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

Sanctuary Housing Association (202123056)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202123056

Sanctuary Housing Association

4 July 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 claim for damages to reimburse her for the cost of her own contractors’ works to deal with damp and water leaking through her kitchen wall.
    2. The resident’s reports of outstanding repairs to deal with damp and water leaking through her kitchen wall.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the 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.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(r) of the Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
    1. The resident’s claim for damages to reimburse her for the cost of her own contractors’ works to deal with damp and water leaking through her kitchen wall.
  3. This is because, under paragraph 39(r) of the Scheme, this Service will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: “concern matters where the complainant is seeking an outcome which is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to provide.“ As we do not have the authority or expertise to determine liability for or award the payment of damages for residents’ properties in the way that a court or insurer might and the resident is seeking damages from the landlord for the cost of works to her kitchen wall, a determination will not be made on this aspect of the complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord of a ground floor flat.
  2. On 26 February 2021, the landlord’s records showed that the resident raised concerns with it regarding the condition of the interior of her kitchen wall. She was concerned that the wall was damaged and that units might fall off this due to damp and water leaking through the wall. A contractor was recorded by the landlord as having inspected the property on its behalf on the same day, and they concluded that the guttering there was the source of the damp and needed to be replaced. An appointment was noted by it as having been booked for 13 May 2021 to complete works to the resident’s kitchen wall and guttering. She called it on that date, however, to state that she expected the contractor to complete works to the guttering first, but that instead they had painted the kitchen wall.
  3. The resident further explained to the landlord in her stage one complaint of 13 May 2021 that, due to rain, the job was abandoned as the contractor found that this meant that her kitchen wall became wet again from the unresolved guttering, causing her walls to be half painted and “look terrible.” She also explained that, when it rained, water leaked into her property causing a safety issue due to the electrical plugs nearby. The resident stated that she had expected extensive work to be completed and not a “simple paint job”, and that the workmanship was “poor” and showed a “lack of respect”, stating that she had experienced historic issues with her kitchen wall since 2008.
  4. In the landlord’s stage one complaint responseof15 June 2021, it apologised that the resident’s kitchen wall was attended without it checking if her guttering had been repaired, which its records showed that it completed on 18 May 2021 and arranged to re-attend her kitchen for on 22 July 2021. It explained that it would inform its relevant department managers of this to use as a discussion with wider teams to improve future service. The landlord added that lessons would be learnt, and it offered the resident £75 compensation to reflect the repair delay and her inconvenience.
  5. The resident nevertheless said in her final stage complaint of 24 June 2021 that she was dissatisfied that the internal kitchen wall was assessed but not the guttering, despite her informing the landlord of her concerns for “years”. She was also “confused” as to how a paint job would fix the damp and water leaking in her kitchen. The resident added that she would hire her own contractors to repair the damp and water damage to her kitchen wall, and that she would expect to be reimbursed for the cost of this by the landlord accordingly, which she told it on 19 July 2021 that she had organised and cancelled its appointment for this.
  6. In its final stage complaint response of 22 July 2021, the landlord apologised to the resident that the operative that it had sent was unaware that works to the guttering were not completed, as it had expected its planning team to schedule works to her kitchen wall after its guttering contractor had attended. In future it agreed that it would instruct its planning manager to ensure that, when booking internal works, the planners checked that all other associated works had been completed first. The landlord also stated that it would remind its relevant teams to manage customers’ expectations regarding complaints. It advised the resident against hiring her own contractors, as it could not guarantee that she would be fully reimbursed, but it offered her £185 compensation for her inconvenience.
  7. The resident then confirmed to the landlord on 23 July 2021 that her own contractors had repaired her kitchen, and that she was dissatisfied with the offer of £185 compensation from it, as its handling of the damp and water leaking in her kitchen meant that she had to hire her own contractors. She explained that she had “lost trust” in the landlord to complete the necessary repairs and expected £3,500 for the cost of works from her contractors to be reimbursed.
  8. The landlord responded that it was unable to reimburse the resident for her own contractors’ works, as she had cancelled its appointment of 22 July 2021 to carry out work herself, not giving it the opportunity to assess the kitchen wall and arrange for repairs to be carried out. She therefore complained to this Service that the work that was done to her kitchen was “substandard”, and that it had several opportunities to resolve her concerns but did not do so via a surveyor.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. While the resident reports that she had previously raised the outstanding repairs to deal with damp and water leaking through her kitchen wall with the landlord since 2008, the scope of this investigation is limited to considering its handling of her reports about this in 2021. This is because, under the Scheme, this Service cannot investigate complaints about issues that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period of normally within six months of the matters arising, and her complaint about this was made in May 2021. It would also not be practical for us to investigate its handling of the resident’s reports prior to 2021 due to the lack of records of these.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs to deal with damp and water leaking through her kitchen wall

  1. Under the landlord’s repairs and maintenance group procedure, it is obliged to ensure that non-emergency repairs are completed within 28 calendar days of the appointment time originally agreed with the resident. Although this acknowledges that this is not always possible with specialist parts or contractors, for which it must provide her with updates and completion timescales. The landlord also has a responsibility under its repairs and maintenance group policy to “provide a repairs and maintenance service that: meets the high standards expected by service users”.
  2. The resident had a reasonable expectation under the landlord’s repairs and maintenance group procedure that she would receive a service that met its standards in response to her reports of damp and water leaking through her kitchen wall from 26 February 2021. It failed to provide this, however, when it failed to check whether repairs to the guttering that it had identified on that date were completed when it attended to paint the kitchen wall on 13 May 2021.
  3. The landlord should have instead followed its inspection of the kitchen wall and guttering by arranging these repairs in the correct order, given that it had found that the guttering was the source of the damp and water leaking through the wall. It did, however, then act suitably by repairing the guttering on 18 May 2021, informing its department managers of its findings from the resident’s complaint, and to use these for discussion to make improvements. This demonstrated a willingness from the landlord to learn from its mistakes.
  4. Although the landlord completed the guttering repairs 53 calendar days later than its repairs and maintenance group procedure’s 28-calendar-day repair timescale, as well as offering the resident further kitchen wall repairs a further 65 calendar days later on 22 July 2021, not all of these delays were unreasonable. This is because the procedure acknowledged that its repair timescale was not always possible with specialist parts or contractors, including for her guttering, for which it had to provide her with updates and completion timescales, and it did so by giving her the above dates for its guttering and kitchen wall repairs in advance.
  5. The landlord acknowledged that its planning team had failed to schedule works for the resident’s kitchen wall after its guttering contractors had completed their repairs at the property. It should have instead followed its repairs and maintenance group policy and monitored what works were due when and in which order. It was appropriate for the landlord to, however, have agreed to instruct its planning manager to whether other associated works were completed first before booking internal works appointments, as this further demonstrated its learning from outcomes.
  6. In addition, it was appropriate for the landlord to take proactive measures to ensure that future similar difficulties did not occur, such as by reminding its relevant teams to manage customers’ expectations regarding complaints and agreeing to use these to improve future performance. It should also have reviewed its staff’s and contractors’ training needs in relation to non-emergency repair communication and logging in light of the resident’s case, which has therefore been recommended below.
  7. Under the landlord’s compensation guidance, it can consider offering compensation for time, trouble and inconvenience due to its action or inaction. It offered the resident £185 in recognition of the inconvenience caused to her. The amount offered in its final stage complaint response was proportionate to recognise this, being in line with its compensation guidance’s recommendation that it award compensation from £151 for inconvenience having a high impact on her and requiring a high effort from her. The landlord has therefore been recommended below to re-offer the resident £185 compensation that it previously awarded her, if she has not already received this.
  8. In accordance with the landlord’s compensation guidance, it is not obliged to provide a reimbursement when the resident has instructed her own contractors to carry out works to her property without written consent or advice from it. She wanted to be reimbursed £3,500 for the cost of the works that her own contractors completed to her kitchen wall. Nevertheless, in line with the landlord’s compensation guidance, it was reasonable for it to decline to reimburse the resident for this, because she had not followed its advice that it could not guarantee that it could fully reimburse her for hiring her own contractors for works that it had made an appointment to complete itself.
  9. However, it would have been preferable for the landlord to have referred the resident to submit a liability insurance claim for its external insurers to consider reimbursing her, in accordance with its compensation guidance. This is given the amount that she claimed, and the fact that she also claimed that it was liable for damages as a result of it having not repaired the guttering and kitchen wall sooner when she had previously asked it to do so. The landlord has therefore been recommended below to provide the resident with details as to how to submit a liability insurance claim for damages to her property to reimburse her for the cost of her own contractors’ works, as well as to review its policies and procedures to clarify its position on this.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its handling of her reports of outstanding repairs to deal with damp and water leaking through her kitchen wall satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Re-offer the resident the £185 compensation that it previously awarded her, if she has not already received this.
    2. Provide the resident with details as to how to submit a liability insurance claim to it or its external insurers for damages to reimburse her for the cost of her own contractors’ works for its insurers to consider.
    3. Review its staff’s and contractors’ training needs in relation to non-emergency repair communication and logging in light of the resident’s case.
    4. Review its policies and procedures to clarify its position on responding to residents’ requests to arrange and be reimbursed for their own contractors’ works, including via referrals to its external insurers.