review before issuing a final written response to the complaint.
  8. On 13 December 2021, the landlord stated that it had sent the acknowledgement to the resident directly. The landlord stated that despite telephone calls not being kept for an extended period of time, the notes stated that the resident did not accept the £150 compensation and, therefore, the complaint would be escalated to stage two of the landlord’s process. No evidence was provided to this Service that the resident responded to this communication.
  9. In the resident’s referral to this Service, the resident has stated that the landlord is abusing the complaints system and had lied about the process. The resident stated that he could not move around his flat due to the loud floorboards, which has impacted his mental health. He advised that the offer of £150 compensation was insulting and further to that, the landlord would keep that compensation due to rent arrears that were not the resident’s fault. The resident requested that the rent between June to November 2021 be refunded, with further compensation on top of that refund for distress and inconvenience.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it aims to complete repairs within 28 days and at the appointment time originally agreed with the resident.
  2. The landlord’s compensation policy states that, where a property is found to be habitable but the resident is concerned that their individual situation or vulnerabilities mean that the property is not habitable or safe for them, housing officers will be asked to assess the household needs and the works required to make a final decision as to whether a decant should be arranged. However, if a resident remains in their property and is not decanted [temporarily moved], compensation will be offered.
  3. The landlord’s compensation policy states that when the landlord has made an error which affected the resident, compensation for time, trouble and inconvenience will be offered, taking into consideration both the impact that the service failure has had, and the effort the resident has needed to make for the issue to be resolved. Payments of up to £400 may be made in recognition of the service failure. Examples of ‘high effort’ on the resident’s behalf are:
    1. High volume of letters, emails or calls required to resolve an issue.
    2. Needing to involve external agencies such as the Housing Ombudsman.
  4. The landlord will also consider the impact on the resident. Examples of ‘high impact’ on the resident due to a service failure are:
    1. Excessive delays to works being carried out or issues being resolved.
    2. Preventing a customer from enjoyment of their home.
  5. The compensation policy also states that the landlord will consider compensation for poor complaint handling where there is evidence that a complaint has not been handled in accordance with the complaints policy and procedure. Offers will reflect the effort made by the resident in order to resolve the issue, and the impact that this has had on the resident. Payments of up to £150 may be made in recognition of time, trouble and inconvenience.
  6. The landlord’s complaint policy states that, once a complaint has been reviewed, the landlord would encourage a response verbally wherever possible.
  7.  The policy also states that, the landlord aims to propose resolution to the customer within 10 working days at stage one of the complaint process and within 20 working days at stage two of the complaint process. All complaints will receive a written response, either by email or letter at both stages of the process.

Scope of investigation

  1. This Service is aware that the resident complained about being provided an incorrect form for universal credit, which he has said subsequently led to him having rent arrears. There is no evidence that the resident’s concerns about this issue has exhausted the landlord’s internal complaint procedure. As this is a separate issue to the complaint raised with the Service, this is not something that the Ombudsman can adjudicate on at this stage, as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to these issues before the Ombudsman becomes involved. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise or escalate a separate complaint through the landlord’s complaints process if these issues are still outstanding and have not yet been resolved.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s flooring.

  1. As above, the landlord’s repairs policy states that it aims to complete repairs within 28 days. The landlord agreed to complete the repairs on 6 June 2021. However, the work was not completed until 12 November 2021, five months after agreeing to replace the floorboards. Therefore, the landlord did not complete the repairs within its own timescales.
  2. As a matter of good practice, landlords are expected to keep residents informed about the progress of repairs and if any delays had occurred and the reasons why. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord informed the resident of the delays to the repair until 2 November 2021, when it found that it had sent the repair request to the wrong contractor. This was not evidenced in the communication provided to this Service. Therefore, the landlord has not acted within good practice, as it did not keep the resident informed about the delays.
  3. In the landlord’s stage two complaint response it offered the resident £550 compensation. This comprised of £150 for the delay in recording and acknowledging the complaint, and for not providing a written response. A compensation offer of £400 was made for the time, trouble and inconvenience due to the delays in repairs. The landlord also apologised for the inconvenience and distress caused by the delayed repairs and delayed complaint responses.
  4. The landlord has acted in accordance with its compensation policy and offered the maximum amount of compensation for these issues, which reflects the impact of the errors on the resident. The landlord has also offered an apology for the inconvenience that occurred as a result of the delayed repairs and delays during the complaint process.
  5. Although the landlord followed its compensation policy, the Ombudsman is not bound by this and we have also considered our own remedies guidance (published on our website) which sets out our service’s approach to compensation, when assessing the landlord’s offer. The remedies guidance suggests that the Ombudsman may award between £250 and £700 in cases where there has been considerable service failure or maladministration, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant. Examples include failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs and serious failures but which have already been recognised and resolved by landlord, including redress for actual financial loss. In this case, there were considerable delays in the landlord carrying out repairs and failures in complaint handling. These were serious failures which have already been acknowledged and addressed by the landlord through its complaints process.
  6. The landlord’s compensation policy states that compensation for distress and inconvenience will only be paid to residents if they decide to stay in the property and refuse to be decanted (temporarily moved). This would be paid on a percentage basis, per room that was unavailable. The resident has requested for the landlord to waive his rent for the period of time he did not live in the property and also add further compensation on top of this. The resident’s rent arrears at the time when the complaint was referred to this Service were approximately £800. The landlord rejected the resident’s request for this level of compensation, as it had provided the resident with alternative suitable accommodation during the repairs. Therefore, the landlord has acted in compliance with its compensation policy and, subsequently, would not be responsible for waiving rent for the period of time where the resident had been provided with alternative accommodation.
  7. The Ombudsman understands that there was also an extended period of time between the repair issue being reported and the resident being moved from the property. The resident has asked the landlord to waive or reduce the rent for this period as he has said the property was uninhabitable due to the excessive noise from the flooring. It is not disputed that the floorboards were noisy and in need of repair. However, this in itself would not usually mean the property was uninhabitable. In line with industry best practice, a property would generally be said to be uninhabitable if it lacks basic facilities for washing, sleeping etc or if it is unsafe to be in. A property may be in need of significant repairs but not be regarded as uninhabitable. In this case, the property could be seen as uninhabitable if there were evidence to confirm that the noise was so excessive that it would pose a significant risk to the resident’s health. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence to confirm this and the surveyor who attended the property did not report to the landlord that it was uninhabitable, although it is acknowledged that he said the floorboards were very noisy. On this basis, the landlord would not be expected to issue a rent refund.
  8. It is acknowledged that the repair issue and delays in resolving this would have caused significant inconvenience to the resident, particularly as he was living in the property while it was in need of repair. This has been considered when looking at financial compensation, as explained above.
  9. The resident has also requested that a carpet be installed by the landlord as a means of compensation. Typically, in-line with the tenancy agreement, residents are responsible for the internal decoration of the property including the installation of carpet. In the evidence provided to this Service, the landlord did not agree to install carpet at the property. It also informed the resident prior to signing the tenancy agreement that the property was not carpeted and this would be the resident’s responsibility to fit carpets and not the responsibility of the landlord. There is no obligation for the landlord to provide this as a resolution to the complaint and it was reasonable for the landlord to offer financial compensation instead, for any errors. The resident has the option of putting the financial compensation towards the cost of fitting a carpet if he wished to.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

  1. In communication with this Service and the landlord, the resident expressed dissatisfaction of the landlord’s complaint procedure stating that the landlord ‘abused the complaint system’ and did not provide written responses.
  2. The landlord’s complaint policy states that, once a complaint has been reviewed, it would encourage a response verbally wherever possible; however, it also states that all complaints will receive a written response, either by email or letter at both stages of the landlord’s complaint process. The landlord contacted the resident on 15 November 2021 to provide its stage one response; this was done verbally over the phone. Whilst this response was partially in–line with the landlord’s complaint handling policy, it should have provided a written response to accompany the verbal response in line with the Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code – which can be found on our website – which states that landlords must confirm their decision, in writing to the resident at the completion of each stage of the complaint process. Therefore, the landlord did not comply with the Code or its own complaints policy at stage one of the complaints process, as it did not provide written response. However, in acknowledgement of this failing, the landlord apologised for this and increased its overall compensation offer to reflect the inconvenience caused. The landlord did provide a written response at stage two of its process which allowed the resident to refer the matter to the Ombudsman for independent review, Therefore, although the lack of a written response at stage one would have caused inconvenience to the resident, the level of inconvenience was not significant as the landlord did carry out a review of its stage one decision and the resident was not delayed or prevented from taking the matter further because of this error.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaints  about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s flooring and the landlord’s complaint handling satisfactorily.