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

Sanctuary Housing Association (202002647)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202002647

Sanctuary Housing Association

1 March 2021


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 handling of repairs to the exterior of the resident’s property; and
    2. the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident has occupied the property since 1989 and became a leaseholder in 1989. The resident states that works were carried out to an external downpipe at the property in 2011 but the resident reported that the works had been completed to a poor standard, resulting in water ingress into her property. The resident states that a complaint was logged in 2011 in relation to this work, the outcome of which is unknown.
  2. The resident initially raised a stage 1 complaint on 11 October 2014, primarily relating to the service charges applied to her property. The resident queried charges relating to works to the downpipe, noting that her previous complaint about the ‘ill fitted’ downpipe and resulting damage to her property had not been resolved. Following a meeting with the resident and further correspondence, the landlord wrote to her on 30 December 2014, confirming its position on the service charge queries and noting her concerns regarding damp. It assured her that an inspection would be completed as soon as possible.
  3. The landlord continued to liaise with the resident between October 2014 and March 2016 to arrange for remedial works to the external brickwork. It provided a response to the service charge queries on 30 December 2015 and followed up to confirm that the only outstanding complaint was about the damp in the property. The resident responded stating that she did not consider the service charge issues resolved and raised some further queries. In a letter dated 4 January 2016 the landlord confirmed that it would provide a collated response to the resident’s open complaint and stated ‘the issues with the damp are being addressed with re-pointing work at the property’.
  4. Re-pointing works were completed to the external brickwork but failed to resolve the internal damp issues. On 3 March 2016 the repairs element of the complaint was escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process. The landlord completed an inspection on 11 March 2016, which identified further works required to the external brickwork and downpipes. The landlord wrote to the resident on 30 March 2016 agreeing that there had been delays in completing the repairs to address the damp and acknowledging its poor communication. It noted that an order had been raised in November 2015 with its sub-contractor but it was not clear if it had attended to complete the works. It apologised for its sub-standard service.
  5. The resident wrote to the landlord on 3 August 2016, indicating that following the appointment in March 2016, the works had not been progressed and referring to her ongoing complaint that the landlord had failed to act to remedy ‘an ill fitted pipe by contractors [the landlord] employed in 2011 causing extreme damage to the outside and inside of [her] property’. Quotes were then obtained from an external contractor and consideration was given to whether a consultation under section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 was required. The landlord confirmed in December 2016 that this would not be necessary and it sought internal approval for the works.
  6. The resident’s local councillor sent an enquiry to the landlord on 6 December 2016. The landlord responded on 5 January 2017, noting that the resident had a long standing complaint about repairs to her external wall. The landlord confirmed that it would respond to the resident directly and noted that an inspection had been carried out on 20 December 2016 to establish what works were required. The landlord provided an update to the resident on 3 January 2017, apologising for the lack of communication and delays in progressing re-pointing works. It noted that the last communication with the resident regarding the repointing had been in March 2016. The landlord stated that it was investigating why the re-pointing works had not yet been completed.
  7. The landlord provided a further update on 3 February 2017. It confirmed it had obtained a quotation to ‘check the gully’s, re-point walls and seal balconies’. The works had been approved and would be completed by its contractor. The landlord committed to keep the resident updated and apologised that it had not responded to the resident’s letter of 10 August 2016 about the service charges. It noted, however, that a response had already been provided to the service charge aspect of the complaint on 30 December 2014.
  8.  In March 2017 the landlord completed further works to the external brickwork and repair the gullies, this was confirmed to the resident on 6 April 2017. The resident raised concerns about the works in a letter dated 20 April 2017, noting that some works to replace brickwork had not been completed and stated, ‘there are signs that some pointing has been done, however, the porous brickwork which has caused extensive damage inside my property has not been addressd’. The resident attached a copy of an email from 2015 where the landlord’s surveyor had confirmed it had arranged for gutter maintenance and replacement of 2 hoppers to prevent further issues. The surveyor also noted that an area required re-pointing and that ‘there is an area where some bricks will have to be replaced’. The surveyor cautioned that if this was not remedied it would ‘still permit driving rain to ingress the walls fabric’.
  9. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s dissatisfaction in a letter dated 27 April 2017 and forwarded her concerns to the relevant teams to respond. A substantive response was provided on 11 May 2017, which asked the resident to confirm whether the internal condition had remained the same following the recent works. It offered to consider reimbursing the resident for the internal damage as a ‘goodwill gesture’. It asked the resident to provide photographs of the damage and 3 quotes for internal re-decoration.
  10. On 24 May 2017 the landlord completed a further inspection of the external brickwork and internal damage to the resident’s property, where it was evident that the water ingress remained. Further works were recommended to render the external wall. The landlord confirmed the outcome of the inspection on 13 June 2017 and stated that it would follow up once the works had been completed. It repeated its offer to reimburse the cost of redecorating. On the same date the resident wrote to the landlord with some queries about the works.
  11. The landlord clarified on 20 June 2017 confirming that, ‘the render will be from top to bottom and the width of your flat’. The landlord confirmed that it would be responsible for future repairs to the render caused by wear and tear. It confirmed that it did not consider that replacement of the hoppers and downpipes was necessary, as water damage to the walls had ceased. The resident was dissatisfied with this decision, as it went against the recommendations of the surveyor from 2015. She also noted that the internal work was not re-decoration but re-plastering due to the landlord’s failure to address the external issue.
  12. The landlord wrote to the resident on 14 July 2017. It confirmed that ‘repairs carried out to the hopper outlet were successful and the drainage is fit for purpose’. It would not provide an open ended commitment that no charges would be raised for future repairs as, ‘no repairs can be guaranteed indefinitely’ but it would be happy to discuss future charges if the repairs were to fail within an unacceptably short period of time. The landlord repeated its offer to reimburse the cost of making good on receipt of quotes. The resident responded on 8 August 2017, emphasising the long history of the discussions about replacing the hopper. She also stated that as the landlord had ‘admitted liability for the damage both external and internal … it is [the landlord’s] responsibilities to put right the wall internally where holes have appeared and plaster is crumbling, at the time the external wall is being rendered’.
  13. Following discussions with the surveyor involved in the works to the hopper and downpipes, the landlord confirmed on 18 August 2017 that no further works were required and its position regarding reimbursement for internal redecoration would not change, as it reflected the terms of the resident’s lease. The landlord apologised for the delay in completing the rendering work. It offered £50 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its lack of communication and progress in 2016. The response outlined the process for requesting an Independent Review of the resident’s complaint, at the final stage of the landlord’s internal complaints process.
  14. In August 2017 works to render part of the external wall were completed. The resident was dissatisfied, referring to an email from the landlord, dated 6 July 2017, which had advised that rendering would be completed ‘from top to bottom for the width of the flat’. She wrote to the landlord on 31 August 2017, noting the following points:
    1. The resident had not been involved in recent conversations regarding the downpipe and hopper and referred the landlord to the surveyor’s email of 2015 stating that without further works issues may arise.
    2. The landlord had attended in 2012 to replaster areas of her property affected by water penetration but had never resolved the underlying issue of porous brickwork, meaning that the problem reoccurred and caused further damage. As the full width of the building had not been rendered, including the external wall of her bathroom, which was badly affected, the damp would continue to penetrate. This had been raised with the landlord on 25 August 2017 when the contractors completed the rendering work. The resident requested that the full width of the property be rendered, ‘as a matter of urgency’.  
  15. The resident met with the landlord’s Maintenance Surveyor and Assistant Operations Manager at the property on 5 September 2017, where the landlord agreed to render the remaining area. It also agreed to replace a hopper for a larger size and to complete works to a downpipe that had been cemented into the ground. The landlord followed up in writing, maintaining its offer to reimburse the resident for internal repairs. It noted that the complaint would be kept open at the investigation stage and repeated its offer of £50 compensation.
  16. The resident chased an update on the remaining rendering on 14 November 2017. The landlord responded on 30 November 2017, confirming that a quote had been received and was in the process of being approved. On 15 December 2017, the landlord wrote to confirm the name of the contractor that would be completing the works and on 28 December 2017 the landlord advised that the rendering would be completed on 10 January 2018.
  17. The landlord next updated the resident on 28 May 2018. It noted that the works had been booked in for 8 May 2018 but the contractor had withdrawn and it was now obtaining alternative quotations. It is not clear from the information provided why the works did not take place on 10 January 2018 as originally planned.
  18. The landlord provided a further update on 16 November 2018, following discussions with the resident and its regional maintenance team. It wished to complete a further internal inspection, as it now believed the most effective solution may be to apply dry seal waterproofing to the brickwork, as an alternative to render. The landlord noted that the resident had refused access for an inspection and asked that she do so or the complaint would be closed. It also noted that she had not provided quotes for the internal redecoration but its maintenance surveyor had provided an estimate of £367.84. It offered this amount, plus £100 for the length of time taken to resolve the issues and the associated inconvenience. Alternatively, the resident could submit other quotes.
  19. On 29 January 2019 the landlord wrote to confirm whether the resident wished to accept its offer of compensation. The resident responded on 6 February 2019, stating that the complaint had not been resolved, as the rendering works had not been completed and she had not received credits to her service charge account. She asked the landlord to reconsider its offer of compensation once the complaint had been resolved.
  20. An inspection was arranged for 14 March 2019 and the landlord provided a review response to the complaint on 22 March 2019. It apologised for the inconvenience caused and acknowledged the ‘extensive delays’ in addressing the damp to the resident’s home. The landlord noted that there had been poor communication with its contractors and that it had failed to identify the cause of the issue. It accepted that a section of brickwork had been not been rendered, noting that this area was not currently allowing water ingress into the property, and agreed to complete the remaining work to prevent future issues, the cost of which would not be charged to residents ‘at this time’. The landlord increased its offer of compensation in respect of its failure to address the water ingress to £1843. The landlord offered £25 for each month that the resident was affected by the landlord’s failure to complete works to address the damp, £150 in respect of delays and £368 for redecoration of the affected internal areas.
  21. On 9 April 2019, the resident responded to the landlord and stated that her acceptance of the offer of compensation would depend on satisfactory completion of the rendering. She also requested confirmation that the hopper would be replaced and the concreted downpipe addressed at the time of the rendering works. The landlord emailed the resident on 15 April 2019 stating that it understood her position with regard to compensation but that ‘it would not be appropriate for the complaint to remain open pending completion of the rendering works’. The resident’s query about the downpipe and hopper had been forwarded to the relevant team for comment. On 31 May 2019 the landlord confirmed that following inspection it was satisfied that the hopper was of adequate size and there were no concerns about the position of the downpipe.
  22. The landlord provided a review response in relation to the service charge element of the complaint on 18 July 2019. Around this time the resident was also informed that following discussions with specialist contractors, it believed that access issues would prevent the rendering works from being completed to the required standard and so other options were being considered. On 21 August 2019, the landlord noted that the resident remained ‘dissatisfied with the goodwill offers made for both the service charge element and the repair related aspect’ of the complaint. It again offered to carry out a director review of either element and asked the resident to confirm the reasons she wished to escalate the complaint.
  23. The resident provided confirmation of the outstanding issues in a letter dated 28 August 2019. She asked that both elements of the complaint be escalated to the review stage. With regard to the outstanding repairs, she noted that the damage to her property had not been addressed for 6 years. The landlord had failed to render the full width of the property in 2017, as it had committed to do, and further quotations for the remaining work had not been sought until 2019. The landlord had confirmed that it now intended to re-point and replace the porous bricks to address the issues but the resident had not been provided with a start date for the works. The resident repeated that she did not wish to accept an offer of compensation until the repairs had been resolved. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request for a review of her complaint on 5 September 2019.
  24. The works to seal the porous bricks and re-point were completed at the end of October 2019, however, the resident emailed on 28 October 2019 to report that they had not been completed to an acceptable standard. She stated that the works had ‘made the condition of [her] property even worse both visually and structurally’. She noted that the bricks had not been sealed. 
  25. The landlord provided a complaint response on 6 November 2019, outlining its offer of compensation, which it increased to £2291.43 in respect of the service charge element of the complaint and to £2018 in respect of the repairs element. The landlord stated that dissatisfaction with the standard of the most recent works, ‘would not be considered within stage 3 of our complaints procedure’, as this did not form part of the original complaint. The landlord confirmed that it had post-inspected the works and found that they had been completed to an acceptable standard, ‘with all the defective bricks replaced and the remaining areas sealed’.
  26. On 8 November 2019 the resident was notified by email that the landlord had arranged an appointment ‘to address the additional bricks [the resident had] stated were in need of replacement’. The landlord again stated that this did not form part of the open complaint. On 15 November 2019 the resident confirmed her acceptance of the compensation offered in relation to the service charge complaint but asked to escalate the complaint relating to repairs. The resident queried how the works had passed the post-inspection when the porous bricks had not been replaced. She emphasised that her complaint about the recent works did form part of the open complaint as the issue with the bricks had been ongoing since the complaint began in 2014 and was still not resolved.
  27. The resident’s complaint was escalated to the Director Review stage of the landlord’s complaints process on 22 November 2019. The landlord provided a final response on 15 January 2020 following a review by its Operations Director. The review concluded that the £2018 compensation previously offered was fair, taking into account the inconvenience experienced by the resident and the time taken to address her concerns. The response stated that the water ingress had now been resolved and that the compensation offer took into account the length of time taken to resolve the complaint.
  28. In a letter dated 30 January 2020, the resident expressed her dissatisfaction that she was not invited to present her complaint in person. She also stated that she would not accept the offer of compensation without a guarantee that the landlord would be responsible for the cost of further works should the sealant fail or further brickwork require replacement.
  29. The landlord wrote to the resident on 11 February 2020. It noted that it was not part of the Director Review process to allow residents to present their complaint in person. The landlord noted that:

‘given that the review has been completed … your request for a guarantee of the works completed and also confirmation that any future works to the external brick work will not be charged to you, cannot be considered as part of this complaint outcome or factor into your decision as to whether you accept or reject our offer’.

However, it had decided to offer a 5 year guarantee on the sealant and replacement bricks. This meant that the landlord would accept responsibility for any further works prior to 15 October 2024 and bear the cost.

  1. The resident referred her complaint to her MP, who contacted the landlord on 9 March 2020 to explain that the resident was dissatisfied with the outcome. The landlord responded on 7 April 2020 to confirm that its Head of Housing would conduct a further and final review of the complaint. The landlord later confirmed that the Head of Housing had concluded that the complaint had been handled appropriately and that the resolution offered was reasonable. The complaint was then referred to this Service. 

Assessment and findings

Lease, Policies and Procedures

  1. Under clause 5(c) of the resident’s lease agreement, the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair the structure and exterior of the property, ‘including drains gutters and external pipes’, and making good any defect affecting the structure.
  2. Under clause 3(h), the resident is required to provide access to the landlord at reasonable times and upon notice to ‘view and examine’ the condition of the property and to ‘make good all defects and wants of repair’.
  3. The cost of maintenance and repairs completed in accordance with clause 5(c) will be recoverable from the resident and other lessees in accordance with Schedule 4 by way of a service charge, which will be billed to the resident as detailed at Schedule 5.
  4. The landlord has provided its repairs policies dating back to 2015. Although it is noted that the complaint was brought in October 2014, the policy in place in 2015 defines non-emergency repairs as ‘appointed repairs’ and states that it will aim to complete these within 28 working days. The landlord’s Repairs Procedure from that time states that ‘where damage has been caused to items belonging to the service user … if damage is a result of [the landlord’s] action or inaction this will be investigated as a complaint’. It also notes that the service user should be kept informed at every stage. A post-inspection should be arranged and completed within 5 days of completion of the works.
  5. The landlord’s complaints procedure in from 2019 includes 2 stages, however, as the procedure at the time the complaint was brought in 2014 also included a third ‘Director Review’ stage, this was honoured by the landlord in 2019. The compensation framework in place in 2019 noted that compensation may be payable where works were not completed within target timescales, where a resident was inconvenienced, where the landlord failed to meet service standards, or where there was damage to property or decoration due to the action or inaction of the landlord. The amounts stipulated are relatively modest, generally up to £50 in respect of each failing.

 

 

Repairs 

  1. It is not disputed that the landlord was responsible for carrying out works to the external brickwork and drainage system to prevent water ingress into the property. The landlord has accepted that there was significant delays in completing successful repairs to address the issue, which began in 2011 following works to an external downpipe.
  2. Following the resident’s complaint of 11 October 2014, the landlord communicated with her about the damp issues and completed inspections, however, there is no evidence that works were raised until November 2015 and it is unclear whether these works went ahead. This was a considerable delay in arranging works, which greatly exceeded the landlord’s target timescales of 28 days for completing routine repairs and approximately 2 months for completing major repairs. The landlord failed to provide an explanation for this delay.
  3. The landlord did complete some re-pointing works prior to March 2016, however, an inspection on 11 March 2016 found that further works were required. These were not progressed until the resident followed up in August 2016, an unexplained delay of almost 5 months. According to the evidence it then took until December 2016 for the landlord to establish that a section 20 consultation would not be required and additional works were eventually completed in March 2017 but again were unsuccessful.
  4. From the date of the post-inspection in March 2016, it took the landlord a year to arrange and complete further works. The landlord has again provided no reasonable justification for this considerable delay and the resident was required to chase the landlord ensure the works were progressed, causing unnecessary stress and inconvenience. When the works completed in March 2017 did not resolve the issues it was again left to the resident to identify that works to porous brickwork had not been completed and to follow up with the landlord. This indicates a lack of communication between the landlord, its contractor and the resident. It also raises concerns about the effectiveness of the landlord’s post-inspection processes. A further inspection was not completed until May 2017, a month after the resident reported that the issue had not been resolved. Again, no explanation has been provided for the delay in investigating the ongoing issues.
  5. Although rendering works were completed in August 2017, these were not completed to the advised specification, resulting in further frustration and disappointment. The landlord failed to either manage the resident’s expectations as to the extent of the works it would complete, or to complete the agreed works. It was not until 18 July 2019 that the landlord provided a reasonable justification for failing to complete the works, which it said was due to access issues. Works planned for January 2018 were still outstanding in May 2018 and there is no evidence that the landlord communicated with the resident to provide updates during that period. Whilst it is acknowledged that the failure to complete the works in May 2018 was outside the landlord’s control due to the contractor pulling out, there was a further unreasonable delay until November 2018 before an update was provided and the landlord considered alternative remedies. Once the landlord had confirmed that it would be unable to complete the render to a satisfactory standard, it took 3 months to complete alternative works to seal and repair the brickwork.
  6. The landlord’s poor communication damaged its relationship with the resident such that she had no confidence that adequate works would be completed to remedy the issue once and for all. Understandably, the resident insisted on the works recommended in 2015 being completed to the hopper and downpipes before she considered the issues resolved, as she feared that the issues would recur. The landlord committed to complete this work following an inspection in 2017 but again failed to do so within a reasonable time. It then decided in 2019 that further works to the downpipe and hopper were unnecessary, adding to the resident’s frustration and mistrust.
  7. The Ombudsman notes that the professional opinion of the surveyor in 2015 did not necessarily represent a definitive assessment that works were required and given the length of time that had passed it was reasonable for the landlord to reassess in the context of the ongoing issues and more recent works. However, the landlord created an expectation that this work would be completed in 2017 to prevent further issues and it failed to follow through with this commitment. This further damaged relations with the resident, although there is no evidence of disrepair to the hopper and downpipe that it was required to address. Should issues reoccur that the resident suspects are related to the downpipe and hopper, the landlord should investigate and complete further works if necessary.
  8. The landlord failed to successfully establish the cause of the water penetration and to propose an effective solution between October 2014 and October 2019 when the area was sealed and brickwork replaced. The landlord failed to respond within the timelines indicated for major repairs referred to in its policies and failed to keep the resident adequately informed about the steps it was taking to progress the repairs. It also made commitments to complete works, which it then failed to carry out to the agreed standard. On several occasions the landlord identified and apologised for its poor communication and failure to resolve the issues, however, it failed to improve its service and unreasonable delays continued to occur, prompting the involvement of the resident’s local councillor, her MP, and eventually this Service.

Complaints Handling

  1. The landlord has kept comprehensive records of the progress of this complaint, dating back to 2014. It initially chose to keep the complaint open pending satisfactory resolution of the substantive issue, until 15 April 2019 when it advised that this would not be appropriate. The landlord’s approach and the multiple responses provided prior to the Director’s Review response of January 2020 made it difficult to keep track of the stage of the complaint and prevented the resident from escalating her complaint to this Service at an earlier stage. The landlord is encouraged to ensure that for future complaints it does not await resolution of the substantive issue before providing complaint responses at each stage and escalating appropriately.
  2. In the complaint review response of 22 March 2019 the landlord acknowledged the extensive delays, poor communication and failure to identify the underlying issue over a number of years. It agreed to complete the remaining work and offered £1843 compensation for the failures identified. This was increased to £2018 prior to the Director Review stage. The Ombudsman disagrees with the landlord’s comments that the resident’s dissatisfaction with the works completed in October 2019 did not form part of the complaint, as these works formed part of the proposed solution to the complaint brought in 2014. In November 2019, the landlord also made contradictory comments that the works had been completed to the required standard before later indicating that further works to replace bricks were required.
  3. As it is understood that effective repairs have now been completed and the landlord has guaranteed any further works until October 2024, the Ombudsman considers that an award of compensation is the most appropriate means of acknowledging the stress and inconvenience caused to the resident and addressing the damage caused to the decorations within her property.
  4. The Ombudsman will usually only make an order for compensation in excess of £700 where there has been maladministration that has had a severe, long-term impact on a resident. In the present case, whilst it is acknowledged that the length of time taken to address the repairs was considerable and the stress and inconvenience caused to the resident was significant, the landlord has offered compensation in excess of the amount that the Ombudsman would usually award in the circumstances. Whilst the repeated failure of the landlord to address the issues increased the impact on the resident, the landlord did take steps to complete some works and it has accepted and apologised for the unreasonable delays and poor communication. The Ombudsman therefore concludes that the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident that satisfactorily resolves the complaint. The Ombudsman is also satisfied that the landlord’s approach to reimbursement of the cost of redecoration is reasonable, as this is in line with its compensation policy.
  5. The Ombudsman would like to see evidence that the landlord has learnt from the outcomes of this complaint, provided training in the areas where failings were identified and amended its policies and procedures accordingly. The Ombudsman therefore makes the recommendations set out at paragraph 52 below.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to this investigation, which resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

  1. The Ombudsman agrees that there were considerable and repeated service failures by the landlord, which resulted in unreasonable delays and caused avoidable stress and inconvenience to the resident over a number of years. However, it is noted that the landlord did complete some works in an attempt to address the issues during that time and that some events that led to further delays were outside the landlord’s control. The Ombudsman is satisfied that a substantial offer of compensation is an appropriate means of recognising the seriousness of the failings and the amount previously offered by the landlord is reasonable in the circumstances.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that:
    1. The landlord re-offer the £2018 compensation in recognition of the failures identified in its repairs handling during the complaints process and confirmed at the Director Review stage;
    2. The landlord provide training to staff on its complaints handling process to ensure that staff provide responses and escalate complaints in accordance with the landlord’s policies and do not await resolution of the substantive issues.
    3. Review its policies and procedures for completing major repairs with a view to ensuring that customers do not experience unreasonable delays and that adequate systems are in place to post-inspect works and follow-up with residents to determine that repairs have been effective.