Sanctuary Housing Association (202214318)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214318

Sanctuary Housing Association

22 August 2023


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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s solar panels.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint about its disposal of her belongings, following a fire in the property.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
  2. In October 2020, there was a fire at the resident’s property causing extensive damage and rendering it unfit to live in for the foreseeable future. The landlord moved the resident to temporary accommodation, while it undertook repairs to the property. The resident did not have contents insurance.
  3. On 14 December 2020, the landlord arranged for the resident to collect any salvageable items from the ground floor of the property. The landlord met the resident onsite. It has stated that it agreed with the resident that she had everything she would need from the property, and that the rest of the items would be disposed of. The resident disputes this claim, stating that she had collected her items from the downstairs, but that she had been unable to venture upstairs in the property due to the damage. She has stated that she believed that she would be able to return to salvage more items from upstairs.
  4. On 6 January 2021, the landlord arranged for a contractor to clear the property and start works. It stated that the resident had verbally confirmed that she had removed all wanted items from the property. The landlord sent a disclaimer to the resident on 11 January 2021. She responded, asking for the contractors to save some items of significance if possible. The landlord contacted the resident on 25 January 2021, explaining that the contractors had cleared the property earlier than expected, and that all the items had been disposed of.
  5. The landlord completed the works in August 2021, and the resident moved back into the property in September 2021. She reported on 10 September 2021 that her solar panels were not working. She continued to chase the landlord for the outstanding works, who attended to inspect the solar panels on 4 January 2022. The resident has stated that she submitted a complaint on 29 May 2022. She re-submitted the complaint on 15 June 2022. She explained that the solar panels were still broken, and this was increasing her energy bills. She also complained that the landlord had disposed of her items without her permission after the fire in October 2020.
  6. The landlord responded on 18 August 2022. It explained that the solar panel works had been issued to its energy team, who had failed to allocate the repairs. It apologised for its poor communication between teams which had caused delays. It further apologised as it had aimed to complete the works by 1 August 2022, but the materials had not yet arrived. It assured the resident that it would complete the works as soon as possible. It offered the resident £150 compensation for her time and trouble and £100 for its delayed complaint handling. The landlord explained that it had investigated the resident’s complaint regarding the disposal of her items. It had found that the resident had not complained within six months of the events occurring, which restricted its ability to investigate her complaint.
  7. The resident accepted the compensation the landlord offered for the solar panel delays, but escalated her complaint on 18 August 2022 in relation to her belongings. She reiterated that she was not happy that the landlord had disposed of them without her permission.
  8. The landlord responded on 3 October 2022. It stated that there had been further delays in repairing the solar panels due to waiting for parts. It apologised stating that the repairs were completed on 16 September 2022. It offered a further £25 to the resident. It explained that it had checked for any communication from the resident regarding the disposal of her items that could be considered in its investigation. It stated that unfortunately, there was no evidence to suggest that the resident had complained within timescales. It offered a further £25 for additional delays in its complaint response.
  9. In her complaint to this Service, the resident has disputed that she gave permission for the landlord to dispose of her belongings. She sought compensation of £5,000 in recognition of the items’ value.


Assessment

Scope of investigation

  1. In line with paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. The resident discovered that the landlord had disposed of her items on 25 January 2021, but did not raise a complaint until 29 May 2022. That was 16 months after the events occurred and well outside a reasonable timeframe. The resident’s distress and frustration with what she experienced is wholly understandable. However, this investigation can only consider how the landlord responded to her complaint regarding the disposal of the items, rather than the disposal itself.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the solar panels.

  1. According to the resident’s tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for installations that supply gas and electricity, which would include the resident’s solar panels. The landlord’s repair policy states that all non-emergency works are described as appointed repairs. The landlord aims to complete all appointed repairs within 28 days.
  2. The resident’s home suffered significant damage and required extensive works to become inhabitable again. Due to the volume of works to the property, the landlord would not be expected to complete the entirety of the repairs within the general appointed timeframe of 28 days. The landlord has explained that its team was meant to reconnect the resident’s solar panels once all works were completed to her roof after the fire. However, although the landlord stated that the works were completed in August 2021, the resident reported on 10 September 2021 that the panels were not connected.
  3. As the major works had been completed, once the landlord received the resident’s repair report, the landlord should then have attended within its normal timeframes of 28 days. This did not happen, and the resident was required to chase her repair on 5 November 2021. The landlord has stated that it raised an appointment for 29 November 2021, yet the works did not go ahead as planned. The resident has stated that the landlord attended on 4 January 2022, but again the works were not completed.
  4. Despite the resident continuing to chase for the repairs, the landlord did not re-raise the works until 4 July 2022, which was after the resident’s complaint on 15 June 2022. This was nine months after the resident had first reported the issue. This was not appropriate, as the resident should not have to complain in order for the landlord to undertake works which it is contractually obliged to complete within a reasonable time.
  5. While not all delays are considered a failure, the landlord would be expected to communicate with the resident throughout the outstanding repair, and to be continuing to manage the works through to completion. In this case, the landlord has explained that the delay was caused by a communication error between its teams. This is not appropriate, particularly as the resident repeatedly chased for a resolution to her works. The delay is therefore a failing in the circumstances. 
  6. The landlord subsequently encountered difficulties in gaining the required materials for the solar panel repairs, due to delays in the supply chain. This delay was outside the landlord’s control, and it was endeavouring to get the parts as soon as possible. It communicated the delays to the resident and explained what it was doing to complete the repairs as soon as possible. It completed the works on 16 September 2022.
  7. Under the landlord’s complaint policy, the landlord will respond to a stage one complaint within 10 working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint to stage two. The landlord then has 20 working days to respond. According to this Service’s complaint handling code, the landlord can agree an extension if necessary, of an additional 10 working days.
  8. The resident submitted a complaint on 29 May 2022 and again on 15 June 2022. The landlord did not respond within the above timeframes, replying on 18 August 2022. Once the resident escalated on the same day, the landlord again did not respond within timescales, sending its final response on 3 October 2022. Although the landlord did communicate with the resident that its response would be delayed, it did not provide an explanation as to why an extension was necessary and what caused the lengthy delays. It also exceeded the length of time permitted within the complaint handling code. This was not appropriate and was a failing. 
  9. The landlord acted appropriately in its complaint responses, by acknowledging that the resident’s repair was delayed due to communication errors between its teams. It apologised to the resident and explained that it had actioned the repair. The landlord also offered a total of £175 compensation for the delays to repairing the solar panels, and £125 compensation for its poor complaint handling. The compensation was paid to recognise the resident’s inconvenience in this matter. That level of compensation was broadly in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for an issue that has been long running and caused inconvenience and distress, but where there is no long term or permanent impact. Taken together, the apologies, explanations, and compensation offered by the landlord were appropriate and reasonable remedies.

The landlord disposal of the resident’s belongings

  1. Under the landlord’s complaint policy, there are circumstances in which it will not be able to investigate a complaint. These include issues that have occurred more than six months previously, unless there is evidence that this has been raised to staff and no action has been taken. Where the landlord decides not to raise a complaint, this will be explained to the resident and they will be advised of their right to contact this Service to challenge the decision.
  2. After the resident complained on 15 June 2022, the landlord acted appropriately by contacting the resident and informing her that it was limited in its scope of investigation to the six months prior to her complaint. This managed her expectations for what the landlord would reasonably be able to consider.
  3. The landlord investigated the complaint, finding that the resident had become aware of the miscommunication between herself and the landlord on 25 January 2021, where she was informed that it had already disposed of her items. Although the resident explained that she was upset with the events, she did not submit a complaint until 29 May 2022. The time elapsed between the event and the complaint exceeded the six months set out in its above complaints policy. The landlord acted appropriately by responding to the resident and explaining its findings.
  4. After the resident escalated her complaint on 18 August 2022, the landlord again acted in line with its complaints policy, by investigating the resident’s records and communication with the landlord. It considered if there was any failure on its own part to raise a complaint regarding the disposal of items at an earlier date. It concluded that the resident had not complained within timescales and again acted appropriately by communicating this to the resident. The landlord acted within the constraints of its complaint policy in this matter, and was unable to assess the full scope of the resident’s complaint. There was no failing in this regard.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves its handling of repairs to the resident’s solar panels.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint about its disposal of her belongings, following a fire in the property.