Sanctuary Housing Association (202300440)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300440

Sanctuary Housing Association

1 December 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 complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of leaks.
2. Handling of repairs to the resident’s kitchen.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 16 October 2006. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a one-bedroom flat, and the resident lives alone.
The resident reported a leak at the property on 26 July 2022, which the landlord attended to the same day. When operatives attended, the water was turned off and the kitchen units, worktop, and sink were removed to reach the leak. The leak was fixed on 28 July 2022, and a repair to the kitchen was scheduled for 4 August 2022. The landlord was unable to proceed on this date as the repair was too large to complete within the booked time and so the repair was rescheduled for 8 September 2022.
On 4 August 2022, the resident made a complaint about the delay to the repair of the leak and his kitchen, later adding that he was diabetic and needed a surface area to prepare food. He expressed to the landlord that a further delay would have an impact on him given his health condition.
In its stage 1 response on 16 September 2022, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delays and poor communication. It explained that redress would be looked at once a timescale for the repairs was known. The resident was dissatisfied and requested escalation to stage 2. On 17 October 2022, after escalation internally, the landlord agreed to a full kitchen replacement. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 16 November 2022, where it offered £1,725 as redress for the delays. This included a room loss allowance up until 10 February 2023, which was the expected date of the kitchen fit. The resident accepted this.
On 29 November 2022, the resident reported a second leak coming from the same pipe, advising that he was going away on 6 December 2022 for 6 weeks, a repair was booked in on 5 December 2022. The resident stated the reason for going away was due to the impact the on-going situation (it was 4 months since his kitchen had been removed and the water turned off), was having on his mental health. The landlord had no-one available to attend to this leak and booked an out-of-hours contractor attendance. During that appointment, the contractor was unable to complete the repair and advised the resident that they would instead isolate the water at the mains. The resident requested for this to be done the following day as he wanted water available until he went away. The contractor was unable to do this despite the landlord requesting the water isolation, and the contractor asked if the resident could isolate the water himself. The resident was unable to do this due to an injury. The water was therefore never isolated prior to the resident’s absence. The resident returned on 17 January 2023. He informed the landlord of his return, and a contractor attended that same day but was unable to complete the repair.
The resident raised a further complaint on 18 January 2023, with regards to the water not being isolated and added into his complaint the delays to the repair on 25 January 2023. Between 18 January 2023 and 22 February 2023, the same contractor attended three times, but on each occasion, stated that they were not a plumber and could not complete the repair. In its stage 1 response, the landlord explained that following each appointment, the job was incorrectly marked as complete. The resident subsequently requested escalation of his complaint to stage 2.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord found failings in its attendance to repair the leaking pipe, including not attending the initial appointment within the required timescales and repeated failures to order the correct parts. As redress, the landlord offered £410.34 and confirmed a date for the repair to be completed and the kitchen installed.
An appointment was then booked for the 23 March 2023 and the landlord confirmed that the same contractor would be attending. It confirmed the contractor had the required parts to deal with the leak and the kitchen replacement would take place on 11 April 2023.
In referring the case to this Service, the resident discussed the impact the delays had on his mental health and how he felt that he was being penalised for going away to take a break at Christmas. He explained that he was a type 2 diabetic and had been using his bathroom as replacement for his kitchen facilities and had been without running water in his kitchen for 240 days.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Throughout the period of the complaint, the resident reported the impact these delays had on his mental health to his landlord. The Ombudsman does not dispute this; however, we are unable to make a determination about the causal link between the delays and the residents mental health. However, we will take into account the overall distress and inconvenience that the issues in this case have caused. A determination relating to damages caused to the resident’s mental health is more appropriate for the courts, and the resident has the option to seek legal advice if he the wishes to pursue this.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s repairs policy states that it would attend and make safe all ‘emergency’ repair requests within 24 hours, this includes issues with important services such as water supply. It states that ‘appointed’ repairs, including a partial loss of water supply, aim to be completed within 28 days and at the appointment originally agreed with the resident.
The tenancy agreement states the landlord will keep in good repair and proper working order any installations provided for the supply of water.
The landlord’s compensation policy in relation to time, trouble, and inconvenience has several elements. It states that, for those considered to have the greatest impact, the payment is between £151 and £400.

Leak

The initial leak on 26 July 2022, was attended to within 24 hours. Although it could not be fixed immediately, the water was isolated, and the leak was fixed on the 28 July 2022. This is in line with the landlord’s repair policy and was reasonable in the circumstances.
The second leak was attended to on 5 December 2022, 6 days after it was initially reported on the 29 November 2022. This was unreasonable and not in accordance with the landlord’s repairs policy for emergency repairs. No evidence has been provided to explain the delay in responding however, the landlord did acknowledge this failing in its stage 2 response, apologised and offered redress.
The resident advised the landlord that he was going away on 6 December 2022. During the visit on 5 December 2022, the contractor was unable to fix the leak and advised it would isolate the water at the mains that day however, the resident requested this be done the following day. It is evident that the landlord requested the contractor to attend on the 6 December 2022 to action this, but no contractor attended, and the water was not isolated. The evidence shows the landlord received a message from the contractor advising they had not attended. The contractor informed the resident the water had not been isolated, and the job was subsequently cancelled on the 7 December 2022 due to the resident being away.
This service would expect the landlord to attend promptly to isolate the water to minimise the impact of the leak on the property and the resident’s home. The landlord was aware of a leak and that the resident was away from the property. It was unreasonable for the landlord not to isolate the water supply particularly when it was possible to do so without access to the property. Although there is no evidence as to the severity of the leak, the thought of the water being left on caused distress to the resident, who believed his flat may flood. This is evidenced further when the resident, while away from the property text his neighbour to ask the landlord, on his behalf, if the water in his flat had been turned off. There is no evidence to show the landlord ever responded to this. The landlord has a duty to consider the impact on the resident especially given the previous leak and the accumulative impact the overall delays had on the resident.
When the resident returned on 17 January 2023, there was still a leak and water was still on. The landlord had known about the latest leak for 7 weeks. Had the landlord attended within 24 hours, as per its repairs policy, it is possible that the leak could have been fixed prior to the resident going away or an investigation into the cause could have started and any parts required ordered. This would have significantly reduced the impact on the resident.
Following his return to the property, the resident contacted the landlord, and a contractor attended on 18 January 2023. The contractor did not have the required parts, could not fix the leak and they subsequently incorrectly marked the repair as complete. The resident did not have a further appointment from the landlord and so contacted the landlord again to enquire when the leak would be fixed. An appointment was booked for 26 January 2023. The contractor who attended was the same contractor that had previously attended and again, was unable to stop the leak and complete the repair. The repair was then for a second time incorrectly marked as complete by the contractor. Evidence from the landlord shows that a new job was raised and booked in for 22 February 2023. This was brought forward to 15 February 2023; however, the same operative attended for the third time and informed the resident he was not a plumber and could not fix the leak. It is noted that the required part was not ordered until after 28 February 2023. This was an unacceptable repeated failure that caused avoidable delay and inconvenience.
The landlord should have a clear escalation process for contractors who are recalled to the same repair multiple times. It is reasonable to expect that correctly qualified contractors will attend first time. This avoidable delay and miscommunication caused distress to the resident who had repeated unsuccessful contractor visits and had to chase the landlord repeatedly for updates. The landlord apologised for the delays; however, it failed to apologise for, or address the impact on the resident.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that the lack of clarity in the repair records was a reason for the delay to the repair. There is clear evidence throughout that the landlord failed to accurately record the outcome of repairs visits. As a result, it failed to actively seek to resolve the repairs raised, for an extended period.
The resident contacted the landlord to chase repairs 8 times between January 2023 and March 2023. The lack of clarity and uncertainty about when the repairs would be concluded would have been frustrating, distressing, and inconvenient for the resident. Not all delays are seen as a failure. If the landlord communicates regularly with the resident, manages their expectations, and explains the cause for delays there may be no failure. However, there is little evidence to support the landlord kept the resident updated or offered timely explanations for the delays.
The landlord has not disputed that the resident’s repairs were delayed in this case. However, it failed to address the impact the delays had on the resident. The resident, in his communication with the landlord, mentioned multiple times that he suffered with depression and had previous suicide attempts. This is evidenced in communication with the landlord on the 1 November 2022, 16 February 2023 and 9 March 2023. It was also recorded internally as a known vulnerability. The landlord was also aware that the resident was type-2 diabetic adding to the importance of having food preparation space. The landlord failed to consider the impact the delays had on him and the distress the delays caused. There is no evidence to show the landlord considered the resident’s vulnerabilities when dealing with the repair delays or complaints.
Overall, while the landlord has acknowledged the delays in this case there is no evidence to suggest that this was ever communicated internally, leading to wasted appointments and delays in repairing the leak. The Ombudsman expects landlords to have clear channels of communication between the repairs team, its contractors and residents and finds a failing in this case.
In its stage 2 response, on 16 November 2022, the landlord advised that it had spoken to its repairs team about the length of time taken to complete the repair and communication not being up to standard. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that lessons from the first complaint had not been learnt as the same issues occurred in the second complaint. This was a missed opportunity by the landlord to take the learning from a complaint and imbed improvements to the service delivery.
It is also important to note that the delays to the leak ultimately caused delays to the replacement of the resident’s kitchen, which the landlord failed to fully acknowledge in its formal responses.
An important factor in the failure to resolve the repair in a timely manner was the record keeping following contractor visits. As evidenced in this report, contractors attended on numerous occasions and marked the work as complete incorrectly. This led to delays and in part attributed to the failure for the required parts to be ordered. The landlord has recognised this within its stage 2 response. The Ombudsman has previously ordered the landlord to self-assess against the Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) (May 2023) and landlord has evidenced this is underway therefore no further orders are made here in relation to record keeping.
In its stage 2 response, on 9 March 2023, the landlord failed to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience the delays had on the resident, their vulnerabilities, and failed to consider the time and trouble taken by the resident to pursue his repair. However, while it failed to fully address these, it did apologise for the repeated failures and the delay in the resolution of the repair and offered compensation to reflect this. The level of compensation offered does not reflect the impact the on the resident.
Compensation was offered of £410.34, made up of the following:
1. £300 for time, trouble, and inconvenience.
2. Room loss allowance from 11 February until 14 April 2023 (minus the 6 weeks the resident was away) of £110.34.
For the reasons set out above, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the leak with respect to failing to repair the residents leak in a reasonable timescale. There was inadequate consideration of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. The orders below have been made to reflect these failings.

Kitchen repairs

The resident’s kitchen was removed during the works to trace a leak that occurred on 26 July 2022. An appointment was booked to refit the kitchen on 4 August 2022, but when the contractor attended, they were unable to complete the refit with the contractor stating it was a “massive” job. The landlord therefore requested a quote for a new sink, basin, replacement kitchen units, and worktop, this was communicated to the resident. The contractor had advised the landlord that the resident was without running water and evidence showed the landlord advised it would put something in place to mitigate this; it did not. The resident put in a formal complaint on 4 August 2022. He explained that he had no running water in the kitchen, was using his bathroom tap for water and the bath for washing up. He also had no surface area to prepare food.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response dated 16 September 2022, it acknowledged failings in relation to the delays to replace the kitchen and its poor communication. It advised it was awaiting a quote for the new kitchen but would now follow this up. The landlord’s response failed to acknowledge the lack of running water or kitchen facilities or the impact that would have had on the resident.
Between the 16 September 2022 and 17 October 2022, there is evidence of communication between the landlord and contractor in relation to the quote required. There is also evidence that the resident contacted the landlord for updates several times during this period. The landlord’s internal communication acknowledged that the resident had nowhere to prepare food, that he was using his bathroom tap for water, and the urgency of the repair; however, this was not acted on. There were no discussions with the resident to explore alternative temporary solutions. This Service would expect that, where repairs could not take place in line with the repairs policy, it would be communicated to the resident and interim repairs or arrangements considered where appropriate. It is noted that the landlord accepted in its stage 2 response that its communication was not up to standard.
The repairs policy states that the landlord will ensure its repairs service is flexible towards the needs of its vulnerable service users and it will take into account the service users’ needs and the severity of the situation. The resident first advised that he was diabetic and needed somewhere to prepare his food on the 11 August 2022. This was raised numerous times until the kitchen was installed in April 2023. The landlord was aware of this; however, there is no evidence provided to suggest that alternative temporary solutions were ever considered. Further, there is no evidence the landlord assessed the resident’s circumstances to consider if they were a vulnerable service user and required the flexibility described in the repairs policy.
The lack of surface space to prepare food was unreasonable given the circumstances and the resident’s known health condition. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered and discussed alternative solutions with the resident. The landlord has not evidenced compliance with its own repairs policy in relation to the time taken to complete repairs or the flexibility stated in relation to vulnerable service users. This prolonged the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
On 17 October 2022, almost 12 weeks after the kitchen was removed, the landlord decided that a full kitchen replacement would be better value for money. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered this option sooner as it was aware from the outset that the repair issue was extensive. There is evidence that the landlord was delayed in making its decision on a new kitchen as it was waiting for photographs from its contractor. While it chased the contractor for over a month it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have been more proactive in gaining the detail it needed to make its decision. This Service finds that while the resident was happy to have a full kitchen replacement, there were unreasonable delays to agreeing the works.
It is noted that had the second leak not occurred at the property, the kitchen would have been installed during the week commencing 11 February 2023, 6 months after the kitchen was removed. The secondary delay to this installation was beyond the landlord’s control as it could not have predicted the second leak.
After the second leak occurred, it is evident that the landlord failed to look at the previous repair notes and did not recognise that while awaiting repairs for the leak, the resident was still without running water in his kitchen, and food preparation space. In an internal email on the 23 February 2023 the landlord stated that the resident had kitchen water available until at least the end of December 2022, this was incorrect. The evidence indicates that the resident had no running water facilities in his kitchen from 25 July 2022 till 14 April 2023. The email is evidence that its record keeping, and communication was poor. The impact of this on the resident was a prolonged delay. This extended the distress and inconvenience he experienced.
In its stage 2 response, it offered compensation for room loss allowance from 10 February until 14 April 2023, minus the 6 weeks that the resident was away from the property over Christmas 2022. This is unreasonable in all the circumstances. It is the resident’s choice to be away from the property temporarily and this should not have impacted on the landlord’s assessment of compensation. The resident informed the landlord that he had gone away due the impact the delays to replacing his kitchen were having on him. Given that the landlord’s own delays and failings caused the delay, to penalise the resident in the payment calculation, for being away from the property, is unreasonable and shows a lack of empathy for the resident.
Nevertheless, in its formal response, the landlord appropriately upheld the resident’s complaint and, in doing so, accepted full responsibility for the situation and the overall delay in resolving the matter.
The landlord offered £1,725 as redress, made up of the following:
1. Failure to record a complaint on 4 August 2022 – £50.
2. Delay in stage 1 response – £50.
3. Time, trouble, and inconvenience – £400.
4. Miscommunication on 26 October 2022 – £25.
5. Room loss allowance – kitchen – 30% of rental costs at £41 per week from 25 July 2022 to 10 February 2023 – £1,200.
Had no further issues occurred, this may have been seen as reasonable redress. While the landlord acknowledged its failing in relation to the kitchen within the complaint’s procedures, it failed to recognise the loss of amenity and the significant impact of this. It failed to look at temporary solutions with regards to food preparation areas and running water in the kitchen. It delayed unreasonably in dealing with the matter which in part was due to issues with its record keeping. All the above had a considerable impact on the resident and the landlord failed to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused.
Overall, the Ombudsman finds that maladministration has occurred in the handling of the repairs to the kitchen. The landlord was aware of the resident’s diagnosis of type-2 diabetes and therefore the importance of food preparation space, yet there is no evidence to suggest that, during the 241 days that the resident was without a kitchen, alternative or temporary solutions were explored. The landlord was also aware that the resident had a history of mental health issues which, the resident stated, were aggravated by the delays in this case and, while no causal link can be made here, the landlord has a duty of care to its residents. It missed opportunities to reach out and offer support, to apply the flexibility in its repairs policy, and to consider the specific impact the delays had on the resident in light of his circumstances. These reasons were aggravating factors in the Ombudsman’s consideration of the determination and subsequent orders.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with section 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the leak.
In accordance with section 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the resident’s kitchen.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation to the resident of £3,500, comprising:
1. £1,000 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in relation to the time taken to fix the leak, made up of the following:
  1. £300 for time, trouble, and inconvenience in relation to repair the leak.
  2. £500 for the distress and impact on the resident.
  3. £200 for the poor record keeping.
2. £500 for the delay in relation to the kitchen replacement.
3. £2000 for the loss of amenity from 25 July 2022 until 14 April 2023.
The above total replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £2,135.34. This amount (less any amount already paid by the landlord as part of its previous offer) must be paid within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.
A senior member of staff is to write to the resident and apologise for the issues identified in this report within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Carry out a case review of its handling of both the leak and the kitchen replacement and identify any learning points and opportunities for service improvement and share the findings with this Service.
The landlord must provide this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within 6 weeks of the date of this determination.