Sanctuary Housing Association (202004745)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004745

Sanctuary Housing Association

14 January 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. Repair work to the resident’s property following a water leak in January 2020.
    2. The resident’s reports of a pest infestation in her property.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
  2. On 16 January 2020 a contractor attended to fix the resident’s immersion heater. Whilst carrying out work the contractor inadvertently caused a major water leak. They made safe that day. The landlord’s records show the leak damaged the hallway carpet, and landing.
  3. The resident reported an issue with the electrics on 19 January 2021. The landlord attended that day, made safe and decanted her (temporarily moved her to another property). The landlord also provided a dehumidifier and used a wet vacuum on the carpets. The resident returned to the property on 31 January 2020. The landlord’s records show it completed all repair work to the electrics on 3 February 2021. The landlord raised a work order on 5 March 2020 to collect the dehumidifiers. This appointment was postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The resident chased an update on the collection on 21 July 2020. She also reported the smell of damp and pests in the property.
  4. A surveyor attended the property on 23 July 2020. The landlord’s records show the surveyor recommended the landlord stain block the living room ceiling. They did not identify any pests in the property during this visit.
  5. On 5 August 2020 the resident reported that there were fleas in her property, and that she believed this was due to the leak. The landlord advised her to contact pest control services, and said it was not responsible for resolving this issue.
  6. The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord on 24 August 2020. She explained what happened in January 2020. She said when she returned from her decant, her house smelled of damp, and the landlord had not replaced her carpets or damaged wallpaper. She said the landlord had advised it would offer £20 for the increased electricity costs from the dehumidifier, but she had not received the money and the dehumidifier was still in her property. The landlord had told her the fleas were her responsibility to remove, but she believed they came about because of the damp conditions caused by the leak in January 2020. She asked the landlord to decant her whilst it organised pest control and removed and replaced all the carpet and flooring in her house (which were damaged due to the leak). She also asked it to remove the damaged wallpaper in the corridor (due to the leak), replace all the beds and mattresses in the property (infested with fleas), and issue her a written apology.
  7. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 24 August 2020. It apologised that it had not collected the dehumidifier. It said it would collect this once it was practically possible to do so. It explained that the pandemic had impacted its repairs service and reiterated that the resident was responsible for eradicating the pests.
  8. The landlord collected the dehumidifier on 8 September 2020.
  9. A surveyor attended the property on 28 September 2020. Following this, the landlord raised several work orders to adjust the kitchen door, renew the kitchen flooring, renew the extractor fan, and lift the landing carpets and re-fix the flooring. It found that these damages had occurred as a result of the leak.
  10. The landlord’s records show the landlord called the resident on 5 November 2020 to confirm an appointment for that day for the living room ceiling. The resident advised she was unavailable. The landlord rearranged the appointment for 14 December 2021, but the contractor was unable to gain access as the resident was unavailable.
  11. Pest control services attended on 24 November 2020 to carry out treatment. On 25 November 2020 the landlord and resident agreed for outstanding repair work to take place on 27 January 2021.
  12. Contractors attended on 27 January 2021. They carried out work to the extractor fan, ceiling, and kitchen door. The landlord’s records show they found that to replace the landing floorboards, they also needed to replace the carpet on the stairs. It is understood that the contractors postponed any further action as the resident did not want the carpets to be removed unless the landlord would replace them.
  13. The landlord’s records show it was unable to replace the kitchen or dining flooring as the area had not been cleared of furniture. The landlord rearranged the appointment for 18 April and 18 May 2021 respectively. 
  14. The landlord’s records show pest control closed down the work order on 2 March 2021 as they were unable to contact the resident to arrange another appointment.
  15. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 20 April 2021. It said all works had either been completed or arranged. It apologised for the issues she had experienced as a result of the leak. It offered her of goodwill gesture of £399. This comprised of:
    1. £63 for the hall carpet
    2. £36 for the bathroom flooring
    3. £50 for the inconvenience of the dehumidifier
    4. £150 for her time and trouble
    5. £100 for the time the complaint was open for.
  16. The landlord said the resident needed to claim under her home insurance for the beds, mattresses, and wallpaper. It concluded by explaining how the resident could escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied
  17. The resident escalated her complaint on 22 April 2021. She rejected the landlord’s offer of compensation. She said it had not understood the inconvenience caused from the leak. She reiterated that she did not receive reimbursement for excess electricity costs from the dehumidifier. She maintained that the fleas were a result of the damp conditions. She said the fleas had damaged her beds. She said the landlord’s offer of compensation did not fix her problems. She was dissatisfied that it had suggested she claim on her insurance for a problem it had caused.
  18. Contractors attended on 18 May 2021 to replace the kitchen flooring. They rearranged the appointment to 28 June 2021 as the area had not been cleared.
  19. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 24 May 2021. It said it had previously offered the resident £20 for the costs incurred to run the dehumidifier, but the resident had explained that she had not received the money. It said if she could provide evidence of her costs, it would consider any additional expenses incurred due to the dehumidifier. It reiterated that the pandemic had impacted its service, and that it had suspended all non-emergency work, like the collection of the dehumidifier. It said when restrictions were lifted there was also a backlog of work which impacted its timescale for completing work. It apologised for the delays and explained what its surveyor had found from their inspection on 28 September 2020.
  20. The landlord referred to the resident’s stage one complaint and the outcomes she had requested. It said treatment for pests was normally carried out without the need of a decant. It founds pests in its visit on 28 September 2020, and subsequently arranged for its pest control contractor to attend. It said that as a gesture of goodwill it had covered the resident’s laundry costs as she had said her laundry was infested with pests. It’s surveyor had confirmed that the leak had mainly affected the stairs. It had offered £63 for the hallway carpet, and £36 for the bathroom flooring. It had also agreed to replace the kitchen flooring. The original appointment for the flooring did not go ahead as it needed the floor to be cleared. It said it had arranged a new appointment for 28 June 2021. It needed the resident’s appliances to be disconnected and moved. It said it would make internal enquires to see whether it could assist her with this. It had accepted that the bathroom flooring, and hallway carpet had been damaged by the leak and had offered her reimbursement for the damages. It’s surveyor had confirmed that her wallpaper had not been affected by the leak. It would not replace her beds due to the fleas as it had arranged pest control treatment.
  21. The landlord issued a follow up stage two complaint response on 16 June 2021. It said it would help disconnect and move the resident’s appliances. It revised its offer of compensation to £544. It said this was in recognition of the high impact and the time and trouble the matter had caused the resident.
  22. The landlord’s records from 6 July 2021 show its contractors had confirmed that work to the floorings had been completed on this date.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s handling of repair work

  1. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that it can offer up to £150 compensation for poor complaint handling.
  2. The landlord’s repairs procedure defines an emergency repair as one which is necessary to remove a serious threat to the health and safety of the resident. The landlord will carry out appointed repairs (all which are not emergencies) within 28 days, and at a date which has been agreed with the resident. Its repairs handbook asks residents to move any belongings from an area of their property where the landlord is carrying out repair work.
  3. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord in August 2020. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response in April 2021. It is understood that the landlord delayed its complaint response as it wanted to complete all repair work before responding. It is the established view of this service that landlords should respond to complaints in a timely manner, and they do not necessarily need to wait for repairs to be completed before responding. The landlord could make an offer of compensation for delays up until the date of its complaints response and then revise this offer if necessary, once the repairs have been completed. In this case, there was a significant, and unreasonable delay issuing the stage one complaint response. Also, it is apparent that the landlord issued the response before it had completed all the repair work. Nonetheless, the landlord acknowledged its delay, and offered £100 compensation in view of this. Its offer was reasonable as it was in line with its compensation policy as explained above.
  4. This offer is also in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, published on our website, which sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation for distress and inconvenience. The Remedies Guidance suggests awards of between £50 and £250 for cases where there has been service failure which had an impact on the complainant but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant. Examples include failure to meet service standards for actions and responses (such as delays in responding to a complaint) but where the failure had no significant impact on the outcome of the complaint.
  5. The landlord acknowledged that it had delayed collecting the dehumidifier, explained why there was a delay, apologised, and offered £50 compensation for the inconvenience caused. The landlord’s offer was reasonable because, as it explained, during the pandemic it had suspended all non–emergency work. Whilst it would have been inconvenient for the resident to have the dehumidifier remain in her property for an extended period of time, it was not an emergency when considering the landlord’s definition of an emergency repair, and as such the delay was reasonable given the circumstances.
  6. Following the surveyor’s inspection in September 2020 the landlord raised several work orders for issues which had arisen as a result of the leak. It carried out some work on 27 January 2021 after agreeing on a date with the resident. However, it was unable to replace the kitchen and dining area flooring as it needed the areas to be cleared. It is apparent that this work was not completed until June 2021 after the landlord agreed to assist the resident with disconnecting her appliances and clearing the area. It is understandable that the delay in completing work would have been frustrating and inconvenient for the resident. However, the landlord’s repairs guidance asks residents to clear areas it intends to carry out work on. As such, it was reasonable for the landlord to request that this be done. Also, no evidence has been provided for this investigation to show the landlord was obliged to assist the resident in disconnecting her appliances or clearing the area. It therefore demonstrated a willingness to complete the work and resolve her complaint by doing this.
  7. The resident asked the landlord to replace wallpaper which she believed was damaged due to the leak. The landlord said its surveyor had inspected and found that there was no damage to the wallpaper and it therefore declined to replace it. This was a reasonable response from the landlord as it would not be expected to repair any damage to the décor without evidence to confirm that the landlord or its contractors had caused this damage. The Ombudsman has not disregarded the resident’s comments about how the damage was caused. However, there is not sufficient evidence to support this view.
  8. The evidence shows that following the surveyor’s inspection in September 2020, the landlord failed to complete repair work within its 28-calendar day target timeframe. It remains unclear why it took until November to arrange a date with the resident to complete the repairs. The landlord offered the resident £544 compensation for its mishandling of the repair work, and to compensate for items it acknowledged were damaged by the leak (hall carpet and bathroom flooring). Its overall offer was reasonable and in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance which suggests awards of £250 to £750 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. Therefore, the landlord’s offer of compensation, and the repair work it carried out were sufficient and reasonable attempts to redress its shortcomings.

The landlord’s handling of reports of pests in the property

  1. The landlord’s pests and infestations guidance states that residents are responsible for pest infestations in their own property unless the pests are present in a communal area of the building or are gaining access through a defect in the structure of the building.
  2. The resident raised concerns about fleas in her property, which she said had entered the property following the water leak. The landlord said its surveyor had confirmed that the pests were not related to, or as a result of the leak. The landlord was entitled to rely on the surveyor’s findings as the surveyor is qualified to give an opinion of this issue and had visited the property before giving an opinion. It was reasonable for the landlord to relay the surveyor’s findings back to the resident and remind her of her responsibilities in line with its pests and infestations guidance. 
  3. Nevertheless, the landlord organised for pest control to carry out treatment and reimbursed the resident for laundry costs as she had explained that her laundry had been infested with pests. As such, the landlord took reasonable steps to resolve the resident’s concerns. The resident remained dissatisfied as she wanted the landlord to replace her beds and mattresses which she said had been damaged by the pests. The landlord said it would not replace these items as it had arranged pest control treatment. Given that no evidence has been provided for this investigation to show the fleas were a direct result of the leak, the landlord went above its obligations by arranging treatment, and reimbursing laundry costs. Therefore, it was reasonable to decline the resident’s request to replace the beds and mattresses as it had already taken reasonable steps to resolve the issue and was not responsible for the damages.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to our investigation for its handling of repair work which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a pest infestation in the resident’s property.

Reasons

  1. The landlord made a reasonable offer of compensation for its failings in terms of how it handled the repair work. It explained why it was not responsible for the pest infestation, and still took reasonable steps to resolve the issue.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the landlord pays the resident £544 as previously agreed if it has not done so already as the Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress was based on this being paid.