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

Sanctuary Housing Association (202014667)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014667

Sanctuary Housing Association

30 June 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 refers to:
    1. The landlord’s handling of a reported leak into the resident’s property.
    2. The level of compensation offered by the landlord following the leak.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident was the leaseholder of the property. The property is a ground-floor flat within a block of flats.
  2. The landlord’s records show that the resident reported a leak coming into her kitchen on 4 December 2019. An operative from its maintenance team had attended the building on that day. They thought that the leak was coming from a locked cupboard outside a flat above the resident’s as there was no evidence of water escaping in the flat. The records show that the operative could not gain access to the cupboard and therefore they arranged a further appointment for the following day.
  3. On 5 December 2019, the resident called the landlord and reported that water was now dripping through her kitchen lighting. The resident asked when an operative would be attending. The landlord said that this would not usually be the landlord’s responsibility to attend as she was a leaseholder, but that an operative was on their way. The electricity in the kitchen was then made safe and further investigation was needed to identify the cause of the leak.
  4. On 6 December 2019, a surveyor attended the property and proceeded to locate the source of the leak by visiting other flats within the block. It found that the source of the leak was from the stack pipe in one of the flats above the resident. A plumber attended the same day and completed the repair. The landlord’s records show that the resident was advised that she could not be decanted (temporarily moved) from the property as she was a leaseholder. She was advised to claim on her home insurance for any damage caused.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord on 17 December 2019 and explained that a loss adjuster, employed by her insurers, had visited the property. They found that the water saturation, because of the leak, was more severe than originally thought. She asked the landlord to assist with drying out the structural aspects of the property and the properties above hers. She said that she had been advised that any lack of action could increase the drying time for her own property. She also asked for the landlord’s building insurance provider so that she could claim for the dehumidifiers needed to dry out the property. The landlord confirmed that it would discuss these issues with its maintenance team.
  6. The landlord provided its building insurance documentation to the resident on 18 December 2019. It confirmed that the flats above the resident’s property were due to be inspected on 20 December 2019.
  7. On 31 December 2019, the resident emailed the landlord and explained that her technician had attended the property on 27 December 2019 and confirmed that industrial drying equipment would need to be installed as soon as possible. She said that this would take approximately two weeks for the property to be dry once this was installed. She asked the landlord to provide information regarding the moisture levels in the properties above as this would directly impact the time taken to dry her property.
  8. The landlord responded on 3 January 2020 and confirmed that on 20 December 2019 it had inspected two of the flats situated above the resident’s property and found that dehumidifiers were not required in these properties. Further conversations took place between 3 and 7 January 2020 about gaining access to the flats above to check the moisture levels. The resident later confirmed that her technician had attended these properties on 10 January 2020.
  9. The resident emailed the landlord on 31 March 2020 and confirmed that her insurance claim had been finalised. She explained that the total cost of repairs to her property, temporary accommodation, and other associated costs was £7846.07. She said that her insurance company had only covered £6825.69 due to the loss adjuster’s caps on some elements of the repair works and a £250 excess on her policy. She was looking for the landlord to cover the shortfall, totalling £1025.38. She added that as the leak originated in a different flat within the building, she should not bear any costs. 
  10. The landlord responded on 3 April 2020 and confirmed that it had raised a stage one complaint on her behalf. On 7 April 2020, the landlord explained that due to the Covid-19 pandemic, it might take longer than usual for it to respond to the complaint.
  11. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident over the phone on 28 April 2020. It explained that following its investigation, it had found that it had attended the leak in the flat above the resident’s within the correct timescales. It added that it was the amount of water that caused the damage over the following three days. It confirmed that it would always refer homeowners to their own home insurance and it understood that there had been a shortfall of £1020.38 in the resident’s pay-out. It explained that the leaks were caused by an internal stack pipe breaking in the building and this was not the tenant above nor the landlord’s fault. It offered the resident £75 compensation, taking into consideration the serious inconvenience and her time and trouble. The records show that the resident declined this offer and asked to escalate the complaint to stage two of the landlord’s internal complaints process.
  12. The landlord emailed the resident on 29 April 2020 to acknowledge the resident’s escalation request. It confirmed that it would issue its final complaint response by 28 May 2020. 
  13. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response to the resident on 28 May 2020 and explained the following:
    1. It was satisfied that it had taken appropriate steps to locate the source of the leak following the report and explained that it was unable to decant the resident at the time as she was a leaseholder. She was therefore advised to contact her insurance company.
    2. It confirmed that it was unable to cover the cost of the resident’s insurance excess and additional expenses as there had been no service failure in relation to its handling of the leak and it resolved the leak within a reasonable timeframe. It acknowledged how difficult the situation must have been for the resident but explained that the leak did not occur as a direct result of a failure by the landlord to maintain components within the block.
    3. It confirmed that the offer of £75 compensation remained and confirmed that this was the final stage of its complaints process. It added that if it did not hear from the resident within 20 working days, it would consider the matter closed.
  14. The resident emailed the landlord on the same day and explained that she remained dissatisfied with the £1020.38 she had needed to pay due to an issue within the block, which she maintained was the landlord’s responsibility. She was also dissatisfied with the attitude of some of the landlord’s staff members at the time of the issue and the extreme distress and inconvenience she had experienced. The resident asked when she would be able to escalate her complaint to the Ombudsman.
  15. The landlord replied on the same day and confirmed that the resident could contact the Ombudsman after eight weeks following the closure of her complaint. It confirmed that the complaint was currently still open. It asked her to elaborate on the unhelpful attitude of its staff.
  16. The resident expressed dissatisfaction that when she had been contacted about the leak, the staff member had not asked if she was ok or asked about the severity of the leak. They had said at this point that the issue was not the landlord’s responsibility to resolve, which was not the case. She added that if she had not escalated this matter through multiple channels, the response timeline would have been significantly longer. She explained that the landlord’s repair helpline did not act with any urgency which was inappropriate in this case.
  17. The landlord confirmed that it would review the resident’s further comments and provide a further response within ten working days.
  18. The landlord issued a further response to the resident on 10 June 2020 and explained the following:
    1. It apologised that the resident had felt that there was little empathy shown by its contact centre staff when she had reported the leak. It explained that it was not able to listen to the phone calls from this time as the recordings were only held on the system for three months. It also apologised that it had not asked about her well-being when it had called.
    2. It noted that the resident had raised concern that had she not reported the leak through multiple channels, it would not have been resolved as quickly but said that it could not comment on this further as the issue was resolved within a reasonable timeframe.
    3. It acknowledged that the resident had needed to pay £1020.38 of her own money due to the pipe-block issue. It explained that the cause of the leak was not the result of a failure by the landlord; it was an unforeseen circumstance and as such she had been advised to contact her insurance provider.
    4. After taking everything into consideration, it said it would increase the offer of compensation to £325 to include the resident’s insurance excess. It confirmed that this was a goodwill gesture and it would not increase this offer further. 

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the leak into the resident’s property.

  1. The resident’s lease agreement states that the landlord would be responsible for maintaining the structure of the property, including pipes which do not solely service the resident’s property.  The resident would be responsible for maintaining the interior of her property, including the walls, floors, and any decoration. The landlord’s repair policy states that emergency repairs should be made safe within 24 hours; however, it is likely that it would need to arrange another visit to fully complete any repairs needed. Emergency repairs include circumstances where there is a risk of serious damage to the property or where there is a serious health and safety threat to those living in the property.
  2. The resident has stated that she feels the landlord’s handling of the severe leak into her property was poor and mismanaged. Whilst this situation has understandably been very distressing for the resident, there has been no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the leak into the property. In some circumstances it can be difficult to locate the source of a leak, especially within a building formed of multiple properties, as this would involve gaining access to flats belonging to other residents.
  3. In this case, the resident initially reported the leak on 4 December 2019 and the landlord attended the same day to identify the source. This was within the 24-hour timescale as laid out in its repairs policy. The landlord initially believed the source of the leak to be coming from within a locked cupboard on the first floor of the building but it could not gain access to this straight away. It did, however, act in a timely manner by arranging for this to be accessed within the following 24 hours.
  4. Following the resident’s report that water was leaking through the light fittings in her kitchen, the landlord also acted in a timely manner to make safe the electricity within 24 hours. Once it had established that the source of the leak was not within this cupboard, it arranged to inspect further properties within the building. Ultimately, the leak was identified within approximately 48 hours of the issue being reported which is not an unreasonable timeline given that the landlord needed to rely on other residents allowing access to their properties and that the source of the leak was not immediately apparent.
  5. In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that the leak occurred specifically because of any service failure or inaction by the landlord. The source of the leak was identified and resolved within a reasonable timeframe and there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord had caused any unreasonable delay to this process.   

The level of compensation offered by the landlord following the leak.

  1. The landlord’s compensation policy states that the landlord would not pay compensation in circumstances where a resident’s possessions have been lost, broken or damaged and this was not the fault of the landlord. It also states that it strongly encourages residents to take out their own home insurance policy. There is no obligation on the landlord to compensate residents for damage to personal items if they have not adequately insured their belongings.  
  2. The resident placed an insurance claim for the damage to the property and her personal possessions which had been damaged due to the leak; however, there was a shortfall in the pay-out of £1020.38. The Ombudsman is unable to comment on the outcome of the insurance claim as this Service can only consider the actions of the landlord, and the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over the resident’s insurers. Nevertheless, under the terms of the lease, it is the resident’s responsibility to ensure she has adequate home and contents insurance. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the loss-adjusters cap placed on some aspects of the repairs needed, she may wish to contact her insurers directly to dispute this.
  3. The landlord would not be expected to pay the cost of any shortfall in this case, as the damage caused by the leak was not found to be a result of any action or inaction it had taken. The advice given to the resident in relation to contacting her insurers was therefore appropriate, and the landlord would not be expected reimburse any costs that the resident’s insurance would not cover. The landlord’s offer of £250 to cover the resident’s excess fee was therefore reasonable, as this was more than it was obliged to do.
  4. The landlord has also offered the resident £75 compensation for the inconvenience she had experienced and the time and trouble she had spent pursuing this matter. It is not disputed that the situation is likely to have caused the resident significant inconvenience; however, the landlord would not necessarily be expected to offer the resident compensation for the inconvenience or her time and trouble as ultimately it was not the landlord’s fault that the stack pipe burst. It was reasonable for it to acknowledge the impact of the leak on the resident and offer this as a gesture of goodwill regardless.
  5. It is noted that the resident has said that she was told that the issue was not the landlord’s responsibility initially, and that she had to raise the issue of the leak through multiple channels. She was not significantly disadvantaged by this as the source of the leak was found within an adequate timeframe, although it was reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge the time and trouble she had spent pursuing this matter and offer additional compensation. The £75 compensation offered is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and is proportionate in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, published on our website.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of a reported leak into the resident’s property.
  2.  In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the level of compensation offered following the leak.

Reasons

  1. There is no evidence to suggest that the leak occurred specifically because of any service failure or inaction by the landlord. The source of the leak was identified and resolved within a reasonable timeframe and there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord had caused any unreasonable delay to this process.   
  2. The landlord would not have been expected to reimburse the resident for the shortfall of her insurance claim as the leak was not a result of any service failure by the landlord. It was reasonable for the landlord to offer a goodwill gesture of £350 to cover the cost of her insurance excess fee and the inconvenience she had experienced.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord pays the resident £350 as previously offered if it has not already done so.