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

Sanctuary Housing Association (202009170)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202009170

Sanctuary Housing Association

26 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 the landlord’s:
    1. response to the resident’s reports of disrepair to the external fascia on her property;
    2. complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. At the time of the complaint, the resident was an assured tenant at the property of the landlord. It is not evident when the tenancy commenced.
  2. The tenancy agreement notes that the landlord will keep in good repair the structure, fabric, and exterior of the property, including all outside walls.
  3. The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy. As part of a stage one investigation, the landlord will attempt to agree a resolution with the resident and keep them informed of the progress. The policy does not require a formal written response as part of its stage one investigation. The policy notes that a stage two response will be given within 20 working days of an escalation.
  4. The landlord also operates a compensation policy, which allows for the landlord to offer goodwill compensation. It can offer up to £50 for a failure to complete a repair, and up to £50 for inconvenience due to delays. It can also offer between £50-£150 for a medium impact service failure in recognition of time and trouble, and up to £150 for poor complaints handling.
  5. The landlord also operates a repairs policy. The policy notes that an ‘emergency repair’ is one which is a serious threat to health or safety, or the structure of their home. The landlord will aim to complete emergency repairs within 24 hours. An appointed repair is a non-emergency repair and includes repairs to walls. The landlord will aim to complete non-emergency repairs within 28 days. The policy also notes that if there is any unforeseen change to the service delivery, it will keep the resident informed. The policy further notes that where there are serious repair issues, the landlord will contact a surveyor to carry out an inspection.

Summary of events

  1. The landlord has provided this service with its notes relating to the complaint, which state that it received a report from the resident on 7 September 2019 that the “external cladding is falling off.” The notes also state that on the same date, the landlord emailed the resident to advise it had raised a maintenance order. This service has not been provided with a copy of this correspondence.
  2. The landlord’s notes also state that on 13 December 2019, it instructed its contractor to inspect the property and advised that the “fascia at the back of property is rotting and [has] holes in.” The notes further state that the resident contacted the landlord on 30 December 2019 chasing an update, following which the landlord sent an email to the contractor to request an update. This service has also not been provided with a copy of this correspondence. The notes also state that on 14 January 2020, the resident advised the landlord that the contractor had been delayed due to poor weather and was due to provide an update by 17 January 2020.
  3. On 17 January 2020, the resident advised the landlord that she had not received an update from the contractor. On 18 January 2020, the resident made a formal complaint. She noted that the landlord had advised her a repair job had been opened following her initial complaint in September 2019, but since then, she had not received any updates. The landlord subsequently acknowledged the complaint on 19 January 2020.
  4. The landlord contacted the resident on 31 January 2020 and apologised for the delays. It advised her that its contractor had attended the property on 30 January 2020 and would shortly be providing it with a quote. On 6 February 2020, the resident requested an update. It is not evident that the landlord responded to this request and on 10 February 2020, the resident reiterated her complaint. The landlord subsequently replied on 11 February 2020 and advised that the “relevant team” would respond shortly.
  5. Based on the landlord’s notes, it received quotes from its contractor on 11 February 2020. The quotes included a number of different options, and so on 17 February 2020, it requested its surveyor carry out an inspection to determine what works were required. The surveyor provided the landlord with their report on 6 March 2020 and queried the accuracy of the details provided in the quotes and noted the works required were extensive. On 9 March 2020, the landlord subsequently determined that the works should be put out to tender. It is not evident that this was communicated to the resident at any point.
  6. On 28 April 2020, the resident reiterated her complaint and her dissatisfaction that she had not received a formal response. She also noted that she considered her communication in February 2020 to have been a “stage 2 complaint.”
  7. The landlord has provided this service with its correspondence with its contractor. On 13 May 2020, the landlord advised the contractor that the works had been approved and requested it commenced the works. On the same date, the contractor replied and advised it would “take a look at our labour situation” in light of the COVID-19 restrictions. On 14 May 2020, the landlord contacted the resident and advised that the works had been approved and provided a repair reference number.
  8. On 14 May 2020, 21 May 2020, and 12 June 2019, the landlord chased up its contractor for a start date for the works. By 24 June 2020, based on its internal emails, it is evident that the contractor would be unable to complete the works due to staff issues as a result of the COVID-19 restrictions. On the same date, the landlord contacted another contractor, who agreed to attend the property to carry out a further inspection. On 30 June 2020, following its inspection of the property, the second contractor advised the landlord that “our engineer attended and found no dangerous soffits of fascia.” It further advised it would nevertheless provide a quote.
  9. The landlord provided a complaint update to the resident on 6 July 2020. It noted the complaint was at stage one of its complaints process. It apologised for its “continued delays in regard to resolving this matter for you.” It advised it had instructed a second contractor, who had attended the property and found “no dangerous soffits or fascias on site and or near your flat.” It also advised the second contractor would provide a quote, which would be “taken into consideration for future approval.” It noted the resident’s request to this service to escalate her complaint to stage two but advised that this would not “change the timescale for the works to be undertaken.” It further noted that during a conversation with the resident on 12 May 2020, she had agreed for the complaint to continue to be dealt with at the “front line resolution stage,” and so requested her to confirm if she wished the complaint to be escalated. This service had not been provided with any records of the conversation on 12 May 2020.
  10. The resident replied on the same date and confirmed that the second contractor had attended the property but expressed concern that they investigated the front of the property, whereas the fascia to which her complaint related to was at the rear of the property. She also advised that she considered the complaint to have already been escalated to stage two when she reiterated her initial complaint in February 2020. On 8 July 2020, the landlord advised it had escalated her complaint to stage two. It also sought photographs from the second contractor taken of the fascia during its inspection, which it subsequently provided, however, copies of these photographs have not been provided to this service.
  11. The landlord provided its stage two response on 27 July 2020. It noted that following the resident’s initial report on 7 September 2019, it had raised a repair job with its maintenance team, who investigated and advised that a contractor would be required to carry out a further investigation. It noted that its “records are unclear as to the date attended and when this was referred to the contractor.” It noted that the contractor’s inspection was delayed due to poor weather, and that the contractor had not provided the resident with any updates. It further advised that following the contractor’s inspection, in line with its policies, it needed authorisation to approve the works, and due to the extent of the works, it subsequently arranged for a surveyor to assess the works. The surveyor recommended that the works be put to tender “in line with [the landlord’s] policy and procedure.” Works were subsequently put on hold during the COVID-19 restrictions, however, “due to you advising you were concerned that the fascias were a health & safety issue, a further order was approved on 14 May 2020.” These works could not be completed due to the impact of the COVID-19 restrictions on the contractor, and so a second contractor was instructed, who subsequently advised the landlord “they had found no dangerous fascia’s or soffits and had no concerns over Health & Safety.” The landlord advised that “based on their findings it was confirmed that the works would be completed as part of the larger works required … on a future planned works programme.”
  12. Regarding its handling of the complaint, it conceded that “there were times when the communication with you could have been improved,” and that “although it may not have been possible to provide an update at this time I would have expected a courtesy call or email to have been made.” It apologised for the inconvenience this had caused and resolved to keep the resident updated when any planned works would commence. It also advised that it would identify any further staff training required. It offered £275 compensation as a “goodwill gesture,” made up of £50 for the delays, £25 for the resident’s inconvenience, £25 for its poor communication, £25 for its poor record keeping, £75 for its poor complaints handling, and £75 for the resident’s time and trouble.
  13. The resident replied on 7 August 2020 and advised that she considered her reiterated complaint in February 2020 to have been a request for a stage two response, and as such, the stage two response had been delayed by “116 working days.” The landlord replied on 3 September 2020 and advised it considered the communication on 10 February 2020 to have been a request for an “update as to when the repair would be completed,” and that it “cannot locate any evidence that you had requested to escalate your complaint to stage 2 at this time.” It nevertheless offered to increase its offer of compensation to £325 as a further gesture of goodwill, being an increase of the amounts for its poor complaints handling and the resident’s time and trouble to £100 each. On 4 September 2020, the landlord also clarified that it did not consider the email dated 10 February 2020 to have been an escalation, despite the resident noting ‘stage two’ in the subject line.
  14. On 26 November 2020, the resident confirmed she would accept the landlord’s offer of compensation. The landlord has also provided this service with its recent internal communications dated 15 February 2021 which confirmed that the works are yet to have been carried out, but that the resident no longer resides at the property.

Assessment and findings

Fascia

  1. The tenancy agreement sets out that the landlord is responsible for external walls. Following the resident’s initial reports of issues with the external wall fascia in September 2019, it was therefore appropriate that the landlord arranged for its maintenance team to carry out an initial inspection. The landlord’s notes provided to this service do not, however, provide detail as to when this occurred, or what was communicated to the resident. In its stage two response dated 27 July 2020, the landlord also noted its records are unclear as to the dates surrounding these actions. Keeping an accurate audit trail is an important part of a landlord’s service delivery. The landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of any repairs or actions, so that it can satisfy itself and the resident (and ultimately the Ombudsman if necessary) that it took all reasonable steps to meet its repair obligations. It was appropriate therefore that it apologised for the inconvenience to the resident and offered an amount of compensation for its poor record keeping, being £25. While the landlord’s compensation policy does not give guidance on compensation for poor record keeping, this amount is in line with what the Ombudsman would expect for this level of service failure.
  2. Given the recommendations of its maintenance team that a contractor would be required to complete the works, it was reasonable for the landlord to instruct its contractor to investigate the issue and subsequently provide a quote. The landlord’s repairs policy notes that it will keep the resident updated if there is any change to the service delivery. Whilst it is evident the resident had been aware that the contractor was due to attend and that it had been delayed due to poor weather, following the landlord’s request for an update from the contractor, it is not evident that it subsequently followed this up with the resident. This would have left her unsure how her issue was being resolved.
  3. Following the resident’s formal complaint, the landlord appropriately advised her that its contractor had attended the property and was preparing a quote. However, despite the resident’s requests for updates, it is not evident that the landlord kept her informed of its receipt of the quote and its subsequent decision to arrange for a surveyor to assess the works. Whilst this step was in line with its repair policy, it would have been both helpful to the resident, as well as being required by its complaints policy, for it to have kept the resident informed of these steps so she knew how to progress her complaint if required. Up until this point, the landlord’s actions had raised the resident’s expectations that works would be carried out. Its decision to instruct a surveyor to clarify what, if any, works were required should have been made clearer to the resident throughout.
  4. Whilst it was reasonable that the landlord initially delayed its works due to the COVID-19 restrictions and not considering the works to be ‘urgent’, following its decision to proceed with the works, it is not evident that it kept the resident abreast of its arrangements and subsequent instruction of a second contractor across May 2020. This too would have left her unsure how her issue was being resolved. It was appropriate therefore that in its communication dated 6 July 2020, the landlord apologised for its delays and set out what steps it had taken. It was also appropriate that in its stage two response, the landlord apologised for the inconvenience to the resident and offered an amount of compensation for its delays and poor communication, as well as the resident’s inconvenience, being £50, £25, and £25 respectively. These amounts were in line with its compensation policy and with what the Ombudsman would expect in the circumstances.
  5. Following the landlord’s second contractor’s advice that the fascias were not dangerous, it was appropriate that this was communicated to the resident in its communication dated 6 July 2020. However, following the resident’s concerns that the inspection did not consider the rear fascias, it is not evident that the landlord addressed this concern. Given its initial contractor, as well as the landlord’s surveyor did not come to this conclusion, it would have been helpful to the resident for the landlord to have acknowledged these concerns and to have subsequently clarified its position, which it did not do in this instance. While it was appropriate that it sought photographs of the inspection, which indicate it was attempting to determine the fascias inspected, it is not evident that it articulated its findings to the resident.
  6. Following its reiteration of the second contractor’s findings in its stage two response, it was appropriate that the landlord advised the resident that it would consider the repairs as part of its future planned works programme, and that it would keep her updated as this progressed. While the Ombudsman may have otherwise made a recommendation that the landlord clarify its position on the second contractor’s inspection, given that the resident no longer resides at the property, such a recommendation would be redundant. While no specific amount of compensation was specifically allocated to this part of the complaint, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the total amount offered satisfactorily resolves the complaint, taking into account all of the circumstances of the case.

Complaints handling

  1. While the landlord’s complaints policy does not give a timeframe to respond to a stage one complaint, given that the resident made her initial complaint on 18 January 2020 and the landlord did not respond until 31 January 2020, it was appropriate that it apologised for its delay. As per its complaints policy, it also appropriately advised the steps it had taken and what would happen next, i.e. its contractor had attended, and would subsequently provide it with a quote.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy also notes that it will keep the resident informed throughout its service delivery of its stage one resolution. It is evident, however, that the resident requested updates on 6 February 2020 and again on 10 February 2020. She made a further request for a response on 28 April 2020. While the landlord replied to the February correspondence to advise that the “relevant team” would respond, based on the evidence provided to this service, it is not evident that the landlord provided a further update until 14 May 2020. This would have left the resident unsure how her complaint was being resolved, and unsure whether to escalate her complaint. During this time, it is evident that there were many developments, i.e. the landlord’s discussions with its contractors and subsequent instruction of a surveyor, which would have been helpful for the resident to have been informed of, which the landlord did not do in this instance.
  3. While the landlord’s complaints policy does not require it to provide a formal response at stage one, given the developments that had occurred, it was appropriate that the landlord provided a detailed update on 6 July 2020 to keep the resident informed. Additionally, given there had been confusion around the resident’s request for an escalation of her complaint, it was appropriate that it sought clarification from her about her request. It was also appropriate that it managed her expectations by explaining that the escalation to stage two would not affect the timeframe in which it could complete any repairs.
  4. Given the amount of times the resident had to chase an update between the landlord’s responses, and the lack of updates provided to the resident, in contravention of its complaints and repairs policy, it was appropriate that the landlord apologised in its stage two response and made an offer of compensation for its poor complaints handling, and the resident’s time and trouble, being £75 for each. It was also appropriate that it identified that further staff training was required to avoid the issue in the future.
  5. While it is evident that the resident considered the reiteration of her complaint in February 2020 to be an escalation of her complaint to stage two, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, it is not evident that the landlord had completed its stage one resolution, and so its position that it considered the complaint to have remained at stage one at this time was reasonable. While it was appropriate that the landlord articulated this clearly in its communication on 4 September 2020, given that the resident had expressed that she considered the February 2020 communication to be an escalation on a number of occasions, it would have been helpful for the resident had the landlord made its position clearer in its earlier communications, which it did not do in this instance. It was appropriate therefore that the landlord accepted there had been a miscommunication and increased its offer of compensation for its poor complaints handling, and the resident’s time and trouble, to £100 for each. These amounts were in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and what the Ombudsman would expect for this level of service failure.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its service failure in respect of the complaints regarding its:
    1. response to the resident’s reports of disrepair to the external fascia on her property;
    2. complaints handling.

Reasons

Fascia

  1. Given that the landlord was responsible for the external walls, it was appropriate that it arranged for its maintenance team to investigate, and subsequently arranged for a contractor to provide a quote for the works. However, as the landlord was unable to inform the resident of when these steps occurred, due to its poor record keeping, it was appropriate that it offered an amount of compensation. Additionally, the landlord raised the resident’s expectations that works would be completed following the initial contractor’s inspection, before subsequently arranging for further inspections which ultimately resulted in the works not being undertaken. Its failure to keep her informed of its actions over this period also constituted service failure, and so it was also appropriate that it offered further compensation for its poor communication and the resident’s inconvenience.
  2. While its second contractor subsequently advised the landlord that there was no health and safety risk, which the landlord articulated to the resident, given that the resident expressed concern that the second contractor did not inspect the rear fascia, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have further articulated its position. Given that the resident no longer resides at the property, however, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s apology and the total amount of compensation offered is reasonable redress for the complaint.

Complaints handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy requires that it keep the resident informed throughout the process of resolving the complaint, which it did not do, resulting in the resident having to make multiple requests for updates. Additionally, while it was reasonable that it did not consider the resident’s reiteration of her initial complaint to be an escalation, given that the resident articulated that she did consider it an escalation, it would have been helpful for the landlord to have clarified its position earlier. It was therefore appropriate that it offered increased compensation, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, was reasonable redress for the complaint.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to take steps to ensure that its complaints handling staff are aware of the details of its complaints policy. This should also include consideration of this service’s guidance on remedies at https://www.housingombudsman.org.uk/aboutus/corporateinformation/policies/disputeresolution/guidance-on-remedies/ and the completion of our free online dispute resolution training for landlords at https://www.housingombudsman.org.uk/landlords/e-learning/ if this has not been done recently.