Sanctuary Housing Association (202215373)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215373

Sanctuary Housing Association

25 May 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 regarding:
   1. The landlord’s response to repairs required to the property following a water leak.
   2. The landlord’s handling of the associated formal complaint.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the property, a flat situated on the first floor, owned by the landlord. His young daughter resides with him full time, and his younger child stays with him most weekends.
3. The resident was contacted on 1 February 2022 as the tenant of the flat below the resident had reported water entering her property and seeping into her electrics, the leak was originating in the resident’s flat. The supply to the resident’s property was turned off in order to contain the leak and the resident left the property to stay with family/friends. In the subsequent days there were several communications between the resident and the landlord as he chased it for the works.
4. The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord on 18 February 2022, stating that he had been unable to live at the address since the beginning of February, the water supply was still off, and he could not flush the toilet or heat the property. It was impacting on his ability to care for his children in the way he had before as he had had to move from staying with his sister to staying with a friend (who was also charging him rent). His daughter was upset and unsettled, especially as her grandmother had recently passed away. The resident asked for the works to be completed as soon as possible and requested compensation.
5. In its response to the resident’s complaint on 13 May 2022, the landlord acknowledged that there had been miscommunication and delays in sending reports and quotations and its communication with the resident had not been proactive. It explained that a decant had been offered and declined by the resident on two occasions. It stated that the resident would be contacted with further repair updates and advised that it would look at providing redress to the resident when works had been completed, or within 20 working days.
6. The resident continued to chase the landlord for completion of the works, eventually requesting for reimbursement of £2955 which her stated comprised the cost of rent, lost wages, council tax and electricity. He also provided it with electricity top up receipts. The resident confirmed, on 18 September 2022, that the works had been completed but stated that the issue had affected his mental health and his daughter’s wellbeing, and he had lost his job.
7. In its final response to the resident’s complaint, on 13 October 2022, the landlord apologised for the delay in responding and acknowledged that delays in the works being completed were exacerbated by the way it dealt with this with the contractor. It also acknowledged that there were delays in responding to the complaint at stage one of the complaints process. It reiterated that the resident had twice declined its decant offer. It explained that it was unable to offer compensation for stress/loss of earnings, electricity, or time away from the property. It offered the resident £500 in compensation comprising £50 for the time and trouble on the appointments of 7 and 14 June 2022, where an incorrect size of water tank was brought and for a missed appointment; £150 for the delay in issuing its final response; £100 for how the complaint was handled at stage one and £200 for the overall time and trouble caused.
8. In referring his complaint to this Service, the resident stated that he would like an increased offer of compensation. He was unhappy with the way his complaint was handled and dissatisfied with the length of time he was unable to live at the property.

Assessment and findings

Repairs required to the property following a water leak

9. The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance procedure states that it aims to resolve all appointed repairs within 28 days. It is reasonable that the resident would expect the issue to be resolved in a timely manner. The repair took around seven months to complete. The landlord accepted the repair could have been completed sooner in its responses to the resident. The Ombudsman believes this is the correct thing for it to do.
10. The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance procedure states that it aims to attend and make safe any out of hours repairs within 24 hours, and on occasion a follow up appointment may be required. It aims to resolve all appointed repairs within 28 days. It is reasonable that the resident would expect the issue to be resolved in a timely manner. However, the Repairs and Maintenance procedure also states there may be unforeseen delays in repairs, and these situations occur it must keep residents informed of the progress of their repair and provide an update when the work will be completed.
11. The landlord’s initial attendance to the resident’s report of the leak was within the requisite timescales as it attended on the same day. It was also reasonable that it turned off the water supply so that there was no further damage. The evidence indicates, however, that the resident began to chase the landlord from the following day as the water remined turned off and had no further information from the landlord regarding the next steps to take. He also reported that there was still water leaking despite the supply being turned off.
12. It was established there was a misunderstanding, and as the landlord was under the impression the resident had not been staying at the property, a job to complete the repairs had not been booked until 17 March 2022. The resident confirmed that he had been living at the property, so a job was booked for a contractor to visit within 24 hours to attempt to repair the leak and the landlord arranged to call the resident back regarding decanting him to a different property. The landlord’s notes show that it discussed decanting the resident to another property, and that the resident declined the decant, however the resident disputes that this offer was made. Furthermore, the date of the offer is a week after the initial leak, on 8 February 2022. The matter of the decant offer has been considered in later paragraphs of this report.
13. On 8 February 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to advise that the contractor had visited the previous week as arranged to attempt to repair the leak, however the resident’s sister (who had allowed access to the property) had been advised during this visit that there was no leak. The resident provided the landlord with photos and videos of the leak and puddles. He advised that the contractor was due to call out to the property the following day to assess the works. However, the resident notified the landlord the following day that no one had attended the flat as arranged to assess the works. The evidence provided to this Service indicates that the landlord chased up the contractor regarding the failed appointment for the assessment of the works.
14. There were several communications recorded between the landlord and the contractor regarding quotations/payment of the works and the relevant paperwork for this. The landlord later informed the resident that there were issues with the administration aspect of the job. In the interim (21 February 2022) the tenant of the downstairs property reported a further leak originating from the resident’s flat. The landlord arranged or the contractor to complete the repairs on 24 February 2022 and the resident confirmed to the landlord that this took place. However, it had transpired that work was now needed on the boiler/water tank. From the foregoing, this Service notes that there was an improvement in the landlord responding to communication about the leaks and dealing with the issues raised following its explanation about the administrative issues. This suggests that it was genuinely making efforts to resolve the issue at this point.
15. The landlord’s decant guidance states that a decant may offered in order for emergency repairs to take place, and it is reasonable to expect that a resident would be offered a decant if the repair was going to take some time to be completed. In an email to the resident, of 1 March 2022 the landlord offered to decant the resident to another property which he declined. He stated that he may have accepted the decant originally had he known how long the works would be ongoing for. This was a second offer, following the previous one on 8 February 2022. However, in an email to the landlord of 27 April 2022, the resident advised that he was only offered a decant a month after he had moved out of the address and detailed how the issue had affected his earnings, wellbeing and his daughter too.
16. The evidence provided to this Service confirms the landlord’s assertions that it had offered the resident a decant twice, and he declined on both occasions. It is noted that the previous offer was made a week after the initial report by the resident. Although there was some confusion regarding whether the resident had remained at the property after the leaks, it is not clear whether the this contributed to the delay to offering him a decant. The water supply had been turned off; thus, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to make the offer of temporary decant when it became clear that the repairs would not be completed on the same day.
17. As the first offer was declined, it was reasonable that the landlord was proactive in offering a decant a second time when the repairs lingered. Besides the period of one week delay, this Service is satisfied that a decant was offered by the landlord, and this was declined by the resident. This report would, therefore, consider whether the landlord’s subsequent offer of compensation also was sufficient redress for all delays identified in this case, including the initial delay to offering a decant.
18. The landlord’s provided the resident with an update on 9 March 2022 as the works had not yet been completed. It stated that works were still outstanding on the water tank repair, and it was waiting for a quote for this. It advised that it would contact the resident within 10 working days with a further update. The resident contacted the landlord to chase a response on 22 March 2022 as he had not had any update and continued to chase it for the works as he remained with friends.
19. The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance procedure states that there may be unforeseen delays in repairs, and if these situations occur it must keep residents informed of the progress of their repair and provide an update when the work will be completed.
20. In the landlord’s communication of 7 April 2022, it advised the resident that it had been informed that a gas engineer was now needed to complete the works. The landlord’s logs indicates that, on 21 April 2022, an operative disagreed with the information regarding the need for a gas engineer and it was determined on 26 April 2022 that a plumber was required.
21. The confusion about the appropriate operative for the works was further indication of errors in the handling of the repairs which contributed to the delays. This included the administration errors, with the landlord not providing correct paperwork and quotations to the contractor.
22. After the correct operative and for the works had been ascertained, the resident contacted the landlord on 14 June 2022 to advise that a job had been due to go ahead that day, but no one had arrived. He stated that the previous week the work had not been completed as the contractor brought the incorrect size of tank. Thus, the works were further delayed, and the resident was again chasing the landlord.
23. The issue with the leak first arose at the beginning of February 2022 and was not resolved until September 2022. The Ombudsman recognises that the repairs became more complex. In addition to the errors and missed appointments mentioned above, it was established that the leak resulted in a new water tank being required, and there were reports of asbestos. In its complaint communication the landlord accepted that the responses to the resident’s repair request to his property had been unsatisfactory, it agreed that its communication could have been more proactive. It also acknowledged the delays to the works. This report has considered whether the landlord’s offer of redress was adequate in the circumstances.
24.  The landlord’s compensation guidelines state that compensation may be offered in recognition of time, trouble and service failures. The evidence indicates that resident had to chase responses on several occasions, and appointments did not always go ahead as planned. In its complaints decision, the landlord acknowledged that the situation could have been resolved sooner had it addressed the administration issues with the contractor, and it accepted that it had exacerbated the situation. It recognised the part it played in the repair not h completed sooner.
25. The landlord offered the resident £500 total compensation, of which £50 was to acknowledge the time and trouble caused during two appointments in June, and £200 for overall time and trouble. The repair took around seven months to complete, as against 28 days for appointed repairs, which is the requisite timescale in the landlord’s repairs policy. This level of delay was unacceptable and indicates that the landlord did not fully consider the resident’s personal circumstances.
26. The overall impact of the issue on the resident could have been lower if he had accepted the landlord’s decant offer. This Service considers the resident’s refusal of the landlord’s offer as a mitigating factor which must be taken into account in assessing the landlord’s actions. As the landlord’s decant provisions do not include situations where the resident declines its offer, it was not required to take responsibility for the expenses claimed by the resident.
27. It must be noted that the landlord increased it total offer to the resident to £600 while the case was awaiting consideration by this Service. The total offer by the landlord is at the higher end of its compensation scale. However, it includes £250 for its handling of the formal complaint. This means that the total amount for the repairs failings was £350. This Service finds that the landlord’s offer of compensation did not proportionately reflect its poor handling of the repair and the frequent errors which indicated that the administrative issues had not been fully resolved.

Handling of the associated formal complaint.

28. The chronology of the complaint shows that the landlord issued the complaint decisions outside of its published timeframe, updates were not provided when promised and the resident had to chase replies and updates. In its complaint responses the landlord accepted that its responses to the resident’s complaint had been unsatisfactory, it agreed that its communication could have been more proactive, it apologised and stated there were delays in responding to the resident at both stages of the complaints process.
29. Furthermore, in recognition of its shortcomings, the landlord offered the resident £100 compensation for the way the issue was handled at the first stage of its complaints process, and a further £150 for the failures at the final stage. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord’s offer of compensation was proportionate to reflect its poor handling of the complaint and the impact this had on the resident.

Determination

30. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to repairs required to the property following a water leak.
31. 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, resolves the landlord’s handling of the associated formal complaint satisfactorily.

Orders

32. The landlord should, within four weeks of the date of this report, pay the resident the additional sum of £150 in compensation. This would bring the total offer for delay to the repairs to £500 and the total for both elements of the complaint to £750.

33. This order assumes that the landlord has already paid the sum of £600 previously offered to the resident.