Sanctuary Housing Association (202207260)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207260

Sanctuary Housing Association

31 July 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

The resident has complained about the landlord’s handling of:
1. her request for operatives to wear new PPE during visits.
2. her report that a streetlight in the car park was not giving sufficient lighting.
3. her report of birds in the roof of the building and its impact on her, in particular, fleas entering her property.
This Service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The landlord has a two stage complaints procedure.
1. At Stage 1 – Front Line Resolution, “Sanctuary aims to propose resolution to the customer within 10 working days; however, there are occasions where this is not possible. Staff will inform the customer if this the case and confirm when a response will be provided”.
2. At Stage 2 – Investigation, “The focus of the Investigation stage is to undertake a full review into what occurred leading up to the complaint to assess whether Sanctuary’s policies, procedures and associated guidance has been followed, considering the individual circumstances of the complainant. All complainants will receive a written response within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated…”.
The landlord’s Compensation Policy states that in respect of time, trouble, and inconvenience, it may award:
1. £0 – £50 – low effort, low impact.
2. £51 – £150 – high effort/low impact or low effort/high impact.
3. £151 – £400 – high effort / high impact.
Regarding complaints handling, “payments of up to £150 may be made in recognition of time, trouble and inconvenience of a service failure”.
The landlord Repairs Handbook states that it has three Repairs Categories:
1. Emergency Repairs – made safe within 24 hours.
2. Appointed Repairs – carried out within 28 calendar days. Appointed or responsive repairs that are not emergencies are things such as a partial loss of electricity or a leaking gutter. These will be carried out within a maximum of 28 days.
3. Planned Repairs – carried out as a programme of works.
The landlord’s Repairs Policy states:
1. Sanctuary is responsible for all repairs that are:
  1. required due to normal wear and tear;
  2. repairs to the structure and/or exterior of the premises; and
  3. repairs to any installations in the property provided by Sanctuary.
Regarding variation orders from external contractors the Repairs Policy states “For extra works less than £75, the contractor should proceed with the works and advise of the additional works (specifying the relevant repair code) …. The CSC (Customer Services Centre) will authorise extra works under £500 (including VAT) …”.
The Group Procedure on Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) states that:
1. “Sanctuary Group (the Group) will ensure… that so far as is reasonably practicable: PPE is used in conjunction with other controls (where these exist)”.
2. “It is the responsibility of all managers to… conduct workplace risk assessments to determine the presence of hazards which necessitate the use of PPE”.
3. “The local manager or person responsible for the site or building will become the main point of contact. It will be their responsibility to check the job and allow work to begin, and to ensure contractors … wear PPE where required while on site”.
PPE is defined as: “All equipment (including clothing affording protection against the weather) which is intended to be worn or held by a person at work and which protects them against one or more risks to their health or safety. For example, safety helmets, gloves, eye protection, high-visibility clothing, safety footwear, safety harnesses, and fall arrest protection”.
The Procedure states “It is the responsibility of all managers to ensure that risks relating to the activities and premises that are under their control are properly assessed and managed. Managers must ensure that, a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks to the health and safety of their employees and others, who may be affected by the work activities of their business area, is completed, and record all significant risks”.
The landlord’s Pest Control Guidance states that “Sanctuary will deal with pests and infestations in communal areas and void properties in England and Scotland including Mid Market Rent.” Regarding individual properties “This is usually … the responsibility of the customer in England and Scotland and Mid Market Rent”.

Summary of Events

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. Her property is a two-bedroom first-floor maisonette in a block of four maisonettes, and she keeps indoor cats. The resident has advised this Service that she suffers from reactions to flea bites due to a histamine intolerance and other ailments. The landlord has advised that the resident has reported that she has over 40 medical conditions but that she has refused to provide supporting evidence.
The resident has advised this Service that the birds have nested in the roof of her building and then would drop fleas to her balcony which her cats would bring into her property. She further states that fleas and flea eggs have infested her clothes and other belongings therefore she has to take extra measure when laundering her clothes and her cat’s bedding to remove fleas and flea eggs such as soaking them in apple cider vinegar and using a longer wash cycle.
On 27 July 2021 the landlord raised an order for its contractor to repair a light in the car park for the resident’s block. After attending on 4 August 2021, the contractor recommended the installation of a new LED light onto the existing pole complete with a dusk till dawn photocell. However, the landlord did not receive a quote at the time.
The resident has advised this Service that in December 2021 she asked the landlord to remove a bird’s nest from the canopy of her balcony but as it refused, she paid for a contractor to do so. The landlord’s records do not show this report or that it was advised at the time that resident paid for her own contractor. The landlord’s record show that on 27 January 2022, following a report by the resident, the landlord raised an order for its contractor to inspect roof felt damaged by birds nesting in the eaves, and provide a quote. After the resident cancelled an appointment for 31 January 2022, the landlord rearranged the appointment for 24 February 2022.
On 24 February 2022 the landlord’s contractor attended and identified roof works for approval by the landlord. After the landlord chased a quote on 10 March 2022, 20 March 2022 and 4 April 2022, the contractor on 4 April 2022 confirmed that that it “found that a section of eve felt has rotted allowing birds to enter the roof space we would recommend that we gain access via a scaffold tower before stripping a 5m section of eves, renew the felt and batten and re fix the roof tiles, re bedding hip and verge”. The landlord sent the quote for internal approval. On 9 May 2022 the landlord advised the resident that the quote had been approved.
On 11 April 2022, the landlord, according to its responses to the resident’s complaint, chased the contractor for a quote for the repair to the car park light. However, there is no evidence of any response at this time.
On 29 April 2022, the resident reported repairs and according to the landlord’s notes asked that the operative wear hazardous PPE suits when attending because of her health conditions. The landlord advised that it did not provide this, and it was not needed under government guidelines. It also advised that if she provided PPE suits, it would be the operative’s decision whether to wear them or not. The resident has advised this Service that the landlord advised her that the operative would be able to wear a mask, gloves, shoe covers and an apron; however, she did not think this would be sufficiently protective and wanted to the operative to wear disposable overalls.
On 15 June 2022 the resident submitted a formal complaint. She stated that:
1. she was unhappy that the landlord, when she called on 29 April 2022, did not accommodate her request for operatives to wear full brand new PPE including brand new disposable overalls, because of her multiple heath issues. She noted that when an operative repaired her boiler in 2019, he assured her that the landlord would ensure operatives wore adequate PPE when attending her property. The resident advised that she thought dustsheets should be brand new to prevent another flea infestation, and that the landlord should make the same arrangements when attending her husband’s property, which was a neighbouring address.
2. she and a neighbour had reported an intermittently working streetlamp in the car park on several occasions since July 2020.
The landlord next chased the contractor for a quote for the repair to the car park light on 27 June 2022.
On 20 July 2022 the landlord raised an order for the roof works identified on 24 February 2022. It advised the resident that the works had been approved and that the contractor would contact her shortly to arrange an appointment.
The resident contacted this Service as she had not received a response to her complaint. On 5 August 2022 this Service asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint within 10 working days.
After the landlord called the contractor, on 18 August 2022 the contractor resent its recommendation and quote for the car park light repair.
On 18 August 2022 the landlord sent an interim complaint response. It stated:
1. In regard to an operative not wearing PPE equipment when in the resident’s property, it had fed this back to the relevant trade supervisor and housing office to ensure this was noted on the system to avoid any further issues in regard to appropriate PPE to be worn.
2. Its contractor had attended to inspect the roof but there were delays in obtaining a quotation. The quotation was received on 8 April 2022 and had been authorised by the relevant department. The contractor would contact the resident directly to arrange the works.
3. It had referred the car park light repair to an external contractor who had submitted an extra works quotation. It had sent the quote to be reviewed by the relevant department and would update the resident.
On 18 August 2022 the landlord sent an internal email requesting that wherever possible it should note that PPE should be worn whenever an operative was working in the resident’s property.
On 7 September 2022, the resident emailed the landlord asking for an update on the PPE issue, noting that she had several jobs outstanding, and for the light in the car park to be repaired urgently.
On 13 September 2022 the landlord approved the contractor’s quote for the repair of the streetlight.
On 20 October 2022 this Service wrote to the landlord noting that the resident had advised that she had not received a response to her complaint. On the same day, the landlord arranged for its contractor to complete the roof works on 26 October 2022 and agreed a date of 28 October 2022 for the repair of the car park light.
On 20 October 2022 also, the landlord sent the resident the Stage 1 response. It stated:
1. the instance of an operative not wearing PPE whilst working at the property had been fed back to the trade supervisor. It would add a note to its account so that there would be no issues in future with PPE being worn in the property.
2. it initially received the report about the roof in January 2022 when it raised an order. An external contractor attended and submitted a quotation of extra work, which were reviewed by the relevant department. The works were authorised, and the contractor had confirmed the works were booked for the 26 October 2022.
3. after the light was reported to its repairs team, its contractor attended and provided a quotation to repair the faulty light. The relevant department reviewed the quote and it had issued an order to the contractor to complete the works, which were booked for 28 October 2022.
4. it acknowledged and apologised for delays. It offered compensation of £250 which comprised:
  1. £150 – Overall impact inclusive of time, trouble, and inconvenience.
  2. £100 – Communication and delays in responding to the complaint.
On 20 October 2022, the landlord sent another internal email requesting a note be placed on its systems stating that PPE should be worn by operatives.
The contractor attended the resident’s property as stated on 26 October 2022; however, it did not complete works as it decided that full scaffolding would need to be erected because there were structural obstructions hampering the use of a scaffold tower.
On 28 October 2022, the contractor completed the repair to the car park light.
On 31 October 2022 the resident requested a callback from the landlord. The landlord called back on 22 November 2022 but received no response.
On 1 and 2 December 2022 the resident advised that her complaint was not resolved as birds were again nesting in the balcony canopy, and that this needed more urgent attention as birds were dropping fleas to the balcony. She advised that her complaint had been prolonged and there was a lack of communication. She stated that a request she made for eaves stoppers to be installed on a temporary basis was ignored. The resident also advised that she wanted written confirmation that PPE for operatives attending her property would include brand new disposable overalls.
An internal email dated 7 December 2022 noted that the landlord was waiting for a date for scaffolding to be put up to allow completion of the roof works. On 13 December 2022, the landlord called back the resident who advised that there were more pigeons in the canopy space, but the RSPB had advised her that depending on the species of pigeon, it may need to obtain a license before removing them.
On 19 December 2022, the roofing contractor advised that there was a delay due to its capacity, bad weather and extra works, namely full scaffolding. It advised that it was happy to deal with any pigeons however it saw fit in order to be able to complete roof works.
On 19 December 2022 the landlord sent the Stage 2 response to the complaint:
1. It advised that three emails had been sent out to various departments, one on 4 July 2022, one on 18 August 2022 and finally one on 20 October 2022, to ensure that all appropriate departments had been notified and notes requested to be added to the resident’s file.
2. It summarised the action taken on the roof repair since January 2022 and apologised for the delay and inconvenience caused, noting that external contractors were chasing the scaffolding so that works could start. It also noted that after the resident’s report of 13 December 2022, it had arranged an urgent inspection and was looking into what kind of licence would be needed.
3. It summarised the action taken in respect of the street and car park lights and noted that its contractor had confirmed that repairs were complete on 28 October 2022.
4. With regards to complaint handling, it also noted that:
  1. the resident’s complaint of 15 June 2022 was not passed to the complaints team until 28 June 2022.
  2. there then was no acknowledgment or further contact until the response of 18 August 2022.
  3. there then was no further contact until the response of 20 October 2022.
5. In addition to the Stage 1 offer of £250, it would offer a further £300 comprising:
  1. £100 – time, trouble and inconvenienced.
  2. £50 – delays at Stage 1.
  3. £150 – future impacts.
On 26 January 2023 the resident advised that she remained dissatisfied as the damage to the balcony / canopy roof had not been repaired and she was still getting flea bites when her indoor cats brought in fleas from the balcony. She advised that she rejected the landlord’s compensation as she had incurred extra expenses in trying to control the flea problem from the use of gas; electricity; water as well as flea shampoo; apple cider vinegar and essential oils. She advised that she would have to replace a lot of her belongings and that she had to continually spray her home and cats with flea spray, which were unnecessary chemicals.
On 14 February 2023 the resident advised this Service that the car park light issue had been resolved as had the issue of the operative not wearing PPE, although she would like the landlord to confirm in writing that operatives going forward would wear brand new PPE.
An internal email dated 8 March 2023 asked for the quote for the uplift in scaffolding to be approved, as the roof works had been approved but the scaffolding was missed off. It provided approval on 11 April 2023. The landlord contacted the scaffolders who advised that there was a lead in time of several weeks.
Following an enquiry on the resident’s behalf, on 20 April 2023 the landlord advised the MP’s office that scaffolding for the roof works should be in place within the next two to three weeks given lead in times. It advised its pest control contractor had advised that in the first instance the resident should treat her cat for fleas, then there would be two options for treating the fleas in the property – an aerosol can of flea spray which would get rid of fleas in the property but not stop them returning if there were eggs and a spray treatment which would get rid of all fleas and eggs. It would pay for the spray treatment but as the resident had said it should take additional precautions, she needed to provide additional medical information. The resident has confirmed to this Service that whilst the landlord has offered to spray her property, she would not prefer this as she has multiple chemical sensitivities and that the bird’s nest needs to be dealt with first, in any case.
At an inspection on 3 April 2023, the landlord agreed to contact the contractor and then update the resident. Consequently, on 19 April 2023 the landlord sent a message advising that it would contact her again on 26 April 2023. On 26 April 2023 the landlord advised the resident that scaffolding would be installed within a week although the resident reiterated that more birds were nesting, and the RSPB had told her that the birds should not be disturbed until they had fledged and therefore that the landlord would need to apply for an individual license to remove the birds.
The landlord has provided this Service with evidence confirming that it has put an alert on its systems stating “When raising repairs please include a note requesting operative wear full PPE including disposable overalls, gloves, shoe covers and facemask. The tenant is aware that this cannot always be accommodated & in order to guarantee this she would need to need to provide these’. Tenant states this is due to suffering from MCS where she…”.
On 3 May 2023 the landlord advised the resident that it was still chasing the contractor to erect the scaffolding and would phone her again on 10 May 2023. On 10 May 2023 the landlord advised her that it was hoping to get the canopy repaired booked in by the end of the month.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s request for operatives to wear new PPE during visits.

It is not disputed that the resident asked the landlord on 29 April 2022 to ensure that its operatives used PPE when attending her property. It is also not disputed that the landlord agreed that it would wear a mask, gloves, shoe covers and an apron, therefore it is evident that it took regard of the resident’s request. However, it is not evident that the landlord confirmed the conversation in writing. Where decisions have been made, landlords should maintain a clear, permanent record that can be referred to in future, if required. A recommendation has therefore been made to this end.
The landlord also sent internal emails to ensure that its systems were updated to flag that the operatives should wear PPE when attending the resident’s property. It has provided evidence to this service that its system has been updated accordingly. Furthermore, although it is not clear from the resident’s complaint when the instance of an operative not wearing PPE occurred, it reported the incident to a trade supervisor. Therefore, the landlord took steps to ensure that the contractor would provide operatives would PPE when attending the resident’s property in future.
The resident advised that she wanted the landlord to ensure that the operative would always wear brand new disposable overalls. Some PPE can be reused multiple times without issues whilst in other situations one-time use will be more appropriate. Ultimately, it is the landlord’s discretion what type of PPE to use; it is not obliged to provide operatives with overalls or a hazardous materials suit, and a new one on each occasion, at resident’s request.
The landlord as confirmed by the PPE policy is required to carry out a risk assessment when deciding to use PPE, with the focus on protecting the safety of its staff and operatives. In the absence of the landlord receiving evidence of the resident’s conditions, it was unable to carry out a risk assessment to confirm that the resident had conditions that required visitors to always wear a new hazardous material suit or new overalls, over and above the other PPE that it had agreed to. Therefore, it was reasonable that the landlord did not make such a commitment.

The resident’s report that a streetlight in the car park was not giving sufficient lighting

The landlord initially raised an order for its contractor to repair the light in the car park on 27 July 2021. In line with the Repairs Procedure, the works should have been completed within 28 days. Whilst the contractor attended, the landlord was unable to complete the repair as it did not receive the quote. It did not chase up the repair with its contractor until 9 months later, in April 2022, considerably outside the 28-day timeframe. This extensive delay indicated that the landlord lost oversight of the repair and consequently failed to ensure that its contractor carried out the repair within the designated timeframe. The fact that the delay covered the winter months, with shorter days, potentially exacerbated the inconvenience to residents.
The landlord did not receive a response in April 2022 but again failed to follow the repair up with its contractor for another two months, until June 2022, and only after the resident had submitted a formal complaint. Again, the landlord did not receive a response but did not contact the contractor again until another two months, until August 2022. This confirms that it again lost focus in getting the car park light fixed as well as demonstrating an inability to communicate effectively with its contractor. Consequently, the delay in the repair was exacerbated, now extending to 13 months from the initial report.
When the landlord received the specification and quote for the repair to the car park light in August 2022, it took 26 days for the quote to be authorised, on 13 September 2022. It was in line with the repairs procedure for the repair not to proceed immediately but for the quote to be approved first; however, the fact that it took 26 days for this, nearly the amount of time that should be taken for appointed repairs to be completed, indicates that the landlord’s process for the authorisation of quotes is not adequately timely or efficient.
Having authorised the quote for the repair of the car park light, the landlord then again lost focus on the repair as it did not make an appointment for its contractor to complete works until over a month. There was no good reason for this further delay. In fact, it was only after this Service contacting the landlord again about the resident’s complaint that the landlord arranged the appointment. This again underlines the lack of proactivity by the landlord in respect of this repair.
Ultimately, the repair to the car park light was completed in October 2022, 15 months after the initial report. This was considerably outside the 28-day timeframe for appointed repairs, and constituted an extensive, unreasonable delay. This delay was the culmination of cumulative, unreasonable delays each of which indicates repeated failure of oversight and focus on the repair by the landlord.

The resident’s report of birds in the roof of the building and its impact on her, in particular, fleas entering her property

The landlord has an obligation under its Pest Control Guidance to deal with pests and infestations in communal areas. Whilst the guidance does not specifically mention pigeons, pigeons are commonly regarded as pests, and can cause nuisance and ill-health from droppings. Therefore, the landlord had a responsibility to respond to reports of pigeons nesting in its housing stock.
There is no corroborative evidence of the resident’s report of December 2021 or that she informed that landlord that she paid a pest controller at this time. However, it is evident that the resident reported damage to the roof caused by birds on 27 January 2022. The landlord has a statutory obligation under section 11 of the Housing Act 1985 to keep in good repair the structure and fabric of the building, which includes the roof. By arranging for its contractor to inspect, it took appropriate steps to reach an informed decision on what further action to take in order to meet its repair obligation.
However, it then took the contractor 6 weeks, until 4 April 2022, over the timeframe for appointed repairs, to provide its recommendations and quotes to the landlord. There is no good reason for the quote taking this long to be sent indicating shortcomings in the landlord/contractor relationship, in particular that they did not consistently have a shared appreciation of the need to identify and carry out timely repairs to the landlord’s housing stock.
Compounding this the landlord took a further 5 weeks for the quote, until 9 May 2022 to be approved, again indicating that the process for approving quotes was inefficient and lacked urgency. It then took another 10 weeks for a job order to be raised, on 20 July 2022. Again, the landlord has provided no good reason for the delay in raising a job order. Although the landlord advised the resident that the contractor would contact her shortly, there is no evidence that it did so. Nor did the contractor contact the resident after the landlord assured her again that it would do so in its response of 18 August 2022. Again, this confirms that the landlord lacked oversight of the progress of outstanding repairs and that it could not always rely on its contractor.
The cumulative delays became increasingly significant. Whilst the resident did not explicitly say that there were still pigeons nesting between January 2022 and August 2022, the contractor had confirmed that pigeons had entered the roofing structure therefore there was a risk of them returning, especially as pigeons often seek to return to nesting site. Therefore, not only was there an ongoing repair to the roof, the resident’s uncertainty and distress about further nuisance from pigeons in the building remained.
It was only on 20 October 2020 that the landlord proactively chased the roofing works with its contractor. This was as a result of the resident seeking a response to her formal complaint through this service as opposed to the landlord actively monitoring the repair. Works could not be completed at the appointment of 26 October 2022, due to the newly identified need to erect full scaffolding. It is imperative that contractors carry out works in conditions that meet health and safety requirements. Nonetheless, it remains the case that as the initial inspection did not take into account the structural obstructions that would preclude the use of a scaffolding tower, it was flawed, which consequently caused further delay from a missed appointment.
The resident in escalating her complaint on 1 and 2 December and on 13 December 2022 advised that birds were nesting in her balcony canopy, which she related to the presence of fleas in her property. As the resident had now confirmed the presence of pigeons again, the landlord had a responsibility to deal with the pigeons. Insofar as it agreed that its contractor would deal with the pigeons, it accepted its responsibility. However, as it accepted that whoever removed the pigeons may need a licence to do so, it was unreasonable that it did not commission registered pest controllers. The landlord also committed to update the resident about the need to obtain a licence in its stage 2 response. However, it did not do so thereby mismanaging her expectations on how it would deal with her reports of pigeons.
The upgrade of the scaffolding was agreed in April 2023, nearly 6 months after the failed visit of 26 October 2023 exacerbating the landlord’s delay in dealing with the matter. Again, this indicates a lack of oversight and management of the repair. Although the landlord subsequently kept the resident updated as of 10 May 2023 the scaffolding has not been erected, therefore the landlord had still not completed the works to the roof or dealt with the resident’s reports of pigeons 16 months after the resident’s initial report.
The resident has attributed the pigeons as dropping fleas into her balcony which in turn are brought into her property by her cat. She has further stated that her property has become infested as a result and that she had incurred extra time and cost in dealing with the fleas, experienced ill health, and lost items. It is not the Ombudsman role to determine whether there is a causal link between pigeons in the roof and fleas in the property. Neither does the Ombudsman have the authority to determine whether the landlord should be held liable for losses experienced by the resident and/or damages in respect for ill health. Such a determination can be made by the landlord’s insurers or a court following receipt of a claim by the resident. However, the Ombudsman can take into account the general distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident as a result of the landlord’s service failures.
The landlord has offered for its pest controller to treat the resident’s property for fleas. This was over and above its responsibilities under the Pest Control Guidance which only covers communal areas, although with the roof works and removal of pigeons not being completed, a treatment would not resolve the resident’s concerns. It is noted that the resident is reluctant for a spray treatment but ultimately it is reasonable for the landlord to rely on the expert opinion of its pest controller.

Complaint Handling

The resident logged her Stage 1 complaint on 15 June 2022. The landlord did not meet the requirements of its complaints procedure as it did not acknowledge or respond to the complaint within the 10-working day timeframe set out. The resident pursued a response to her complaint through this service, thus experiencing more time and trouble than necessary.
After this service wrote to the landlord on 5 August 2022, the landlord’s interim response was sent on 18 August 2022 within the 10-working day timeframe. However, it was not until another 2 months, in October 2022, that the landlord sent the full response, well outside the timeframe of the complaints procedure. Again, the resident had to contact this service to receive a response, experiencing further time and trouble. The Stage 2 response of 19 December 2022 was sent within the timeframe of 20 days set out in the complaints procedure.
Taking into account both the Stage 1 and Stage 2 complaint responses, the landlord offered £150 for the complaint handling failures at Stage 1. This was in line the guidance within its Compensation Policy for complaint handling failures and proportionate to the circumstances of the case.
Aside from the compensation offered for failings in the handling of complaints, this service must also consider the other offers of redress made by the landlord and the content of the responses. This is because the purpose of a complaints procedure is to resolve complaints therefore the content of the responses must also be considered.
The landlord offered a total of £250 for time, trouble, and inconvenience, and a further £150 for “future impacts”. The landlord’s award did not separate out the different elements of the resident’s complaint therefore was not sufficiently clear. At the time of the Stage 2 response, the resident had complained of nuisance from pigeons and had already been waiting 11 months for the roof works, therefore the award of £250 was not proportionate to the circumstances of the case. It is noted that the landlord’s compensation policy provided a maximum award of £400 which did not align with this service’s remedies guidance at the time, and which therefore potentially fettered its discretion in making proportionate awards.
At the time the landlord issued the Stage 2 complaint it had not completed the roof works therefore had not yet taken the necessary action to resolve the substantive complaint. It acknowledged this to some extent by making an award of £150 for “future impact”. However, as the extent of the future impact could not be known at that point; this award was arbitrary. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not commit to monitor the works until completion and reassess the award as necessary. The roof works were still not completed a further 5 months later, compounding the delay, which as noted above now totalled 16 months. Taking into the overall delay and the landlord’s lack of urgency even after the resident reported the presence of pigeons, her vulnerabilities and how she was affected by fleas, it is not considered that the landlord offered compensation that provided reasonable redress for its service failures.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42 there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s request for operatives to wear new PPE during visits.
In accordance with paragraph 42 there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s report that a streetlight in the car park was not giving sufficient lighting.
In accordance with paragraph 42 there was maladministration by the landlord in respect its handling of the resident’s report of birds in the roof of the building and its impact on her, in particular, fleas entering her property.
In accordance with paragraph 42 there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord agreed that it would wear a mask, gloves, shoe covers and an apron, therefore it is evident that it took regard of the resident’s request that operatives wear PPE when attending her property. In the absence of the landlord receiving evidence of the resident’s conditions, it was unable to carry out a risk assessment to confirm that the resident had conditions that required visitors to always wear a new hazardous material suit or new overalls, over and above the other PPE that it had agreed to. Therefore, it was reasonable that the landlord did not make such a commitment.
Ultimately, the repair to the car park light was completed in October 2022, 15 months after the initial report. This was considerably outside the 28-day timeframe for appointed repairs, and constituted an extensive, unreasonable delay. This delay was the culmination of cumulative, unreasonable delays each of which indicate a failure of oversight and focus on the repair by the landlord.
There have been cumulative, unreasonable delays by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s report of birds in the roof of the building, including failings to proactive monitor the contractor, to authorise works in a timely matter and to ensure the right type of scaffolding is erected. The landlord has still not completed the works to the roof or dealt with the resident’s reports of pigeons. 16 months after the resident’s initial report. Additionally, the landlord did not update the resident of the need to obtain a licence to remove the pigeons thereby mismanaging her expectations on how it would deal with her reports of pigeons.
In responding to the resident’s complaint, the landlord’s award did not separate out the different elements of the r complaint therefore was not sufficiently clear. Its award of £150 for “future impact” was arbitrary. Whilst the landlord offered compensation in order to resolve the complaint, it did not provide reasonable redress for its service failures.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered within the next four weeks, to:
1. Pay the resident £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in its handling of the repair to the streetlight in the car park.
2. Pay the resident £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in its handling of birds in the roof of the building and the impact on her, and failure to manage expectations.
3. Pay the resident £200 compensation in respect of the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in its handling of the resident’s complaint and her time and trouble in pursuing her complaint.

This makes a total award of compensation of £900. This supersedes the landlord’s offer of compensation therefore it may deduct any payments of compensation made within the complaints procedure.

Complete the works the resident’s roof and prevent the nesting of pigeons, if these works have not already been completed.
Carry out “lessons learned”, exercise from this case. This should include a review of the landlord/contractor relationship and an analysis of why repairs were delayed for so long and proposals to stop the recurrence of such delays.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord confirms in writing to the resident exactly what PPE will be worn by staff and operatives attending her property and what PPE may be worn.
It is further recommended that the landlord considers any medical information the resident provides about her health conditions then confirms what PPE will be worn by operatives in her property.