Sanctuary Housing Association (202014810)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014810

Sanctuary Housing Association

20 December 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 complaint is regarding:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs needed in her property.
2. The condition of the property at the start of the resident’s tenancy.
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be compensated for damaged belongings.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident holds an assured shorthold tenancy of a one bedroom, fifth floor flat, and has resided there since 2017. The landlord is a Housing Association.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaint policy with a Front Line Resolution stage (Stage One) and an Investigation Stage (Stage Two). It aims to provide a response in 10 working days at Stage One and 20 working days at Stage Two.
The landlord’s Complaints – Housing and Support Policy states that it does not consider it appropriate to raise complaints relating to ‘issues that occurred more than six months previously, unless there is evidence that this has been raised…and no action has been taken’.
The landlord’s Compensation Guidance notes that it will consider compensation awards of between £151 and £400 for instances of service failure that it considers to have had a ‘high impact’ on the resident. It cites examples of this as including ‘excessive delays to works being carried out’, and ‘preventing a customer from enjoyment of their home’.
Within her complaint, it is noted that the resident has stated that the repair issues she has reported at the property have had a negative impact on her physical and mental health conditions. It is beyond the expertise of this Service to determine whether there is any direct link between any repair issues and reported health conditions. The resident may therefore wish to seek independent advice on her options if she considers that her health has been adversely affected by any action, or lack thereof, by the landlord.

Summary of Events

On 2 November 2020, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord. In her complaint, she stated that she had experienced ‘multiple disrepair issues’ in her property and that these had not been addressed for three years. In particular, she raised the following concerns:
1. The landlord had not carried out repairs as requested, including some that existed when the property was let, including damaged windows (which she acknowledged were eventually replaced in December 2019).
2. Rainwater which came in through the windows had ‘flooded’ the property and ruined the flooring in her front room and kitchen.
3. She was unable to use her cooker after the landlord had ‘switched (her supply) from gas to electricity’ and she was not able to prepare hot meals as a result. The landlord had also not removed her old boiler after it replaced it, leaving it in her property for three years.
4. She believed that both her kitchen and bathroom were due to be refurbished and her bathroom in particular did not meet the Decent Homes Standard.
5. She had not received a ‘paint package’ to go towards redecoration when she moved into the property.
6. There were unreasonable delays in completing repairs, in particular a repair to her overhead lighting which had been reported in March 2020.
7. She was a vulnerable person, experiencing physical and mental health conditions and did not feel the landlord had taken these issues into account. She also stated that the repair issues were ‘negatively affecting both (her) physical and mental wellbeing’.
8. She requested compensation for ‘the inconvenience caused throughout the years’ and for the landlord to provide a timeframe for completing repairs.
The resident sent a further email two days later, including photographs in support of her complaint. The photographs, which the Ombudsman has seen, a box of goods waterlogged from the flooding in her front room’, rotten windowsills in her kitchen and front room and that her balcony doors and windows lacked guttering or ‘protection from the rain’.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 2 November 2020 and noted that she had raised concerns ‘in relation to the kitchen, bathroom, windows and electrics’. It advised it would contact her within 10 working days to ‘explain how (we) propose to resolve these issues’.
On 11 November 2020 the landlord emailed the resident and sought to clarify some of the repair issues she mentioned in her complaint. It apologised that an operative had not attended an appointment regarding the overhead lighting without contacting her and advised that it was arranging a new appointment. The resident responded on 15 November 2020 and noted the following:
1. She was ‘pretty sure’ she had requested the old gas boiler be removed but could not remember when.
2. She confirmed that the windows had been replaced and there was no longer a leak into her flat but stated that she had lived with ‘a flooding of the two rooms’ for just over two years prior to the repair.
3. She confirmed she still had a gas cooker as she was not able to buy a new one and reiterated that she was unable to cook and living off takeaways.
4. She reiterated that she had been told she would be allocated a paint pack by her Housing Officer to assist with decorating the flat and that she believed the landlord should be responsible for replacing her flooring as it had been damaged by ‘flooding’ and had now become uneven to the extent that her bed was ‘slightly tilted and ‘a stiff breeze comes through the gap between the wall and floor of my bedroom’.
5. She stated that her balcony door was not locking properly, but not letting in water, and that she believed the ‘ongoing problem’ with the overhead lighting was due to her heating system, which additionally was not working ‘as efficiently as it could’.
The landlord responded on 1 December 2020 and provided an update regarding some of the issues the resident had raised:
1. It apologised that her old boiler had been left on site for so long but noted that it could not find any record of a request to remove it. However, it advised it had booked an appointment for it to be removed on 17 December 2020.
2. It advised it could not find any records regarding the windows and doors other than an inspection from February 2019 and the repairs carried out ‘around July 2019’. It stated that it would not look into ‘historical issues outside of 6 months’ but apologised that the resident ‘experienced these issues’.
3. It advised it ‘would not necessarily get involved’ regarding her concerns over the gas cooker and noted that ‘the decision to change from gas to electric will have been made by a Surveyor for economical purposes’.
4. It asked whether the resident had previously enquired about the paint pack and again advised it would not generally consider issues from two years ago.
5. Noting the resident had raised an issue regarding her patio door lock, it advised her that a repair appointment had been booked for 5 January 2021.
6. It advised it would call the resident to discuss some of the issues further.
The following day the landlord sent a further email following a call with the resident. It reiterated it had no record of receiving any request to remove the old boiler but confirmed the appointment for 17 December 2020 and advised that it had asked the gas operative attending to look at connecting her gas cooker at the same time. It also clarified that it would not be able to consider her request for compensation regarding items damaged in 2019 as it had not been made aware of the matter at the time or within 12 months of the issue occurring. Finally, regarding the resident’s concerns about her kitchen and bathroom, the landlord advised that it had requested the findings of an inspection carried out in October 2020 and referred the resident to its Planned Works Team to establish whether her property was listed for refurbishment, or whether ‘they could be raised outside of the usual process’.
On 16 December 2020, an advocate representing the resident contacted the landlord on her behalf to query why it had not yet provided a formal response to her complaint and requesting that it provide one to the resident in writing. The advocate also requested that the landlord provide ‘a clear agreement on the repairs that (it) will address and a specific deadline for each’, and that it consider awarding compensation ‘for the inconvenience caused’.
The landlord emailed the resident on 22 December 2020 and noted that the old gas boiler had now been removed and that the gas operative was due to attend her property again the following day to look at reconnecting her gas cooker. It advised it would ‘look into other options’ if it could not get the cooker working.
The resident responded the same day, stating she wished to clarify some of the issues she had raised:
1. She reiterated that, while her windows had been replaced, they were only done so two years after she moved in. She advised she had been unable to complain about this previously due to ill health.
2. Regarding her gas cooker, she advised that, on moving into the property, she had no gas or hot water which meant her cooker could not be ‘plumbed in’ and at one point the landlord had temporarily accommodated her in a hotel. On moving back into the property, she advised there were problems with her overhead lighting, and this meant the cooker could not be connected.
3. With regards to the paint package, she advised that her Housing Officer had initially told her that they were having problems ‘getting the vouchers printed’ but that, despite chasing several times, these were never provided.
The landlord replied the following day. It confirmed that the old boiler had now been removed and the gas cooker had been connected. It also advised that it had raised an order for its Housing Team to provide the resident with a paint package. It again apologised that she had experienced ‘these (repair) issues’ but advised it could only carry out repair works if it was made aware of them. it also reiterated that it would not consider paying compensation for any damaged belongings (caused by water ingress via the window) as it had not been made aware of the issue within 12 months of it occurring. It advised that the resident could escalate her complaint to its Investigation Stage if she was unhappy with its response.
The resident confirmed on 28 December 2020 that she wished for her complaint to be escalated and the landlord acknowledged her request three days later. It advised it would investigate her ‘concerns regarding a boiler being left in your living room and your cooker not being connected’.
On 15 January 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to thank it for providing the paint pack, removing the old gas boiler and connecting her gas cooker. However, she stated that she felt the landlord had not considered all the issues she had raised including:
1. The rotten windows that had been replaced, although she also stated that the rotten sills had not been replaced and that she believed the lack of guttering outside her kitchen and front room has caused the damage to the windows.
2. The subsequent water damage caused by the leaking windows.
3. The overhead lighting issues, which had been ongoing for three years.
4. Her inability to use her kitchen and front room due to the leaking windows and lack of electrical sockets and cooker.
5. She also raised new issues, including that she had not been given the correct keys at sign-up and had had to pay for two of her own, and that her bath had ‘black spots where it is eroding’.
6. She advised she had reported all the issues above to her Housing Officer at the time.
The resident also stressed that, at the time she moved into the property, she was dealing with cancer and she had made the landlord aware of this. She also advised that she suffered from ongoing mental health issues, although she acknowledged that she had not initially made the landlord aware of this as she did not like to talk about it. She advised that her mental health conditions can affect her day to day living ‘quite severely’ and impacted her ability to deal with everyday things. She stated that she did not feel that the flat had been let in an acceptable state, maintained that she had made the landlord aware of all the issues and noted that someone from the Local Authority had attended with the landlord to inspect the property in August 2018. She advised that she would have submitted a complaint ‘long before now’ if she had been able to.
On 29 January 2021, the landlord issued its Investigation Stage (Stage Two) complaint response. It noted the resident remained unhappy but stated that, as it understood she was satisfied with its responses and the actions it had undertaken regarding the paint pack, removal of the boiler and connection of the gas cooker, it would respond to the issues it believed were outstanding.
1. Regarding the ‘rotten and leaking windows/water damage from leaking windows’, it apologised if the resident was unhappy with ‘how the replacement windows and repairs were dealt with’ and noted she had advised she was unable to raise a complaint regarding this at the time (the windows were replaced in 2019) due to health issues. However, the landlord advised it would not investigate the matter, or consider compensation regarding any damage caused prior to the windows being replaced in 2019, due to its policy of only considering ‘events within the six months prior to the complaint being raised’.
2. In respect of the ‘overhead lighting and socket problems’, it advised its records show an electrician attended the property on 13 January 2020 and ‘the sockets and lighting were left working’. It noted that it had spoken to the resident on 26 January 2021 and the resident had confirmed that, ‘after the lights were left working, the operative returned the following day to complete some additional work and checks…and you are satisfied that this issue has now been resolved’.
3. Regarding the resident’s ‘inability to use (her) kitchen or front room’, due to the leaking windows, electrical issues and not having a gas cooker, it referred to its previous answers regarding the windows and the electrical issues. Regarding the cooker, it noted its records showed it responded to a query from the resident on 22 September 2020 and advised it was a tenant’s responsibility ‘to arrange for the gas supply to be uncapped and (for) the connection of the cooker’. It noted that it had since arranged for the cooker to be connected ‘as a gesture of goodwill’. It also advised that, following an inspection carried out in October 2020, its Surveyor had recommended that her kitchen was put forward for replacement and her property had now been added to its planned programme of works for the financial year 2021/2022.
4. It acknowledged that the resident had requested reimbursement for having cut new keys on 17 May 2019 but could not see any evidence that her request was responded to. Although it again stated it would not investigate this issue due to the length of time that had elapsed, the landlord advised it would offer to reimburse the cost of the keys as a goodwill gesture.
5. Regarding the condition of the resident’s bathroom, the landlord advised that, as per its advice regarding the kitchen, her property had been added to its future planned programme of works for refurbishment and she would be contacted directly regarding this.
6. It had passed her concerns regarding the lack of guttering above her kitchen and front windows to its repairs team and asked its surveyor to review the issue. It apologised for not having responded to her concerns sooner.
7. In response to her concerns regarding the quality of the window repairs carried out in 2019, it advised that this was also outside of the period it would investigate but that if the resident had any current concerns, she should contact its repairs department directly.
8. Regarding the photos the resident had supplied of a rotten windowsill, the landlord advised it had referred this to its repairs team to assess whether it required repair or replacement but stated that, due to Covid-19 restrictions in place at the time, it was currently only attending to emergency repairs so it was unable to offer a timescale regarding any inspection or repair.
9. In summary, the landlord advised that it understood her main dissatisfaction remained about the condition of her windows prior to their repair and that there were valid reasons for her not lodging a complaint about this sooner. However, it maintained that it would not be able to investigate a complaint about the conditions of the windows when she moved in, in 2017, due to the length of time that had passed. However, it acknowledged that there had been a ‘recurring problem’ with the resident’s electrics and a missed repair appointment in October 2020, for which it apologised and offered compensation of £60. It also offered £11.50 compensation to reimburse the resident for a set of keys she had had cut and another £50 in relation to its complaint handling and in recognition of the fact the resident had not felt all her concerns had been addressed in its earlier complaint response. In total, the landlord offered £121.50 in compensation and advised the resident to contact this Service if she remained unhappy with its response.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of disrepair in her property and the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy

Within her complaint, the resident raised concerns regarding various repair issues in her property, some current, some historic. Having received her complaint in October 2020, records show that the landlord engaged proactively with the resident and sought to resolve the repair issues it identified as being outstanding.
However, the landlord also advised that it would not investigate certain aspects of the complaint, relating to the condition of the property when the resident moved in. Section 8.2.3 of the landlord’s complaints policy states it will not raise complaints relating to ‘issues that occurred more than six months previously, unless there is evidence that this has been raised to staff and no action has been taken’. From the information available to this Service, including the landlord’s repair records and photographs provided by the resident, while it does not appear to be in dispute that there were issues with the windows at the time she moved into the property, and that these took a significant length of time to be resolved, it was reasonable that the landlord decided to not investigate the complaint due to it not being raised within a reasonable timeframe and due to the fact that, while there may have been delays, action was taken to replace the windows.
Paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the attention of the relevant landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. As the substantive issues become historic it is increasingly difficult for an independent body, such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address them. For the same reasons, landlords will often require a resident to raise concerns within a reasonable period of time from the issue occurring.
While, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord could have considered exercising its discretion to investigate these issues, particularly after it acknowledged and recognised the resident’s vulnerabilities and her explanation for why she did not raise a complaint sooner, this Service will not make a finding of service failure as it was ultimately entitled to take that position, and it did not act contrary to its policies or the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. It was also consistent in outlining its position to the resident.
In respect of the issues that it did address, the landlord acknowledged the concerns raised with regards to the resident’s unconnected gas cooker, the fact that an old boiler had not been removed from her property and problems with her overhead lighting and electrics. It is noted that, by the time it had issued its final complaint response in January 2021, it appeared to have resolved those issues, apparently to the resident’s satisfaction. Records show it communicated effectively with the resident following her complaint and took steps to complete the following actions which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were all appropriate responses:
1. It removed the old gas boiler from the property.
2. It connected her gas cooker as a gesture of goodwill, despite this usually being a resident’s responsibility.
3. Arranged to complete a further check of her electrics and resolved the issue with her overhead lighting. It also awarded her compensation for a missed appointment regarding the lighting in October 2020.
However, in respect to the old gas boiler that was left in the resident’s property, while the landlord acknowledged it should have been removed at the time it was replaced and offered an apology that this did not happen, it missed an opportunity to acknowledge the inconvenience leaving an old boiler in the resident’s property would have caused. While it advised in its complaint responses that it had no record of her having asked for it to be removed, its repair records from February 2018, when the new boiler was installed, note ‘draindown and remove existing boiler’. That it did not do so was a service failure and, while the resident may not have chased it over the matter, she should not have been required to do so and the outcome was that a vulnerable tenant was left with an old boiler taking up space in her property for almost three years. This was not acceptable. While the landlord acted relatively promptly in removing the boiler following the resident’s complaint, it should have, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, considered offering her redress for the undoubted inconvenience caused.
With regard to the reported issues with the resident’s electrics and overhead lighting, landlord records show that this was a long-standing issue, affecting the resident’s property on several occasions since the start of her tenancy. Records show that the landlord responded to reports regarding the electrics tripping and problems with the resident’s lighting, in October and December 2018 and February 2019 before receiving a further report in July 2020. Following the latter report, landlord records show the resident was given a repair target date of 5 August 2020. However, the next record regarding the repair, from September 2020, notes an appointment booked for 19 October 2020. There are no details within the landlord’s records that explain why the repair was not attended to earlier, or why the resident was not given an appointment until some three months after the issue was raised. This was not appropriate and appears to be an avoidable delay for which the landlord has not provided an explanation.
In its correspondence with the resident and its final complaint response, the landlord acknowledged it then missed the October 2020 appointment. It offered the resident an apology and £60 compensation to reflect the missed appointment and, while noted in its final response that the issue had been resolved following further investigations in and around January 2021, it did not acknowledge the overall delay in its response to the repair, which now stood at just under six months. This was not appropriate and, while it was reasonable for the landlord to offer compensation for the missed appointment, and it is noted that it made efforts to ‘put things right’ in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles by resolving the issue, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord should also have considered providing an explanation for the delay. While it is noted that its Compensation Guidance suggests an award of £10 for each missed repair appointment and its award of £60 was therefore generous, the landlord should have considered a further award to reflect the length of time it had taken to resolve the issue. The landlord should have demonstrated that it acknowledged the inconvenience this would have caused a vulnerable resident and as such its response did not treat the resident fairly.
Regarding the resident’s concerns that her kitchen and bathroom were in a state of disrepair and required replacing, the landlord acted appropriately by acknowledging this and liaising with its Surveyor regarding the outcome of an inspection that had taken place in October 2020. It then promptly confirmed with the resident that it would seek to add her property to its programmed of planned works, even if it had to do so outside of its usual processes, and then confirmed with her in its complaint responses that this had been done, and her property had been added to its programme for the financial year 2021/2022 This was a reasonable response from the landlord and indicated that it took her concerns seriously and acknowledged that work was required to update her property.
However, this Service has noted further, post-complaint, information provided by the resident that indicates the works are yet to have taken place – after she initially asked for them to be delayed in May 2021 – and she has since chased, unsuccessfully for an update. A recommendation has therefore been made at the end of this report for the landlord to contact the resident and provide a timeframe for when the kitchen and bathroom refurbishment works will take place.
The landlord also acknowledged that, at the beginning of her tenancy, the resident was never provided with a ‘paint package’ to assist her with decorating and organised for one to be provided to her. These were positive steps and a good example of the landlord seeking to put things right promptly following the complaint and carrying out appropriate actions to resolve the issues.
Regarding the landlord’s decision to reimburse the resident £11.50 towards the cost of a new set of keys as a goodwill gesture, this was a positive step for it to take. However, having acknowledged the resident first made an enquiry regarding the matter in 2019 and there was no record of it responding, it should have considered offering further redress for this, such as an apology or a small amount of compensation to reflect the inconvenience this would have caused.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be compensated for damaged belongings

As noted in Paragraph 16, the landlord advised the resident that it would not consider her request for compensation regarding personal belongings that she stated were damaged by water ingress through her windows, prior to their replacement. While the landlord advised that it acknowledged that the resident had not raised the issue earlier due to her health conditions, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, its position was reasonable as it would have been difficult for it to properly assess damage caused to goods from over a year ago. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge that it understood the resident would be disappointed by its response, but it was reasonable in explaining that ‘due to the timescales involved’, it was unable to investigate the matter and would not consider the compensation request.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure regarding the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of disrepair in her property.
In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration regarding:
1. The condition of the property at the start of the tenancy.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be compensated for damaged belongings.

Reasons

Having received the resident’s complaint in October 2020, the landlord reacted proactively and arranged for some of the repair issues raised to be resolved alongside its complaint response. It was appropriate that it took steps to provide the resident with the paint pack that she had not been given at the start of her tenancy, organised the removal of an old boiler that had been left in her property and to connect the resident’s gas cooker, and carry out further investigation and repairs to her lighting.
However, while the landlord offered compensation for a missed electrical appointment, it did not acknowledge the fact the repair was completed significantly outside of its target time, and it did not show that it had acknowledged the inconvenience that would have likely caused. It also did not demonstrate that it acknowledged the inconvenience that would have been caused by its failure to remove an old boiler from the resident’s property which meant that it remained in her home for three years. The landlord should have considered awarding additional compensation regarding both issues, especially considering that it was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities.
It was also appropriate that the landlord offered to reimburse the resident for a set of keys she had had to get cut, although again it should have properly acknowledged the delay in responding to her original request and should have considered offering further redress for this.
Therefore, and taken altogether, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of repairs needed. This is because of the delay in carrying out the repair to the resident’s overhead lighting and its the failure to remove her old boiler from the property for a significant length of time. While it responded positively to other repair issues following the resident’s complaint, the cumulative effect on the resident of its handling of the two issues highlighted here was such that lead this Service to make a finding of service failure.
The landlord’s decision to not investigate matters relating to the window repairs, and the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy was not unreasonable. While, having acknowledged that this was the issue that most concerned the resident, it may have been best practice to at least consider carrying out a limited investigation of the issue (taking into account the time that had passed, and the availability of records and staff) so it could fully address her concerns, especially having acknowledge the resident’s reasons for not raising them sooner, it was nevertheless entitled to rely on its policy of not investigating complaints regarding matters not brought to its attention within a reasonable timeframe. In this regard, it did not treat the resident unfairly.
As above, the landlord was also entitled to decline to consider compensating the resident for belongings she stated had been damaged prior to the windows being repairs almost two years prior.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord should, within four weeks of the date of this letter, pay the resident £321.50 in compensation, consisting of:
1. The £50 it originally awarded for failures in its complaint handling.
2. An increased offer of £85 for its handling of the repair to the resident’s overhead lighting to also reflect the overall delays.
3. The £11.50 it originally awarded as a goodwill gesture to reimburse the resident for a set of keys and an additional award of £25 to reflect the fact it did not respond to her original request.
4. An additional award of £150 to reflect the inconvenience caused by its failure to remove the old gas boiler from the resident’s property.

Recommendations

The landlord should contact the resident to provide an update on the refurbishment of her kitchen and bathroom and agree a timeframe with her for completion of the works.
The landlord should ensure that its records are updated to reflect the resident has both mental and physical health issues and it should contact her to discuss if there is any further support it can put in place to better support her to report repair issues and, if necessary, log future complaints.