The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Sanctuary Housing Association (202303963)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303963

Sanctuary Housing Association

11 April 2024

 

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 response to the resident’s concerns of a lack of security lighting.
    2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of paint damage to the property.

Background

  1. The resident held an assured tenancy. The property was a 1-bedroom flat on the 1st floor. The landlord was aware that the resident had medical concerns, including Aspergers and anxiety. The resident has since moved out of the property and is no longer a tenant of the landlord.
  2. On 23 February 2023, the resident told the landlord that his front door had been vandalised with paint. On 24 February 2023, he contacted the landlord’s chief executive and said that some paint remained visible. He mentioned that the security light above his front door had not worked for a number of months, and he felt that if it had worked, it may have prevented the vandalism. He also said that he felt his housing officer did not offer appropriate support and they did not ask him about his concerns with the security light. The resident also added that his kitchen drawer was stuck. On 4 March 2023 and 6 March 2023, he asked for the matter to be logged as a complaint.
  3. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 8 March 2023. It said that an appointment had been made to renew the security light on 10 March 2023. It said it had not been notified of any repairs regarding the light before this incident, and that it was the resident’s responsibility to report any repairs required in a timely manner. It said that it had not found any service failures and did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. It said that following the report of vandalism on 23 February 2023, the paint was cleaned, and his housing officer visited the property on the same day. It had requested that the estates team return to the property to complete a further deep cleaning for any remaining paint left. It upheld this aspect of the complaint because he had to contact the landlord again after it attended on 23 February 2023. The landlord apologised for this and offered £25 compensation for the inconvenience caused.
  4. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 8 March 2023. He said that the landlord’s response did not consider that he was likely experiencing PTSD resulting from the vandalism. He noted that his name was not spelt correctly in the response. He said that the landlord placed blame onto him for the maintenance of the security lights. He also said that there was no response given about the professionalism of the housing officer and asked the landlord to confirm if the police had been in contact with any information yet.
  5. On 31 March 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It said that his comments about the housing officer had been passed to the appropriate manager. It confirmed the actions of the housing officer, including attending the property on the same day as the report of vandalism. It said that the estates team attended on 23 February 2023 and 3 March 2023 to clean the paint. It added that the property services team attended on 8 March 2023 and found that a new light was needed, and it returned on 17 March 2023 to complete the repair. It said that it had no evidence to support the resident’s claim that the security light would have deterred the act of vandalism and that it was also unable to evidence that he had reported the light not working prior to this incident. It confirmed that it had not received any contact from the police regarding the vandalism. It concluded that the offer of compensation made in the stage 1 complaint response was appropriate.
  6. The resident escalated his complaint to the Ombudsman because he remained unhappy with the landlord’s final complaint response. He said that the matter had impacted his mental health and that seeing the paint left on the door after the landlord’s first attempt to clean it further impacted him. He also felt that the landlord had a duty to maintain and repair the security light. The complaint became one that this Service could investigate on 9 May 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident stated in his complaint that his health had been affected by the vandalism caused to the property. While this Service does not doubt the resident’s comments about their health, it is outside our remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme. This Service has considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
  2. The landlord’s internal complaint procedure investigated and responded to the issues of a lack of security lighting, vandalism to the property and an issue with a kitchen drawer. However, the resident has subsequently confirmed to this Service that he only considers the issues of the lack of security lighting and the vandalism to the property to be a concern, and that the other issue regarding the kitchen drawer has been resolved. Accordingly, this investigation has focussed on, and assessed, the issues that the resident remains dissatisfied about.
  3. The resident has said that there were other issues present at the time of the complaint such as drug-dealing and feeling unsafe in the local area. The resident has provided the Ombudsman with a letter from the police which was dated after the complaint was made. While this information provides context regarding the issues present at the time of the complaint, the Ombudsman is unable to assess whether the landlord acted appropriately regarding these concerns as they were not raised to the landlord as part of the complaint. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns of a lack of security lighting

  1. The landlord was proactive in its handling of the repair to the security light. The landlord was made aware of the security light not working on 24 February 2023 and this was resolved on 17 March 2023. This was within the landlord’s non-emergency repairs timescale of 28 working days set out in its repairs and maintenance procedure.
  2. It is the responsibility of the resident to report a repair to the landlord. This is outlined in both the landlord’s tenancy handbook and repairs handbook. After the landlord was made aware of the repair being required, it responded appropriately in line with its repair timeframe for non-emergency works. While the matter was understandably frustrating for the resident, the landlord is only responsible for repairs to a property from when it is given notice of a repair being required. There is no evidence provided to show that the resident had previously reported the issue or that the landlord should have acted sooner. The landlord was not at fault for not repairing the security light prior to when the vandalism occurred as it was not aware of the fault before this incident.
  3. The resident advised the landlord that he believed a working security light could have prevented the vandalism. While the Ombudsman appreciates the resident’s concerns, there is no guarantee that having a functioning security light would have prevented the vandalism.
  4. On 4 March 2023, the resident asked to make a complaint. It is a concern that the landlord did not open a formal complaint on this date and instead treated this as a service request and responded to him informally. The resident requested a formal complaint response from the landlord on 6 March 2023 so that he could approach the Ombudsman about his complaint.
  5. While this is not a service failing, it is viewed as a shortcoming of the landlord that it did not accept the resident’s request on 4 March 2023 as a complaint. The landlord’s delay in accepting the complaint did not have a significant impact on the resident in this case as he asked for a formal response again 2 days later, which the landlord responded to appropriately. However, it is noted that this may not be the case in future complaint handling matters and that this may lead to a failure in complaint handling. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord refreshes itself on how and when to recognise an expression of dissatisfaction as a complaint and when it should start its internal complaints process.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of paint damage to the property

  1. The resident reported the vandalism and paint damage to the landlord on 23 February 2023. The landlord responded to this in line with its emergency repair timeframe set out in its repairs and maintenance procedure. The procedure outlines that it will attend to make the property safe within 24 hours. It attended to clean the paint on the same day that it was reported. This was appropriate and in line with its policy for it to do so.
  2. The landlord contacted the resident on 2 March 2023 to get an update of his situation and he informed the landlord that some paint still remained. The landlord acted appropriately by raising a second job to remove the paint, which it completed on the following day. The resident has told this Service that seeing the remaining paint after the landlord attended to remove it impacted on his mental health. The landlord acknowledged a service failure with the first clean and apologised for this in its complaint response. It offered £25 compensation for the inconvenience caused by this. The landlord’s offer of compensation was appropriate to offer redress for its service failure and the inconvenience it would have understandably caused to the resident in having to follow up the works.
  3. The landlord’s housing officer attended the property on 23 February 2023, which was the same day that the vandalism was reported. It was appropriate for the housing officer to attend so quickly as this would have provided the resident reassurance that the landlord was taking the matter seriously. The housing officer discussed the vandalism with the resident, and he confirmed that he did not know who the perpetrator was. The housing officer advised him to report the matter to the police and provide a crime reference number to the landlord. The landlord raised an ASB (antisocial behaviour) case on the same day which was appropriate in response to the resident’s reports of vandalism.
  4. The resident told the landlord that he felt that it only wanted a crime reference number from the police, and it did not address his concerns regarding the vandalism. It is evident that the landlord asked for a crime reference number from the resident in order to support its investigations and the ASB case it had opened so that it could investigate the matter further. The resident did not know who vandalised his property and so the action the landlord could take was limited.
  5. The crime reference number is a useful tool in ASB cases so that the landlord can seek information from the police to support it in taking further action where appropriate. While the resident was unhappy with the landlord asking for this information, as he felt this dismissed his concerns, it was reasonable to do so to assist with the ASB case as it was otherwise limited in the actions it could take. The landlord confirmed in its stage 2 complaint response that it had not received any evidence or information from the police regarding the vandalism. As no further incidents of ASB occurred at the property and the perpetrator remained unknown, the landlord later closed the ASB case on 4 May 2023. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
  6. The resident was unhappy with the level of support offered by the housing officer, and he informed the landlord of this in an email to its chief executive on 24 February 2023. He also said that he felt nervous and vulnerable following the vandalism. The landlord acted appropriately in response to the resident’s concerns. The housing officer contacted the resident on 27 February 2023 and left him a voicemail to make contact for support. On 2 March 2023, the housing officer left the resident another voicemail, asking him to make contact so they could discuss whether he consented to a referral to a victim support service regarding the impact of the vandalism.
  7. On 4 March 2023, the resident told the landlord that he believed he was experiencing PTSD due to the vandalism. The resident gave his consent for the referral to the victim support service on 6 March 2023. The housing officer contacted him on the same day and told him that he would have to self-refer to the service because they tried to make the referral but were told they could not make the referral on his behalf. He was given the contact details for the support service and given information about what support could be offered.
  8. While this would have understandably caused frustration to the resident at a distressing time, the landlord attempted to arrange support and when it was unable to, it gave him appropriate advice of how to self-refer for support. The landlord’s actions show that it appropriately considered the resident’s vulnerability in response to the impact of the vandalism.
  9. The landlord addressed the resident’s concerns about the support offered by the housing officer within its complaint responses. In its stage 1 complaint response, it outlined the proactive steps and support offered by the housing officer, including that they attended on the day that he reported the vandalism. In its stage 2 complaint response, it said that following the resident’s views about the housing officer being unprofessional and not compassionate, it had escalated his concerns to the relevant senior manager. This was a reasonable response from the landlord as it showed that his concerns were being taken seriously.
  10. It is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord responded appropriately in light of the resident’s concerns about the level of service provided to him.
  11. The resident has told this Service that he was upset that the landlord had misspelt his name during the landlord’s internal complaints process. His name was spelt wrong in the stage 1 complaint response which he highlighted within his stage 2 escalation request to the landlord. He said that this oversight suggested that his complaint had been rushed and not fully considered. In the landlord’s acknowledgement of his escalation request, his name was spelt incorrectly again. The resident told the landlord about this error on 9 March 2023, and the landlord apologised for this on the following day. It was appropriate for the landlord to have apologised for this to provide reassurance and acknowledgment of the issue. This is considered to be appropriate redress for the matter.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns of a lack of security lighting.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of paint damage to the property.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should review and self-assess against the new Complaint Handling Code (the Code). This is to ensure that it understands when to consider an expression of dissatisfaction as a service request and when it should be considered as a formal complaint. All landlords are required to self-assess against the Code annually.
  2. The landlord should pay the resident £25 as previously offered, if it has not already done so, as the Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress was made on the basis that this was paid.