Sanctuary Housing Association (202007219)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202007219

Sanctuary Housing Association

8 September 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

The resident has complained about:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the roof, including the associated damp and mould problems.
2. The landlord’s handling of their requests for a new back door.

Jurisdiction

The resident has also raised a number of other complaints about the landlord (including about the heating, hot water, sink, back door and toilet). The Housing Ombudsman confirmed the issues this case could consider, and those it could not, in an email to the resident on 18 May 2021. That email provided both the landlord’s and the Ombudsman’s references for the other cases as these other issues were still progressing through the landlord’s complaint procedure. As they have not completed the landlord’s procedure they cannot be considered by the Housing Ombudsman.
Most of these issues have been raised since the final response that led to this complaint, which is why they are still going through the landlord’s process. However the backdoor complaint was raised both during the complaint that led to this case, and has been dealt with more recently as a new, ongoing complaint. Therefore the requests made in 2019/2020 about the back door can be considered in this case, whereas the more recent complaint has a separate reference with the Ombudsman and the landlord.

Background and summary of events

The resident submitted a formal complaint in July 2020. This was a wide–ranging complaint and raised several issues. In brief, the issues raised were:
1. The past handling and causes of a fire (including a claim for a new carpet) and a leak.
2. That the resident had paid to re-wire the electrics as they felt the landlord had failed to do so.
3. Their request for new gates.
4. Ongoing damp issues (and their belief that the roof was the cause and had not been addressed). The damp had stopped the resident from using their bedroom.
5. Repeated reports about birds nesting in the roof.
6. That the drains had regularly blocked for years and the issue continued. The resident understood works had been due but suspended due to covid-19 restrictions.
7. That they had requested a new back door in September 2019 due to the ‘freezing’ house over winter.
8. The quality of a new kitchen installed in 2018.
9. Problems with drainage and trees in the garden.
10. Staff conduct, including automated rent arrears letters.
The landlord replied the same month as part of its ‘front line’ attempt to resolve formal complaints. It explained:
1. It had asked for authorisation from the major works team to complete the suspended drainage works. Two days after this email it confirmed the works were authorised and the contractor would contact the resident directly to arrange the works.
2. That all the other issues could not be addressed as they had not been raised within the last 6 months and so were considered too historic under the landlord’s complaint procedure.
3. It would offer £150 for the inconvenience of the delayed drain repairs, and of having to chase the repair.
The resident did not accept the landlord’s response. They felt the drain works had been overdue for 15 years, and so the delay due to the covid-19 restrictions should not be used as a reason. They also asked why none of their other complaints had been responded to, and specifically highlighted their ongoing request for a new back door.
The landlord then sent its final response to the complaint on 4 September. It explained:
1. The following issues had not been raised in the 6 months prior to the July 2020, and therefore were considered too historic to address under the complaints procedure:
  1. The fire occurred in 2013, and the claim for replacement carpets last discussed in 2017.
  2. It had no record of a leak and was assumed to have occurred ‘some years ago,’ ie before the current repair records.
  3. The resident had paid for a private electrician in 2018. The landlord gave advice about how to avoid potentially fraudulent contractor, and that all repairs should be raised with the landlord.
  4. The tree issue was raised in 2017.
  5. The kitchen was installed in 2017.
  6. The landlord apologised if any of its letters about rent arrears had been rude. It invited the resident to provide details of any letters or calls with staff that had been unreasonable. However it also reminded the resident any issues from more than 6 months ago would be considered too historic.
2. The landlord also explained other issues would not be investigated in the final response:
  1. It explained the loft insulation had been re-laid and thermal lining paper installed in the bedroom to help with condensation in September 2019. The landlord had also inspected the loft at the same time and found no repair issues. While this was more than 6 months before the formal complaint, the formal complaint stated the damp and mould issue was ongoing, therefore it is not clear why it was included with the historic issues in both formal response.
  2. The landlord stated the birds were no long nesting and the repair team would contact the resident to block the entrance. The landlord’s complaint responses did not address the resident’s complaint they had raised this for 4 years. It is also not clear why this was included with the historic issues when the landlord agreed the repair was still to be done.
  3. It explained the back door was included on the planned programme for 2020/21, but that all of its programmes were subject to delay while it responded to the Covid-19 situation. The landlord stated it may be some time before the door was replaced. The response did not address the resident’s report that the house was ‘freezing’ in winter and that they blamed the door for this. It is also not clear why this was addressed alongside the historic issues when it was ongoing.
3. The only issue the landlord’s final response fully responded to was the drainage complaint. It explained:
  1. The issue was raised in August 2019. It had informed the resident in January 2020 that extensive works were required. The works began 10 February but were then suspended in March due to the first national Covid-19 lockdown.
  2. The works were expanded after the lockdown ended, and completed on 10 August 2020.
  3. The landlord did not consider this drain issue to be a ‘continued or persistent issue’ based on the resident’s past reports. It highlighted previous reports about the garden, toilet, and kitchen sink in 2017, and then the toilet in 2019 were all reported as cleared at the time following the contractor’s visits.
  4. The landlord increased the compensation however from £150 to £350 to acknowledge the inconvenience of the time taken from August 2019 to August 2020 (albeit with the Covid-19 lockdown delay outside of the landlord’s control).
The resident replied in September 2020 to say they would accept the compensation for the drain repairs, but would raise the other complaints with the Ombudsman.
The resident explained to the Ombudsman that they wanted the outstanding repairs completed. They highlighted that the repairs to the roof had not resolved the damp issue and so they considered this one of the unresolved repairs despite the landlord’s reference to past, completed works.

Assessment and findings

Historic issues

The landlord’s complaint policy does explain it will not respond to historic issues. The Housing Ombudsman Service’s Scheme also states that complaints should be raised within 6 months of an issue occurring. Therefore it was reasonable for the landlord to explain the following issues were too historic to respond to: the fire and carpet claim; the bathroom leak; the electrician; staff conduct and rent arrears letters; the kitchen installation; the garden and trees.
The resident did not challenge this explanation or re-raise these issues with the Ombudsman.

Drainage

The landlord has stated that the required repairs have been completed. The resident has not disputed this. The resident has also confirmed to both the Ombudsman and the landlord that they accepted the offer of compensation. Therefore this issue is considered closed.

Roof repairs

The resident has complained about ongoing damp and mould issues in the property. The landlord stated in its final response these issues were dealt with in September 2019 with work to the loft and wall insulation. The resident has complained these repairs were either not completed or inadequate.
The landlord’s repair logs and background summary show:
1. The landlord visited in January 2019 and advised the resident the damp and mould was a condensation issue (and not a repair issue).
2. The resident chased the issue in July 2019. At this time the landlord was also chasing its contractor for a copy of its report that it had not received.
3. The landlord visited in September 2019 and did not identify any repair issues. It only recommended installing ‘a couple of extra roof vents’ to help ventilation and condensation. In the same month the resident reported to the landlord its contractor had said there was too much insulation and the vents needed repositioning.
4. The resident asked for the bird access points to be filled in March 2019, but this was not possible until June 2019 when the birds had left. The resident chased the issue again in September 2019.
5. The resident chased the roof work again in November 2019. The log states the repairs were waiting for the roofing contractor. There is no completion date noted and the comments on 27 November 2019 explain the landlord could not confirm an appointment as the roofer was not available. The background summary notes a call in August 2020 where the resident agreed the vents had been installed but that they still had issues with damp.
6. The resident chased the bird access points in September 2020, and the landlord again stated the repairs were time sensitive.
7. The roofing issue has continued outside of the time period this report can assess. The final response was sent in September 2020 and (other than specific promised actions) this is as far as this report can assess as we can only assess those issues and incidents which have first been responded to through the landlord’s procedure. However the repair logs show the landlord was continuing to investigate potential leak and damp issues in the roof area in April/May 2021.
In terms of the damp and mould issue which has been linked to the roof, it is not clear why the landlord did not provide a more thorough response to this in its stage 1 or final responses. The resident reported the issue was ongoing, therefore while there were repairs more than 6 months earlier, the resident was in effect saying this had not worked and the issue continued. Therefore it would have been appropriate for the landlord to investigate the resident’s 2020 reports of damp and mould. This may have resulted in a formal complaint response that explained the evidence that showed how condensation was the issue and how the repairs had been completed as recommended. Equally it was an opportunity to check the repairs had been completed correctly and whether there were any other issues. However as the landlord did not address the reported ongoing issue at the time of the formal complaint it did not help resolve the resident’s ongoing concerns.
Furthermore the landlord’s final response says that the required repairs were completed in September 2019. The repair log contradicts this and states they were not completed at the end of November 2019. Ultimately both parties agree the works were eventually completed, however the evidence provided does not align with the explanation given in the final response. Therefore the landlord’s response to the complaint about the roof repairs and the potentially associated damp and mould was inadequate, and demonstrates why a more detailed investigation may have helped.
The landlord also failed to respond to the resident’s complaint that it had not repaired the bird access points in the roof in a reasonable time. The resident’s complaint specifically raised how they had reported this for 4 years. The landlord’s repair logs show the resident chasing the issue in March, June and September 2019 and how the landlord knew it was a time sensitive issue. However the landlord was still referring to the repair as time sensitive in September 2020 when the resident had to raise it again through their formal complaint. The final response helped address the issue by saying its repair team would contact the resident. However the repair logs provided show the resident was still chasing the issue in October 2020 (after the September 2020 final response) and that the repair job had no finish date.
Therefore the landlord’s response both in terms of investigating its past handling of the bird access repairs and with following through with the final response’s promised actions to block the access was inadequate.

Back door

The resident raised the back door in September 2019. The repair log shows an order to install a trim and an unspecified overhaul of the rear door in October, completed in November. In January 2020 the repair log shows the rear door was to be put forward for capital replacement as it could not be ‘repaired.’ The landlord’s surveyor did suggest that a new door may not be approved as it may not be required, based on the photographs taken. However it was approved on 19 February as non-urgent work for the ‘new financial year’ (ie from April 2020 onwards). Unfortunately in May 2020 the landlord explained that all non-urgent works were delayed until ‘later in the year.’
The door was identified as possibly requiring replacement on 24 January. By 3 March the repair log shows the landlord had still not submitted the details of the request for a replacement. However the landlord had already determined in February 2020 that any replacement would not be until after March anyway. Therefore this administrative delay did not affect the actual repair.
More important however is the classification of the work required to the door. The landlord’s notes show the Environmental Health department had asked the landlord to replace the door if it could not be adequately repaired. It is assumed the landlord could not repair it as it did then put it forward for its capital replacement programme. The Environmental Health Department is responsible for ensuring compliance with its own advice and orders, and it is outside the jurisdiction of the Housing Ombudsman Service. However the fact it had raised a repair issue, and the landlord had accepted there was a repair issue, is relevant to this case.
The resident had reported the cold had affected their health, and that air entering through the door caused this. The landlord had attempted a repair in November and revisited in January to conclude it could not repair the door further. Therefore it is reasonable to assume this was a repair issue and not an improvement.
Landlord’s are required to complete relevant repairs by the tenancy agreement, and by Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The landlord’s repair policy states it will aim to complete non-emergency repairs within 28 days.
Longer term planned maintenance and capital work programmes are used by landlords for efficient maintenance of their properties. This often includes completing works that are not necessarily required as a repair issue, and are often improvements. While these works may be outside the landlord’s specific repairing obligations they can be more effective ways of managing their properties.
However these ongoing programmes do not replace the landlord’s ongoing repairing obligations. Where a repair issue has been identified it should be appropriately resolved through the repair process. The landlord failed to do this with the resident’s back door.
The landlord attempted repairs in November, demonstrating it accepts repairs were needed. It investigated further in January and concluded a replacement was needed as opposed to further repairs. However this replacement was in effect the solution to the repair issue, and not simply a replacement door as part of the landlord’s ongoing property maintenance/modernisation programmes. Therefore the replacement door should have been arranged through the repair process and not left for the capital programme.
This case can only consider the landlord’s handling of the back door requests up to September 2020 (the final response). The handling of the later requests after this date were subject to a separate complaint to the landlord and have a separate Ombudsman reference number.
The resident also raised a request for replacement gates in their formal complaint. The landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 response both failed to respond to this request. That response could have been to explain the issue was historic, that such a repair was outside the landlord’s obligations (and why), or how the repair will be investigated/completed. However none of these responses were provided to this issue.

Determination (decision)

I can confirm in accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Service Scheme:
1. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the roof, including the associated damp and mould problems.
2. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for a new back door.

Orders

As a result of the determination above the landlord has been order to, within four weeks:
1. Pay the resident a total of £250, consisting of:
  1. £100 to acknowledge the inconvenience of the landlord’s failure to fully respond to the formal complaint about the roof repairs.
  2. £50 to acknowledge the inconvenience of the landlord’s delays in filling the bird access points in the roof.
  3. £100 to acknowledge the inconvenience of addressing the back door issue as a long term planned maintenance issue and not a repair issue.
2. Confirm the resident’s current view of the damp/mould issue and how this relates to the roof. If the resident reports ongoing damp/mould issues the landlord should arrange a date for an appropriate investigation, if it has not done so recently already.