Sanctuary Housing Association (202224848)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202224848

Sanctuary Housing Association

23 July 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

The complaint is about is about:
1. the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord. The resident has advised that she suffers from depression and that members of her family have breathing difficulties.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 16 January 2023 and advised she had a number of issues in the property related to damp and mould which had been ongoing for 15 years. She said that the situation was having a detrimental effect on her mental health, but she could not recall if she had made a complaint to the landlord. The Ombudsman intervened and on 26 January 2023 wrote to the landlord to ask that it respond to the resident within 10 working days.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint the same day and wrote to the resident at stage 1 of its process on 14 February 2023. Within its response, the landlord:
1. provided the resident with the history of her reports of damp and mould dating back to 23 March 2022.
2. acknowledged that there had been a delay in diagnosing the cause of the problem. It also recognised there had been poor communication relating to the use of dehumidifiers in August 2022.
3. offered her £200 in compensation in recognition of its service failures. It encouraged the resident to engage with its surveyor about convenient dates for a further inspection.
The resident contacted to the landlord on 6 April 2023 and said she was unhappy with its complaint response. The landlord did not acknowledge her request for an escalation to her complaint. On 14 August 2023 a surveyor visited the property to complete a full inspection. A schedule of works was produced which listed no major works, however the list was extensive and affected every room in the property. The landlord tried to engage with the resident about temporary move options, but noted its attempts were unsuccessful.
A final complaint response was issued on 3 January 2024. The landlord said:
1. it acknowledged that it had failed to update her with a plan of action following the surveyor visit in August 2023.
2. it had failed to manage her complaint effectively.
3. it wanted to offer her a further £500 in compensation for its poor communication, broken down as:
  1. £300 for poor complaint handling including failure to acknowledge and escalate her complaint in April 2023.
  2. £200 for failing to communicate a plan of action following the surveyor visit.
4. it was having difficulty gaining access to the property. It encouraged her to engage to discuss rehousing options and allow remedial works to commence.
In recent correspondence with the Ombudsman, the resident said there continues to be water ingress into the property. She said she is reluctant to allow access for the landlord to complete the works as she is not confident that its interventions will resolve the issue on a long term basis. The landlord has advised that as it has been unable to gain access to complete the required works, it is considering taking formal action against the resident. It considers this would be a “last resort” and has requested that the resident allow access for the remedial works to be completed as soon as possible.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

This assessment is based on the landlord’s response to the resident’s formal complaint, which is broadly reflected in the above timeline. It may help to explain the scope of an Ombudsman investigation can be time-limited in relation to when a complaint was brought to the landlord’s attention. The resident has informed the Ombudsman that she has reported issues with damp and associated repairs for over 15 years. This assessment is focussed on the events from 23 March 2022 onwards, which is the date from which the resident made a report of water ingress from above the kitchen.
The Ombudsman recognises that the situation has caused the resident distress as she has reported damp and mould in her property over a prolonged period of time. Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to the impact on her physical and mental health. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. However, unlike a court we cannot establish what caused the health issue, or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould

The resident reported that there was a leak from above her kitchen affecting the walls on 23 March 2022. The landlord visited 6 days later and noted it found signs of a leak, but it was unable to confirm if it was related to works recently completed in her bathroom. It tried to contact her to arrange a further inspection but was unsuccessful. It followed up its communication writing to the resident on 8 April 2022 which was reasonable. The following day, she reported that there was damp and mould throughout the property.
The landlord has a specific damp and mould policy which states that it has a 4 step process to “identify, remedy, resolve and prevent” damp and mould. It says that it if it is not the first time the resident has made a report of damp, a mould wash will be ordered and inspection arranged for a regional surveyor to visit the property in order to consider any hazards under the housing health and safety rating system (HHSRS). In this case, the landlord recognised that as the resident had made a previous report of damp in March 2022, a surveyor visit was required. It contacted her within 3 working days to arrange an appointment which was appropriate.
The resident cancelled the initial surveyor appointment arranged for 26 April 2022. The landlord followed this up promptly and the surveyor was able to visit on 3 May 2022. They identified that there was evidence of damp and mould in the kitchen, outbuilding and living room. The surveyor noted that in order to determine the cause, a specialist contractor was required to carry out a further inspection.
The decision to outsource a further inspection to a specialist contractor was appropriate. However, a specialist survey did not follow until 11 August 2022. The delay was unreasonable and prolonged a resolution for the resident. The report from the specialist noted that the store room and understairs cupboard needed to be cleared of contents to allow for further works including the installation of a fan. The resident was informed of the outcome of the report and she was given appropriate advice in terms of being mindful of standing up in the sit–down shower as this was causing water to leak onto the bathroom floor.
There was a failure at this point to communicate to the resident that given the outcome of the survey, dehumidifiers it previously advised her might be needed were unnecessary. This left the resident feeling as though the landlord had not considered all possible remedies to the damp she had reported. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord reviewed its repair records and recognised this failure. It made an appropriate offer of £50 in compensation for the miscommunication, which was reasonable and proportionate to its service failure.
In October 2022, the resident reported that the windows and doors were in poor condition and she continued to suffer from damp and mould. She also raised specific concerns about the guttering. An environmental health officer (EHO) report followed on 9 November 2022 and concluded that the property was in a “reasonable state of repair with no signs of dampness”. It did however recommend that the wall to the utility room be replaced as the weather bar was not sealed. There is no evidence that the landlord responded directly to the resident about her concerns or raised the door repair in accordance with its policy. Furthermore, having received no response from the landlord, the EHO had to chase the landlord for an update which was unreasonable.
After the resident contacted the Ombudsman to make a complaint, the landlord’s surveyor visited the resident on 10 February 2023 unannounced to introduce themselves. They followed up the meeting in writing within a timely manner and offered the resident several date options to carry out a more detailed inspection, with the intention of addressing both historic and new repair concerns she had brought to their attention, which was appropriate.
The landlord’s stage 1 response on 14 February 2023 provided the resident with a comprehensive breakdown of all of her reports of repairs, damp and mould. This helped to demonstrate to the resident that landlord had largely acknowledged and responded to her concerns, but there had been a delay arranging for a surveyor to diagnose the cause of the damp and mould. For this it offered her £150 in compensation, which was reasonable and in accordance with its policy.
Following the stage 1 response, between February to April 2023 the surveyor was in contact with the resident on multiple occasions to try to arrange the more detailed inspection. However she later cancelled 3 scheduled visits. Whilst it is accepted that this hindered the landlord’s ability to further assess the situation in a timely manner, there is no evidence that it was in further communication with the resident between April and August 2023. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to have engaged with the resident and made clear its expectations in terms of access under the terms of her tenancy agreement.
Once the surveyor was able to gain access to the property on 14 August 2023, an extensive schedule of works was produced. Although not complex as individual repairs, the list demonstrated that a significant number of remedial works needed to be undertaken in each room within the property. Given the volume of repairs and the likelihood of disruption caused to the resident, it was reasonable for the landlord to consider temporarily decanting her to complete the remedial works.
There was a delay in communicating the outcome of the August 2023 inspection outcome with the resident. Furthermore there is no record that the landlord made attempts to discuss her housing options further until December 2023 which was unreasonable. The landlord acknowledged the delay within its final complaint response and apologised which was appropriate, and she was compensated £200 which was reasonable. The offer was made in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy for a “high effort, high impact” service failure and was sufficient to put matters right for the resident.
It is recognised that the prospect of moving out of the property, even temporarily, caused the resident considerable worry and upset. Records show that between December 2023 and April 2024, the landlord tried to engage with the resident on approximately 8 occasions to discuss her decant options. This demonstrated that the landlord was committed to working with the resident to find a resolution to allow it to resolve the outstanding repairs.
Since the conclusion of the complaint, the landlord advised the Ombudsman it has had difficulty gaining access to the property to complete the remedial works and has provided evidence to show its attempts to engage with the resident. Whilst it is understood that the resident is apprehensive about the pending remedial works, the landlord is entitled to rely on the expertise of its qualified surveyor to determine the scope of works required. She is encouraged to adhere to the terms of her tenancy agreement and allow access for the landlord to complete repairs.
In determining whether there has been service failure or maladministration we consider both the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord has recognised any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are as relevant as the original mistake or service failure.
In this case, the landlord acknowledged that there were communication failures and it was delayed in making it clear what the outcome of the surveyor’s visit was in August 2023. In response, its complaint responses were comprehensive and offered sufficient compensation in accordance with its policy to put matters right, resulting in a finding of reasonable redress. It is clear that the landlord has made recent and continued efforts to gain access to the property to complete the suggested remedial works.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

It is not clear that the resident made a complaint to the landlord before approaching the Ombudsman in January 2023. Once the landlord became aware of the resident’s complaint, it acknowledged her concerns the same day and responded to her within the expected timeframe which was appropriate.
The landlord’s stage 1 response to the resident was comprehensive and detailed. It set out its findings clearly and in date order. It acknowledged its failures fairly and provided the resident with reassurance that it was committed to resolving the repairs, offering her several dates for a surveyor to visit.
The resident made it clear in her communication on 6 April 2023 that she was unhappy with the outcome of her complaint, explaining that the situation was having a detrimental impact to her physical and mental wellbeing. Although the landlord discussed the impact the situation was having on the resident’s wellbeing as part of telephone calls made to her separately about her rent account at that time, it failed to acknowledge her communication as a request to escalate her complaint. This left the resident feeling as though it had not taken the matter seriously and she experienced time and trouble in approaching the Ombudsman for further support. It should not have taken intervention from the Ombudsman for the landlord to have escalated the complaint.
On 13 December 2023 the landlord contacted the resident and explained it needed more time to complete a comprehensive response and advised her she could expect to receive an outcome by 29 December 2023. Whilst the landlord’s communication was open and explained the reason for the delay, it failed to follow up on its promise. A stage 2 response was not issued until 3 January 2024 which was unreasonable.
The landlord’s final response was an opportunity for it to put things right and learn from outcomes. It acknowledged that it had failed to treat her contact in April 2023 as a request to escalate her complaint and made assurances that it would use her experience as an example for its teams to improve its future service. It made an offer of £300 in compensation, specific to its complaint handling failures. The amount it offered was fair and significantly higher than the maximum amount the landlord usually offers for complaint handling failures within its compensation policy.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In this case, the landlord offered reasonable redress for its failure to provide the resident with a final complaint response in a timely manner. It acknowledged its mistakes and compensated the resident fairly. Its recognition of the failures and its overall response was sufficient to put matters right.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould satisfactorily, resulting in a finding of reasonable redress.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling associated complaint satisfactorily, resulting in a finding of reasonable redress.