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

Sanctuary Housing Association (202127230)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202127230

Sanctuary Housing Association

25 November 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. The resident’s reports of several repair issues, including damage to the guttering, flooring, several doors and a stop tap leak.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
  2. The resident raised several repairs to the landlord using its comments and complaints form. It does not seem that these reports were handled as complaints, as in most cases, it was the first time the resident had reported the issues so the landlord responded to the issues as repair requests rather than formal complaints. In an internal email on 17 March 2022, the landlord stated that the resident had advised she wanted to raise a complaint due to outstanding repairs to the stop tap leak and guttering. In her complaint escalation, the resident raised additional concerns regarding internal doors that had been removed, and that the stop tap cupboard door had been removed, leading to damage to the flooring from the leak. She said the landlord had cancelled several appointments, and its 8am-8pm appointment timeframe was impractical as she had to take her children to school.
  3. In the landlord’s final response to the complaint, it stated that there were clear delays to completing repairs to the guttering, doors and flooring. It also acknowledged that it failed to communicate clearly or provide regular updates on the progress of the works. It also apologised for delays in resolving a leak from the stop tap. It offered £400 compensation for the overall time and inconvenience caused to the resident. It also offered £50 in recognition that repairs to the guttering were still outstanding, with the view to complete the works by 31 May 2022, which it stated it could review if there were further delays.  
  4. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, she asked for the landlord’s handling of repairs to the stop tap cupboard door, the stop tap leak and the guttering to be reviewed. She said she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her reports of repair issues and the quality of the works. She stated that she reported multiple leaks before the stop tap was replaced and the leaks caused damage to her flooring. She was also dissatisfied with the time taken to resolve issues with the guttering, as she had initially reported it in 2019.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The landlord investigated and responded to several issues through its complaints procedure. However, the resident has subsequently confirmed to this Service that the only issues she wanted the Ombudsman to review were the landlord’s handling of repairs to the guttering, flooring, stop tap cupboard door and the number of stop tap leaks. As the landlord has offered compensation for delays in completing repairs to the guttering, internal doors and the flooring, this report will also assess the landlord’s handling of repairs to the internal doors. This is to ensure that we comprehensively assess the landlord’s overall offer of compensation. Other issues investigated in the landlord’s original complaint have been considered to be resolved, and will not be investigated within this report.

Policies and procedures

  1. In accordance with the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for repairs to guttering, installations for the supply of water, floors and doors.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is responsible for repairs to the flooring when floorboards are loose, but the resident is responsible for decorations within their property.
  3. The landlord’s repairs policy states that emergency repairs will be made safe within 24 hours and appointed repairs will be completed within 28 days.
  4. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will pay compensation if repairs are not completed within its published timescales, due to the landlord’s failure in its actions or inaction.

 

The landlord’s handling of the repairs

  1. In this case, it is not disputed that there were delays in completing certain repairs. In its final response to the complaint, the landlord identified that there were significant delays in completing repairs to the internal doors, flooring and guttering. It offered a total of £450 compensation in view of this. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman assesses whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  2. The Ombudsman’s approach to compensation is set out in our Remedies Guidance (published on our website). The Remedies Guidance suggest that the Ombudsman many award between £100 and £600 in cases where we have found there was a failure by the landlord which adversely affected the resident. In this case, the landlord’s offer of compensation was reasonable as it was in line with what the Ombudsman would have ordered the landlord to pay if it had not already made an offer.
  3. While the compensation has been determined as reasonable for the failings identified by the landlord through its complaints, additional issues have been identified and further compensation is warranted in view of these issues.  As the landlord has collated the compensation for several repairs, the reasonableness of the compensation offered will be addressed collectively at the end of the report.

Guttering

  1. As outlined in its repairs policy, the landlord is responsible for repairs to the guttering so it should assess issues reported by the resident and complete any required repairs to this area. In the landlord’s complaint response on 3 May 2022, it acknowledged that the resident reported defective guttering on 14 August 2021 and that the works were still outstanding. Therefore, it was reasonable that the landlord offered compensation for the delay in completing the works, as set out above.
  2. However, the landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns that she had been reporting issues with the guttering since 2019. The landlord’s repair records show that the resident had reported guttering issues on 26 November 2019; as such, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to assess its actions from that date, due to the increased impact of the length of time the repair had been outstanding. That said, the landlord’s communication records show that the resident only chased the repair once on 20 January 2020 and there is no indication that the resident had reported a direct impact on her of the broken guttering during this time. As a result, the impact on the resident, including for time and trouble caused by chasing the repair, was limited. Regardless, the landlord had an obligation to adhere to its repair responsibilities from the date the repair was initially reported and the delay in fixing the guttering from 2019 onwards was not acceptable.
  3. In its final response to the complaint, the landlord offered £50 as a goodwill gesture, on the basis that repairs to the guttering would be completed by 31 May 2022 and it stated this amount would be reviewed if there were further delays. The landlord informed this Service that the repairs were completed on 12 October 2022, meaning it significantly exceeded its promised completion date. The landlord demonstrated that it initially took sufficient steps to adhere to its intended timeframe as a temporary repair was completed on 18 May 2022 and the landlord informed the resident that it was waiting for a quote to complete the additional works.
  4. The landlord attempted to complete the repair on 31 May 2022, thus in line with its proposed timeframe; however, the contractor reported they were unable to access the property on this date. In accordance with the tenancy agreement, the resident is responsible for providing access for repair appointments. It is noted that the resident disputed that she denied access, as she stated the contractor had advised the repairs could be completed while she took her children to school. This is of particular concern as the landlord stated as part of the complaint resolution that it would ensure appointments were arranged to avoid school run times. The landlord should ensure that it continues to comply with any arrangements made as part of the complaint resolution. As the resident had advised the landlord she had not refused access, the landlord should have taken steps to reschedule the appointment.
  5. There was a significant delay in rearranging the appointment, as the landlord advised this Service that the works were scheduled for 18 August 2022, and further delays due to staff annual leave meant the works were not completed until 12 October 2022. As a result, there was an additional delay of over four months, which the landlord has not considered additional compensation for, despite stating it would in its final response to the complaint.
  6. Overall, the landlord acted appropriately by acknowledging the delays in completing the repairs to the guttering between 14 August 2021 and 3 May 2022 when it issued its stage two response. However, it failed to acknowledge the resident’s reports that she initially reported the issue in 2019 and it did not consider additional compensation despite the  further delays following completion of the complaint’s procedure. As a result, additional compensation is warranted, which is outlined later in this report.

Doors

  1. The resident reported repair issues with the bedroom and living room doors on 2 March 2021 and the landlord initially acted in line with its repair timeframes as a contractor removed the damaged doors on 1 April 2021. However, there were subsequently significant delays, with several failed and missed appointments, which meant the doors were not replaced until 30 March 2022.
  2. In this case, there were appropriate reasons for the delays in installing the doors, as the landlord explained that there were issues with availability of materials, due to the impact of COVID-19 on its suppliers. There were also appointments that had to be rescheduled due to operatives’ illness and the landlord experienced difficulties contacting the resident to rearrange the appointment. Although the landlord did not have control over all the reasons for the delay, it was still reasonable that it acknowledged the inconvenience this caused to the resident.
  3. If there are appropriate reasons for the delays, the landlord should complete the repairs as soon as possible, assess whether interim solutions are appropriate and provide updates to the resident regarding the progress of the works. The landlord promptly removed the damaged doors, so it ensured there were no safety issues, although there were further repairs needed. Additional interim solutions would not have been possible in light of the delays in obtaining the new doors. However, the landlord failed to clearly communicate the reasons for the delays to appropriately manage the resident’s expectations regarding the timeframe for completing the works. This is particularly evident as it arranged several appointments without having the required materials to complete the works.  In light of the inconvenience caused to the resident due to the time taken to complete the repairs to the doors, compensation was warranted, which again, will be assessed below.

Stop tap leak

  1. The landlord initially acted in line with its repair obligations in relation to the stop tap leak reported by the resident on 13 March 2022. As it was reported to be containable, it was reasonable that a routine appointment was raised. In its complaint response, the landlord stated the resident subsequently reported on 15 March 2022 that she had to turn the water off at the mains to stop the leak. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord contacted the resident following her report to reassess the condition of the leak. As a result, there was a missed opportunity by the landlord to identify that the repair should have been handled as an emergency at an earlier date, causing a delay of three days before it tried to arrange an emergency repair.
  2. The landlord took steps to arrange an emergency appointment on 18 March 2022, but the resident stated she was not available to be at the property, and the landlord acted reasonably by advising her to call when someone was at the property to allow access. The resident re-raised the issue on 21 March 2022 but the contractor reported that the resident did not allow access to the property. The repair records show an appointment was attended on 23 March 2022, to resolve the issue.
  3. In accordance with the tenancy agreement, the resident is responsible for providing access to the property for repair appointments, so the landlord would not necessarily be responsible for the delays caused following 18 March 2022. It is understood that the resident was dissatisfied with the time of the appointment on 21 March 2022. However, as the contractor arrived within three hours of her report, the time was not considered to be unreasonable. As the landlord tried to arrange an emergency appointment on three occasions, it took reasonable steps to complete the repair.
  4. In her complaint to this Service, the resident stated that she was dissatisfied as she had previously reported several leaks, before the landlord replaced the stop tap. In its stage one complaint response, the landlord addressed the previous leaks and stated the resident had reported leaks on 30 June 2021 and 17 August 2021 and it had completed the repairs within one working day on both occasions. This meant the landlord responded in line with its response timeframe for emergency repairs, as set out in its repairs policy. While it is acknowledged that the multiple repairs may have caused inconvenience to the resident, there is no evidence that any follow-on works were identified by the contractor and there was a significant gap between the initial reports of leaks in 2021 and the more recent leak reported in 2022, so it appears the recurrent leaks were unforeseen. Therefore the landlord is not at fault for the issue reoccurring as it took reasonable steps to resolve the issue each time it was reported.
  5. Although the landlord largely handled the leak appropriately and in line with its repair obligations, it has not acknowledged its failure to reassess the condition of the leak following the resident’s report that she had to turn the water off at the mains. As a result, there was a missed opportunity for it to learn from the outcome of the complaint. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have identified the importance of clear communication with the resident to ensure it has an accurate description of the repair issue to categorise it correctly, so that the resident receives the appropriate level of support. This failing has been considered when awarding additional compensation below.

Flooring

  1. The resident reported on 17 July 2021 that the leak from the stop tap had caused damage to the flooring. There was a subsequent delay in the landlord addressing the issue, and it advised the resident on 17 August 2021, that it would assess the flooring, but the floor covering would be her responsibility. In the landlord’s complaint response, it advised a contractor attended on 28 September 2021. There were then two appointments on 6 October 2021 and 2 November 2021 where the operative reported that they were unable to gain access to the property. There was also a cancelled appointment on 18 October 2021 as the contractor stated the previous job took additional time, which could not necessarily have been predicted or controlled. There is no further evidence to suggest that the resident chased the issue with the flooring until she raised the formal complaint. The landlord advised in its stage two response that the work had been completed on 30 March 2022. 
  2. Generally, after a no-access appointment, the resident would be advised to contact the landlord to rearrange the appointment, and there is no evidence to suggest she did so. However, the landlord advised in its complaint response that it was unclear whether the resident had been informed of the appointment. This meant there were potential communication issues that may have caused a delay in completing the repairs. As a result, it was appropriate that the landlord identified the issue and compensated for the length of time taken to complete the repair (the reasonableness of its offer will be assessed below).
  3. The resident raised concerns following the completion of the complaints process regarding the quality of the repair to the flooring. The landlord has advised this Service that there was a no-access appointment to assess the flooring tiles on 24 May 2022 and a further appointment had been booked for 1 September 2022. This Service has not been provided with information regarding the outcome of the appointment. The landlord should ensure that it manages the resident’s expectations about its repair responsibilities regarding the flooring and that it completes any remaining repairs that it is obliged to.

Compensation

  1. The landlord acted appropriately by acknowledging its delays in handling repairs to the doors, guttering and flooring and awarding £450 compensation. This was reasonable for the delays identified, as in line with this Service’s remedies guidance, compensation of £100-£600 is appropriate in cases where there has been a failure, which has adversely impacted the resident.
  2. However, the level of compensation is not considered proportionate given the additional failings outlined in this report. In line with this Service’s remedies guidance, compensation of £100-£600 should be awarded in cases where the landlord has made some attempt to put things right, but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified in our investigation. In view of the additional failings including the historical and further delays in handling the guttering repairs and the landlord’s failure to identify the stop tap repair as an emergency at an earlier date, an additional £150 compensation should be awarded. This is due to the increased impact on the resident that has not been identified by the landlord, including additional time and effort pursuing the guttering repairs and inconvenience caused by the stop tap leak.

 

Complaint handling

  1. The resident has provided evidence that she initially tried to raise a complaint with the landlord on 24 August 2021. However, the landlord did not acknowledge it nor issue a response. There is no evidence to suggest that the resident subsequently chased the complaint until she re-raised it on 17 March 2022. The landlord then issued its stage one response on 19 March 2022. Although there was not necessarily time and trouble caused to the resident in pursuing the complaint, there was a missed opportunity to address some of the issues at an earlier date. The landlord should therefore review its staff training requirements to ensure that complaints are logged and responded to appropriately.
  2. This Service’s Complaint Handling Code (published on our website) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations of landlords’ complaint handling practices. In accordance with the Code, the landlord is expected to address all points raised by the resident in a complaint, and provide clear reasons for its decisions. In this case, the resident raised concerns with her kitchen cupboard doors, as her children were able to access the energy meter and stop tap, and she raised safety concerns due to the sharp edges. In its stage one response, the landlord advised it had scheduled an appointment for 19 May 2022 to repair the cupboard doors.
  3. However, the landlord did not address additional concerns raised by the resident in her escalation within its stage two response. The resident raised concerns regarding the length of time taken to complete the repair as she had initially reported the issue on 14 August 2021. Although the landlord advised of an appointment date, it has not demonstrated that it considered the impact on the resident or acknowledged its failings. As a result, the landlord failed to address all the points raised by the resident or properly utilise its two-stage complaint procedure to consider the additional concerns raised by the resident. Furthermore, as the issue did not complete the complaints process, it is unclear whether it has been resolved.
  4. In accordance with this Service’s remedies guidance, awards of £100-£600 are appropriate in cases where the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings or tried to put things right. In this case, the landlord failed to address all the points raised in the complaint and it missed the opportunity to raise the complaint at an earlier date. As a result, the landlord should pay the resident £150 compensation. The landlord should also ensure that it contacts the resident so she has the opportunity to raise any outstanding concerns regarding the stop tap and meter cupboard doors and it should complete the required repairs, if this has not been done already. 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in the way it handled the resident’s reports of several repair issues, including damage to the guttering, flooring, several doors and a stop tap leak.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in the way it handled the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. In light of the failings identified in its handling of the repairs, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident an additional £150 compensation.
  2. As a result of its failings in handling the complaint, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £150 compensation.
  3. If it has not done so already, the landlord should pay the resident £450, as offered in its final complaint response.
  4. The landlord should ensure that it completes any outstanding required repairs to the flooring and the meter and stop tap cupboard doors.
  5. The landlord should ensure that it provides evidence that it has paid the resident a total of £750 and completed any outstanding repairs, within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended the landlord reviews its staff training requirements regarding its repair procedure, specifically to ensure accurate communication with the resident and that it provides regular updates.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its staff training requirements regarding complaint handling, in light of the issues identified in this report.