Sanctuary Housing Association (202008536)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202008536

Sanctuary Housing Association

21 January 2022

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 was about the landlord’s handling of:

a)     Repairs.

b)     Associated complaints.

Background and summary of events

2. Since 2009 the resident, an elderly man, has lived in a three–bedroom house (‘the property) on an assured tenancy basis, which is owned and managed by the landlord. He shares the property with his adult son, who he authorised to make this complaint on his behalf. This report will therefore refer to both as ‘the residents’.
3. The landlord has said that on 15 June 2020 the residents requested a repair of a bathroom fan. The evidence seen is of an online enquiry from the residents stating: “the property we live in is currently in need of repair. It needs a lot of repair……” to which, on 30 June 2020, the landlord asked what repairs were required.  The next record is of the bathroom fan repair being put on hold owing to Covid restrictions which following chasing by the residents on 7 July 2020 was scheduled for 22 July 2020.
4. The landlord’s record notes appointment details were texted to the residents when they could not get hold of them by phone. The residents said they remained unaware of the appointment date and on the day could not allow access. The residents emailed the repairs team on 28 and 31 July 2020 explaining the need for advance notice of appointments.
5. On 5 August 2020 the landlord offered an appointment date for 9 September 2020 which the residents refused as being too long to wait, saying they ought not to go to the back of the queue. In response, the landlord said the residents had previously refused the works [ie the failed appointment] and being routine repairs they could not be escalated, nor expedited on account of the backlog of repair work as a result of Covid.
6. On 24 August 2020 the residents requested a handrail repair, which was completed on 14 October 2020.
7. First complaint: On 24 August 2020 the residents lodged a complaint with the landlord about not being advised of the 22 July 2020 appointment and then being told to raise a new repair request. They said that owing to their health conditions the repair should be prioritised, but if going ahead on 9 September 2020 all outstanding repairs should be completed that day, ie plastering, skirting boards, and handrail.
8. On 9 September 2020 the skirting board repair was completed and a request raised for a replacement bathroom fan to be installed on 6 October 2020. It was found that the plastering would need to await an asbestos survey, which the contractor requested on 10 September 2020. The landlord did not request this, however, until 15 September 2020, with the survey completed on 27 September 2020 and received by the landlord on 7 October 2020. The landlord then scheduled the plastering for 30 November 2020. Meanwhile, unhappy with the delayed complaint response, the resident requested escalation to Stage 2, to which the landlord agreed.
9. Complaint response (Stage 2): On 21 October 2020 the landlord provided the resident with its complaint response. In summary, it explained:
   1. It understood the resident’s frustration at the first failed appointment but this was not service failure: appointment details had been texted but access declined and its routine nature meant it could not be escalated.
   2. The new appointment could not be fixed until 9 September 2020 as although it had a 20 working day published service response time for a routine repair, a backlog had arisen during lockdown causing some delay, for which it apologised.
   3. The need for the asbestos survey could not be identified sooner because its operative on the earlier occasion had been declined access.
   4. The 30 November 2020 date for the plastering appointment was the earliest date available at the time it was made – it required two operatives for a full day – but this had now been brought forward to 5 November 2020.
   5. A handrail repair request made on 26 August 2020 was completed on 14 October 2020, and it apologised that this was outside its published response time.
   6. It apologised that it had taken longer to resolve the repairs than it would have hoped and it would ensure this did not happen again.
   7. It offered the resident a £250 good will gesture in recognition of the time, trouble and inconvenience caused.
   8. This reply marked the final phase of its internal complaints procedure.
10. It appears the resident and his son accepted the £250 compensation at that time, and were happy with how matters had been left.
11. Follow-up complaint: However, on 5 November 2020 no-one attended for the plastering appointment and the residents complained that the son had taken the day off work (costing £100 in lost wages), to assist his father in getting the property ready for the appointment. They requested £500 compensation and an appointment for the following day, stating that if the contractor was late they would refuse entry.
12. On 6 November 2020 the landlord emailed back and apologised for the inconvenience. It noted the appointment remained scheduled for 30 November 2020, was unable to identify who the author of the earlier complaint response had spoken to regarding its rescheduling but would ask her to update them on her return from leave on 10 November 2020.
13. The residents replied to say that were both vulnerable on account of medical and mental health conditions as a result of which the repairs ought to have been prioritised. They considered the asbestos survey had been unnecessary and that the landlord had been wrong to blame delay on the pandemic. By way of outcome, they sought escalation of their complaint; a plastering appointment for midday on 11 November 2020; an apology and compensation totalling £2,500.
14. Follow-up complaint response: The landlord replied the same day to apologise for the missed appointment the previous day and reiterated that the author of the previous complaint response would update him as to the reason for the failed appointment and redress for that. Meanwhile it had been able to bring the appointment forward to w/c 18 November 2020 and asked that they let it know which day would be best. [The landlord’s internal records show that its repairs teams were handling a large volume of work at that time.] It noted it had already investigated his complaint and he had accepted its previous offer of £250. It said if he was unhappy he could refer his complaint to the Ombudsman, to which the residents insisted the complaint be looked into.
15. The landlord visited the resident on 9 November 2020 and agreed a plastering appointment for 11 November 2020.
16. On 10 November 2020 the author of the original complaint response emailed the residents to apologise for the missed appointment on 5 November 2020. She explained that was the result of the appointment having been incorrectly updated onto its system and that she would raise it with senior management to ensure it did not happen again. She reiterated she was unable to review the complaint in full, but offered the resident £10 in recognition of the failed appointment and £65 for the inconvenience caused.
17. The resident rejected the £75, requesting instead £250 compensation, a plastering repair on 12 November 2020 and decoration of the bathroom ceiling by the end of the month.  In response, the officer explained it could not compensate for loss of earnings and that the previous complaint had been investigated and closed, with compensation accepted. She explained it could only pay £10 for a failed appointment but it had increased this to £75 to take account of the inconvenience of moving furniture and the further delay of works. She said that although decoration was usually a tenant’s responsibility she had requested the bathroom be repainted but could not guarantee completion of this before the end of the month.
18. On 7 January 2021 the plastering of the bathroom ceiling was completed and it appears in February 2021 the landlord arranged for the walls and ceiling to be repainted on 5 March 2021. This then had to be pushed back to 18 March 2021 to allow for the plastering to dry out although it appears the landlord did not explain this to the resident.
19. The landlord received a complaint from the resident on 5 March 2021 about this delay and disputing the repainting was a goodwill gesture. [The repainting was completed on 18 March 2021.] The landlord replied to explain the painting was a goodwill gesture and not a repair and that if he was claiming a faulty fan caused damage to the plastering and paintwork he would need to raise that issue as a new complaint and to let it know if he wished to do so. The landlord also said that it would get back to him about the appointments.
20. Second complaint: On 16 April 2021 the resident raised a complaint regarding the missed appointment to complete the above replastering and decoration, for which he sought compensation. On 19 April 2021 the landlord acknowledged both this and his 5 March 2021 complaint. On 29 April 2021 he asked that this and his previous complaints be considered together to give an overall picture of the landlord’s continued failures for which he considered “significant compensation” to be due. The landlord responded the same day to say it could not group the complaints together as they concerned separate issues and had been dealt with separately.
21. Stage 1 complaint response: The landlord responded on 17 May 2021, by which time the plastering and decoration had been completed. It apologised for not having advised him of the rescheduling of the 5 March 2021 appointment to await the drying out of the replastering but that this had now been done and that it had also repainted the walls of the bathroom as a goodwill gesture for the failure. It offered £10 for the missed appointment; £25 for its delayed Stage 1 response as a result of Covid; and £50 for the inconvenience of having to raise a further complaint.
22. Stage 2 complaint response: The residents, however, immediately requested escalation to Stage 2, considering the £10 for the missed appointment insufficient recognition of the inconvenience and fact that he had had to take the day off work. The landlord replied on 16 June 2021, at which point the landlord offered a further £50 for the additional time and trouble caused by the failed appointment which resulted in him taking the day off work to assist his father to prepare the area for the work. That increased its total goodwill payment to £135. It said that while it could not reconsider the previous complaint its compensation had taken account of the fact that he had had cause to make a further complaint.

Assessment and findings

23. The residents first brought their complaint to this Service and raised a further formal complaint with the landlord when the landlord failed to fulfil the undertaking it had given them as resolution of their first complaint. They consider later failures meant the landlord ought to have revisited the complaint in its entirety and provided significantly increased compensation.
24. Before considering the later events and subsequent complaint, as the residents have brought the complaints in their entirety to the Ombudsman, it is appropriate to return to earlier events and the landlord’s response in order to determine if the landlord’s complaint response was a reasonable one:
25. First complaint: The bathroom repairs were delayed at the outset (June – July 2020) on account of Covid, and there is no evidence the delay was the result of service failure. This delay was then compounded, however, when the scheduled appointment of 22 July 2020 did not go ahead. While unfortunate as it led to a further seven week delay before the next appointment date, there is no evidence the failed appointment and subsequent delay was the fault of either party. The landlord’s records indicate the landlord texted the resident details of the appointment when it was unable to confirm directly over the phone. As its repairs procedure permits confirmation of appointment by phone/email/letter, a confirmation by text message would not have been inappropriate. The fact that the resident says he did not receive this text message and remained unaware of the date and unable to permit access is not, on the face of the available evidence, the result of a failure on the part of the landlord.
26. With respect to the ensuing seven week delay, following a failed appointment, the landlord’s repairs policy states it will reschedule on contact from the resident. This is what happened when the resident then made contact (28 and 31 July 2020). The new appointment date of 9 September 2020 was set and although this exceeded the landlord’s published 20 working day/28 calendar day service response time for a routine/appointed repair, its repairs policy allows for repairs to be prioritised and rescheduled when unforeseen events occur. The landlord has explained this was the earliest possible date owing to the backlog of repairs that had arisen during Covid restrictions, and the Ombudsman accepts Covid represented an unforeseen event that would have a knock-on effect for repairs.
27. As to whether the repair ought to have been prioritised by the landlord, the residents consider so on account of what they have explained to be their physical and mental health conditions. The Ombudsman notes the landlord’s repairs policy allows flexibility to account for the needs of vulnerable residents and the severity of the situation. The landlord has said, however, that it has no vulnerabilities recorded for the residents and although the outstanding replastering and decoration was causing the residents understandable upset and frustration, there is no indication the situation was a serious one requiring prioritisation for immediate response. There was also no evidence that the residents were without use of the bathroom throughout. Accordingly, the Ombudsman does not see this delay to be the result of an omission or failure on the part of the landlord.
28. In any event, the appointment on 9 September 2020 was not the end of matters as it led to the need for a replacement fan and an asbestos survey. The residents have disputed the need for the survey and say it ought to have been identified sooner. That was clearly not possible as the landlord had been declined entry on the earlier occasion and so could not have identified the need sooner. Furthermore, the landlord was entitled to rely on the professional opinion of its contractors with regard to the need for the survey. The Ombudsman notes there was some delay in organising this, which was squarely down to the landlord’s failure to register the survey request, but that the resulting week’s delay was not significant in the overall scheme of things. There is no evidence the time then taken between the survey request on 15 September 2020 and its receipt on 7 October 2020 was as a result of mishandling on the part of the landlord.
29. Nevertheless, following its receipt the rescheduling of the plastering for some seven weeks later – on 30 November 2020 – was considerably in excess of the landlord’s 20 working day service standard. And so it was appropriate that in response to the resident’s complaint the landlord was able to bring this forward to 5 November 2020.
30. That is where matters stood at the conclusion of the first complaint. As the Ombudsman sees it, the landlord’s repairs service failures amounted to a delayed handrail repair (reason unknown); one week delay in requesting the asbestos survey; and not initially ensuring the rescheduled November 2020 appointment complied as far as possible with its 20 working day service standard. In the Ombudsman’s view, in expediting the replastering, and its payment of £250 compensation, the landlord addressed and adequately recognised the impact of these service failures.
31. It also reflected the inconvenience caused by its delayed complaint response which the resident had cause to escalate and took some eight weeks to provide. While this was considerably longer than the timescales to which the landlord aims to comply under its complaints procedure (two weeks for a Stage 1 response; four weeks for Stage 2 review), it was not a period of inaction on the part of the landlord in seeking to resolve the complaint. The Ombudsman notes this compensation, together with the expediting of the replastering appointment was redress which the residents themselves considered sufficient, and the Ombudsman takes the same view.
32. Indeed, the Ombudsman may not have heard from the residents had the rescheduled appointment on 5 November 2020 gone ahead, but it did not, and it was this which prompted their contact with this Service. It is evident and acknowledged by the landlord that its failure to attend the appointment on 5 November 2020 was the result of its failure to properly enter the appointment on its system. It then compounded this service failure by its inability initially to explain to the residents what had caused the appointment to be missed. The fact was the landlord’s records provided an inadequate audit trail of the action it had taken to reschedule the appointment so that when the officer in question was away from the office no other officer in her place could answer the residents’ query. This inadequate record-keeping by the landlord will have further undermined the residents’ confidence in its ability to satisfactorily resolve the outstanding repairs.
33. Aside from that confusion, although the resident had requested escalation of his complaint, he had previously had his complaint escalated to the landlord’s final stage and had it investigated. The Ombudsman therefore considers it reasonable for the landlord to decline to re-investigate that complaint. Nevertheless, as the resident had raised a further complaint which post-dated its consideration of the earlier complaint it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have treated this new issue as a new complaint and address it accordingly.
34. As matters transpired though, the Ombudsman does not see its failure to do so was of detriment to the residents. The landlord’s response at that point was appropriately aimed at expediting the missed appointment, which it rearranged within the week. It then paid £10 compensation for the missed appointment, which was in accordance with its compensation policy. As to lost earnings, while it is unclear why helping to prepare the bathroom for the replastering necessitated the son taking a day off work (for which no evidence appears to have been provided), it is clear the residents were inconvenienced by the missed appointment and having to get the bathroom ready for replastering which did not happen.
35. In recognition of this the landlord has said its £65 payment acknowledges the inconvenience of this further service failure. In the Ombudsman’s view, taken together with the landlord’s agreement at that point to repaint the bathroom as a goodwill gesture, this additional compensation does provide sufficient recognition of the inconvenience of the further week’s delay beyond its scheduled appointment date and the exacerbating nature of this further service failure.
36. Second complaint: This brings the Ombudsman to the residents’ further complaint which was prompted by the landlord’s failure to let them know that the scheduled 5 March 2021 appointment for repainting had had to be put back to allow the replastering to dry out. The residents consider they ought to be compensated significantly for the fact that matters by then had still not been resolved and they had had cause to make a further complaint. 
37. As the Ombudsman sees it, it would have been unreasonable for the landlord’s assessment of its further failing here to have been considered entirely in isolation to what had gone before, as repeat failures can understandably exacerbate a resident’s initial dissatisfaction. But equally, in doing so the Ombudsman does not consider it necessary for the landlord to re-investigate matters on which it had already taken steps to address, and provided redress that was acceptable to the residents at the time.
38. The landlord then offered a total of £135 compensation in recognition of this further complaint and the Ombudsman has considered the composition of this payment and whether it provides sufficient recognition of the further error. The error here was not giving the residents notice of the rescheduled painting appointment. The fact that this date had to be delayed by two weeks was not the result of service failure by the landlord but the waiting time necessary for the plastering to dry out. That being the case, the Ombudsman considers the landlord’s compensation to have been reasonable. The £10 for the missed appointment of which it failed to advise the residents was in accordance with its compensation policy. The £50 recognised the inconvenience caused by the fact that the residents had had to move furniture and prepare the area. And the £75 for the delayed Stage 1 response and the fact that the residents had had cause to raise the complaint so soon after their previous one sufficiently recognised, in the Ombudsman’s view, the cumulative impact on the residents of the landlord’s mishandling by this stage and their having had to raise a further complaint. 
39. Finally, on the issue of action taken to put matters right, the Ombudsman notes the residents’ objection to the landlord’s reference to its agreement to repaint the bathroom as a ‘goodwill gesture’. Their reason being the repainting became necessary as a result of the “mess” left following the replastering. This appears disputed by the landlord which cited the residents’ tenancy responsibility for interior decoration. The Ombudsman has seen no definitive evidence either way, but in terms of resolving the complaint it considers that for all material purposes how the repainting was referenced was immaterial.  As the Ombudsman sees it, the landlord was appropriately seeking to return the residents to the position they had been in prior to having raised the repair request and following the mishandling which followed. The Ombudsman considers it was appropriate that the landlord seek to take all action necessary to address this and draw a line under matters.
40. The Ombudsman also welcomes the fact that the landlord has explained how it has taken the learning from this complaint to ensure, going forward, that staff are aware of the need to keep clear records on the making, moving and confirming of appointment dates.

Determination (decision)

41. In accordance with paragraph 55 b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made a reasonable offer of redress for service failures relating to its handling of the residents’ reports about repairs at the property.
42. In accordance with paragraph 55 b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made a reasonable offer of redress for service failures relating to its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

43. Some elements of delay in completing the repairs were outside the landlord’s control, such as delay as a result of Covid restrictions and the resulting backlog of repairs and the need for an asbestos survey. There is also no evidence that the delay caused by the failed July 2020 appointment was the result of service failure on the landlord’s part. But it delayed requesting an asbestos survey and it mishandled the scheduling of appointments with the result that the November 2020 replastering appointment was missed and the residents were not advised of a rescheduled decorating appointment in March 2021. This caused the residents stress and inconvenience. With respect to those service failures, and a delayed handrail repair, the landlord has provided reasonable redress through the offer of compensation and agreeing to repaint the bathroom.
44. The landlord’s complaint responses were delayed and it failed to ensure an adequate audit trail of its investigation to enable it to promptly answer and resolve the issue of the missed November 2020 appointment. It also failed to notify the residents of the rescheduled painting appointment. In recognition of those service failures it has offered reasonable redress through the offer of compensation.