Sanctuary Housing Association (202105061)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202105061

Sanctuary Housing Association

30 January 2023

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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. the priority awarded to the resident’s transfer application.
2. the repairs to the resident’s property following the leak into the lounge;
3. the related complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord which commenced on 25 October 2004.
The property is described as a one-bedroom flat on the second floor. The property is occupied by the resident, his wife and two children.
The landlord’s tenancy agreement obliges the landlord to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the premises including the gutters and external pipes.
The landlord’s repair and maintenance policy states that it will respond to emergency repairs within six hours and it will arrange a further appointment within 28 days to carry out the remedial works.
The landlord’s voids, allocations and lettings policy undertakes an assessment of each applicant’s housing needs and it priorities applicants needs using its banding system. There are three categories: Band A which is the highest category of need for those at risk of significant and imminent harm. Band B includes cases of severe overcrowding and Band C which includes inappropriate accommodation and those needing to move on welfare/social grounds.
The landlord’s complaints Housing and Support Policy states that complaints will be answered at the first stage within 10 working days and at the final stage within 20 working days.

Scope of investigation

The resident has said that he has experienced water ingress into his property since 2012. However, this investigation is focused on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of water ingress in June 2021 which was considered during and has exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure.

Summary of events

On 4 August 2020, the resident acted on the Council’s advice and contacted the landlord with regard to finding larger accommodation. The resident communicated with the landlord about his housing requirements and the landlord received his transfer application on 19 November 2020. The resident informed the landlord that his wife suffered from sciatica and back pain and requested a ground floor flat.
In response, the landlord informed the resident that it needed proof of his wife’s previous address before she could be included on his rehousing application. The landlord’s records show that it received the identity information for his two children and proof of his wife’s address in February 2021. The evidence submitted to this Service shows that the transfer application was approved on 19 March 2021. The resident was provided with his banding letter which informed him that his application was placed in Band B and that he required a two-bedroom property. The letter included his appeal rights if he was unhappy with the housing assessment.
The resident complained to the landlord on 25 May 2021 that he had experienced leaks in his property since 2012 and that consequently the property was uninhabitable and a health hazard. He had applied to be rehoused and his application had been placed in Band B. He expressed that his application should have been awarded a higher priority and placed in Band A. He requested that as the landlord had not responded to his previous communication, the landlord should treat his email as a complaint.
On 28 May 2021 the landlord emailed the resident to advise that his concerns had been sent to the maintenance team to resolve.
The landlord internal records on 28 May 2021 and 30 May 2021 show that it did not record the email from the resident as a complaint, as the last record of a leak in his property occurred in May 2020 and that it had not received a recent report of a leak into his property. It organised a visit to the resident’s home to assess the property condition.
The evidence shows that the landlord considered that the resident’s main priority was to move from his present address. It noted that the resident had requested that his housing application be awarded a higher priority to enable him to receive a quicker offer of permanent accommodation.
On 9 June 2021, the landlord arranged a visit to the resident’s property to assess its condition.
On 21 June 2021, the resident contacted the landlord regarding water penetration through the ceiling into the lounge. He advised that the water was coming through the light fitting in the lounge. In response, the landlord raised an emergency order to remedy the leak and for an electrician to attend.
The landlord provided an invoice provided from its contractor dated 1 July 2021, showing that it attended to:
1. Inspect the roof.
2. Clean, clear and flush out the gutter.
3. Clear blockage to the roof and downpipe.
The landlord’s records show that on 2 July 2021 it received the inspection report from its contractor. It concluded that the resident had experienced a leak into his lounge. Furthermore, this had resulted from the box guttering which had caused water penetration into the property.
This Service contacted the landlord on 26 July 2021 requesting that it respond to the resident’s complaint. In response the landlord sent an acknowledgment to the resident advising that it will respond within 10 working days.
On 29 July 2021, the landlord’s internal records show that it spoke to the resident who confirmed that the repair had been completed and requested that the landlord inspect the property. With regard to the transfer application, the resident had been informed that his housing application had been assessed and placed in Band B. In addition, he would be contacted once a suitable property became available.
On 6 August 2021 the landlord contacted its contractor who confirmed that it had carried out the work to the roof. The staining on the walls in the lounge was not damp but staining from a previous leak. Furthermore, on the day that it had carried out a further inspection to the property, there was a heavy downpour of rain and there was no sign of water penetration into the property. The contractor recommended that stain blocking be carried out to the affected walls.
The resident contacted the landlord on 17 August 2021 to request that it escalate the complaint to the final stage of the complaint procedure.
The landlord responded at the final stage of the complaint procedure on 6 September 2021. It stated that it had not provided an earlier response to his complaint as it had agreed to his request for his complaint to be considered at the final stage of its complaint procedure. The key findings were:
1. Confirmed that the transfer application had been assessed as in Band B. As there was high demand for housing, it could not provide a specific date when he would be offered alternative accommodation.
2. Responded to the report of water penetration through the light fitting in the lounge on 21 June 2022 by raising an emergency order on 22 June 2021 and isolated the light in the lounge.
3. Identified that the source of the leak in the lounge was the roof gulley. Its contractor attended on 1 July 2021 to clear the blocked gutters and downpipes.
4. Arranged for the internal decoration to be made good on 15 August 2021 and an appointment was arranged for 27 September 2021 for this to be carried out.
5. It recognised that it had not met its own complaint handling timescales and made a compensation award of £75 for this.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated his complaint to this Service on 23 September 2021. He advised that his preferred outcome was to be placed in Band A in recognition that he was statutorily overcrowded and that the landlord had failed to address the water penetration into the lounge.
After the complaint process was exhausted the resident reported a leak into his property on 27 September 2021. The landlord raised an order to trace the leak and established that this was probably caused by a burst pipe. The landlord records show that the repair to the leak was completed on 27 September 2021. However, the resident maintained that the cause of the leaks into the property remained unresolved.
On 6 October 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident and amongst other things agreed to conduct a banding panel review. In addition, it provided information on the other housing options available such as home swapper, housing moves and home finder scheme that he could use to obtain alternative accommodation.
The landlord received a disrepair complaint on 21 January 2022 under the pre-action protocol for housing conditions. The claim was in relation to the water ingress into the lounge which had affected the electrics, the kitchen and bathroom which were affected by dampness. In addition, the extractor fans in the property were not working and these issues had been reported since May 2021.
The landlord informed this Service on 20 January 2023 that it had visited the resident’s property on 18 January 2023 and that its surveyors do not complete inspection reports. However, it provided the outcome of the inspection and advised that it had carried out work to:
1. Make good the damaged section of plasterboard to the lounge ceiling, make good the plaster to the wall and to redecorate all affected areas to match existing.
2. Supply and fit the pendent and a twin socket outlet.
3. Carried out the full NICEIC electrical test.
The landlord carried out a review of the banding decision on 16 January 2023. It advised that the appeal had not been upheld as the application had been correctly banded at Band B.

Assessment and findings

the priority awarded to the resident’s transfer application.

The landlord’s voids, allocations and lettings policy requires the landlord to undertake an assessment of the resident’s housing needs and place the resident into one of the three housing bands. The resident contacted the landlord to make an application for rehousing in August 2020 and it appropriately informed the resident that as it did not sufficient information regarding his wife’s previous residence before it could complete its assessment of his housing needs. It required further information to verify his wife’s residence.
The landlord’s voids, allocations and lettings policy states that the highest priority is awarded to people experiencing significant and imminent harm. Band B recognises those that are experiencing severe overcrowding and those with medical and disability conditions. In accordance with its policy, it considered the resident’s circumstances; that he was occupying a one-bedroom property with his wife and children and that he was overcrowded in his current accommodation. In line with its policy, it assessed that the resident should be placed in Band B.
The landlord’s complaint response on 6 September 2021 managed the resident’s expectations about his likelihood of receiving alternative accommodation. It explained that it had limited housing stock, received a high demand for housing, consequently, it could not provide a timescale when it would be able to make an offer of alternative housing.
The landlord’s voids allocation and lettings policy advises that if a resident is unhappy with the banding decision, a review can be requested. There is no evidence that the resident requested a review of the banding decision until after the complaint process. The review of the banding decision provides the opportunity for the resident to check that the landlord had received and considered all the information relevant to his housing circumstances.
The landlord has informed this Service on 23 January 2023 that it could not confirm that the review of the banding decision had been carried out. Therefore, It carried out the housing review and informed the resident the same day that the rehousing band had not changed. Though there was a delay in the landlord informing the resident of the outcome of the banding review, there was no detriment to the resident as there was no change in the assessment.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 6 October 2021, giving information about the other available mechanisms to obtain alternative housing such as home swapper, housing moves and renting in the private sector. The landlord could have provided this information earlier to the resident so that he could make an informed decision regarding the rehousing opportunities available. This was a shortcoming.

The repairs to the resident’s property following the leak into the lounge.

The landlord’s tenancy agreement obliges the landlord to keep the property in repair. The resident has said that he has experienced water penetration into the property for a significant period of time which has led to the property being unhabitable. Looking at the available evidence provided by the landlord, it installed a new stop tap to prevent water penetration to the property below in October 2020 to prevent water penetration into the property below. After that repair was carried out it had not received a recent report regarding another roof leak, therefore there is insufficient evidence that there had been concurrent leaks into the resident’s property that would make it uninhabitable.
The resident has not provided any evidence to refute the landlord’s assertion. However, the evidence shows that there have been water penetration into the resident’s property on different occasions. This is supported by the information provided by the landlord’s contractor who noted that there had been a previous leak to the property.
Given the resident’s complaint about the condition of the property, the landlord appropriately agreed to inspect the property in June 2021. This was to check and inspect the issues complained about and arrange for works to be carried out to remedy any defects. Looking at the available information, before the inspection could be carried out the resident reported on 21 June 2021 that there was water penetration through the ceiling into the lounge that affected the light fittings.
The landlord’s repair policy states that it will respond to emergency repairs within six hours and follow on works within 28 days. The landlord acted in accordance with this by raising an emergency repair to remedy the leak into the property and arranging for an electrician to attend to check the electrics. The reports were timely and reflected the urgency of the repair.
The landlord ensured that it identified the cause of the water penetration into the property. The cause of the leak was diagnosed on 2 July 2021 as a result of defects to the guttering. It arranged for the clearance of the flat roof, guttering and downpipe which was completed within its repair timescale of 28 days.
Following the work undertaken by the contractor the landlord appropriately contacted its contractor to check that the cause of the leak had been correctly diagnosed and resolved. It was reasonable for the landlord to accept the contractor’s diagnosis of the cause of the water penetration as the contractor advised that when he attended the resident’s property the weather conditions were wet and there were no signs of water penetration during the visit.
The contractor also said that he did not see evidence of dampness at the property and that there was evidence of staining on the walls from a previous leak. As the resident had raised concerns about the condition of the property, it was appropriate for the landlord to clarify with the contractor that there was no damp and mould in the property. The contractor suggested applying stain block to the affected areas from previous water penetration into the property. The landlord considered this suggestion and in its final complaint response agreed to make good the internal decoration to the lounge.
After the complaint procedure was exhausted, the resident reported water penetration into the procedure on 27 September 2021. The landlord investigated the cause of the water ingress into the property and assessed that this was due to a burst pipe. This was necessary to ensure that the two reports of water penetration were not related and that it had carried out the repairs to address the reports of water penetration it had received.

The related complaint.

The landlord’s complaint timescales state it will respond at the first stage within 10 working days and within 20 working days at the final stage.
Following the resident’s complaint on 25 May 2021, regarding the housing application and the water penetration into his property. The landlord reviewed the complaint from the resident and concluded that the substantive issue was the resident’s housing application and that it was the first time that the resident had reported the leak into the property, therefore it would not be treated as a complaint. The Complaint Handling Code expects landlords to distinguish from service requests and complaints that it receives. In this particular case, the landlord’s review of the resident’s email appropriately assessed that it needed to inspect the condition of the property as it had not received a previous report that repairs were required to the property.
Following the leak into the resident’s property in June 2021 and the intervention of this Service, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 27 July 2021 and it informed the resident that it would respond within 10 working days – 10 August 2021. When the landlord did not respond by the agreed date, the resident requested on 17 August 2021, that the landlord escalate the complaint to the final stage of its complaint procedure.
The landlord agreed to do this and confirmed this to the resident on 25 August 2021. This was in line with the Complaint Handling Code which sets out that landlords should not unreasonably refuse to escalate a complaint through all stages of the complaint procedure.
The landlord responded to the complaint on 6 September 2021 within its complaint handling timescale. In its review of the complaint, it considered its handling of the resident’s complaint and acknowledged that it had not met its published complaint handling procedures. It had not provided a response within its published timescales at the first stage of the procedure. It apologised and made a compensation award of £75 for this.
The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord in its complaint response has acknowledged that it did not meet its complaint handling deadlines at the first stage of the complaint. Though the landlord agreed to escalate the complaint to the final stage of its complaint procedure, the reality is that the resident experienced an unnecessary delay in receiving the landlord’s response to his concerns.
It is noted that during the complaint investigation the landlord communicated with the resident to understand the issues of complaint and attempted to manage the resident’s expectation around the availability and limitations of finding alternative accommodation.
Having considered the facts of the case, the landlord’s offer of compensation is considered reasonable redress as it reflects the delay and inconvenience experienced by the resident whilst he waited for the landlord’s complaint response.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the priority awarded to the resident’s transfer application.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the resident’s property following the leak into the lounge.
In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the related complaint.

Reasons

The landlord assessed the resident’s housing application in accordance with its voids, allocation and lettings policy and was placed in Band B. The landlord has undertaken a review of the resident’s housing application to confirm that the banding is correct and has advised that it is unable to provide a specific timeline when he may receive an offer of alternative accommodation.
The landlord conducted appropriate investigations to ascertain the cause of the water penetration into the lounge. It confirmed with its contractor regarding the diagnoses of the cause of the water penetration which it confirmed was due to the blocked guttering. It agreed to carry out work to carry out the internal decoration to remedy staining to the walls.
The landlord acknowledged that it did not respond to the resident’s complaint at the first stage of its complaint procedure. It made an award of compensation in recognition of this which recognised the length of time spent by the resident pursuing the matter.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord to pay the resident the £75 agreed in its final complaint response.
The landlord to review its processes regarding the inspection reports from its surveying teams so that it has proper records regarding the condition of its properties.
The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within six weeks of the date of this report.