Sanctuary Housing Association (202106332)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202106332

Sanctuary Housing Association

24 November 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

The resident has complained:
1. about the landlord’s response to reports of operatives entering the garden without permission.
2. about the landlord’s response to reports of non-household rubbish left outside the property.
3. about the landlord’s response to concerns about contact arrangements.
4. about the landlord’s response to concerns about the property condition.
5. that that the landlord has discriminated against him on the ground of disability, in breach of the Equalities Act 2010.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
In his submissions to the Service, the resident has complained about the condition of his property, in particular that it has leaking windows and structural issues. He has stated he would like the landlord to carry out a full property inspection. While the resident’s concerns about this are noted, a complaint relating to the overall condition of the property or need to inspect in full has not exhausted the landlord’s complaints process.
Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme states “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.” Essentially, a landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions within its complaint’s procedure prior to an investigation by the Housing Ombudsman Service (the Service). As the resident’s complaint about the condition of his property has not completed the landlord’s complaints procedure, it is outside of our jurisdiction to consider. The resident may raise a complaint with the landlord about this matter and refer it to this Service if he remains unhappy after completing the complaints procedure.
The resident has also complained that the landlord’s actions have been discriminatory and in breach of the Equalities Act 2010. Paragraph 42(g) of the Scheme states “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure”. The serious nature of the resident’s concerns is noted. However, unlike the Service, the Court has the power to make a judgement, binding on the parties, on whether the landlord has been guilty of acting discriminatorily and in breach of the Equalities Act.
Therefore, the resident’s complaint that the landlord’s actions have been discriminatory and in breach of the Equalities Act 2010 is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction in line with paragraph 42(g) of the Scheme. We can however consider whether there have been failings by the landlord or whether it has otherwise acted unfairly, unreasonably, negligently or unreasonably.

Background and summary of events

The landlord’s Policies and Procedures

The landlord’s Repairs Handbook states:
1. There are 3 repairs categories:
  1. Emergency repairs – made safe within 24 hours.
  2. Appointed or Responsive repairs (that are not emergencies)– carried out within 28 calendar days.
  3. Planned repairs – carried out as a programme of works.
The landlord’s Repairs Procedure states that “Appointed repairs apply to all non-emergency repairs for which access to the property is required. Customer Service Centre (CSC) Officers will agree an appointment with the service user during the first point of contact, wherever possible – Sanctuary aims to complete all appointed repairs within 28 days.”
The landlord has a two stage complaints procedure. The first stage is Front Line Resolution and the second stage is Investigation. The Complaints Procedure states:
1. “The first stage of the complaints process focusses on empowering staff to discuss concerns and agreeing appropriate action with customers to resolve problems fairly, reasonably, and swiftly. Sanctuary aims to propose resolution to the customer within 10 working days.”
2. “The focus of the Investigation stage is to undertake a full review into what occurred leading up to the complaint to assess whether Sanctuary’s policies, procedures and associated guidance has been followed, considering the individual circumstances of the complainant. All complainants will receive a written response within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated.”
The landlord’s Compensation Guidance states that:
1. Payments of up to £400 may be made in recognition of time, trouble and inconvenience of a service failure, using the scale below:
  1. £0 – £50: low effort low impact
  2. £51 – £150: high effort/low impact or low effort/high impact
  3. £151 – £400: high effort high impact
2. For complaints handling “payments of up to £150 may be made in recognition of time, trouble and inconvenience of a service failure, using the scale and examples below”:
  1. £0 – £50: minor delay in raising a complaint, delay in responding to an issue without updating the customer.
  2. £51 – £100: Delays of difficulties raising a complaint, delays in giving a response leading to increased contact from the customer.
  3. £101 – £150: Significant difficulties in raising a complaint, delayed response and poor quality correspondence.

Summary of Events

The resident is a tenant of the landlord. His property is a one-bedroom maisonette. His tenancy commenced in May 2019. The landlord has advised its records state that the resident has vulnerabilities, but no specific details are noted. The resident has repeatedly made clear in correspondence that he has mental health issues which includes anxiety and self-harm.
On 4 and 5 December 2019 the resident advised the landlord of his communication needs: – to email him in the first instance as he was unable to take calls, unless they were scheduled for a particular time, due to his mental health.
On 5 March 2021 the resident complained that an operative attending to assess a broken fence reported by his neighbour had entered his (the resident’s) back garden without any notice, and that the operative was “arrogant and rude” when challenged. The landlord spoke to the resident and advised it would refer the incident to a Trades Supervisor. On 19 March 2021, the resident complained that two other operatives attending for the fencing repair had now entered his garden stating that they thought it was the same as the neighbour’s. The landlord agreed to investigate but there is no evidence it responded further at this time.
On 12 May 2021 the resident reported that operatives who were on site to assess the fence were still unsure which property they needed to access. He added he was not informed they would be attending. The landlord advised that a Trades Supervisor would respond. There are no records that the Trades Supervisor contacted the resident.
After the resident contacted the Service, on 10 September 2021 we asked the landlord to investigate a complaint about the “reported conduct of staff members. The resident states maintenance staff entered the garden without permission and caused further damage to the fence.” The landlord registered a complaint.
Regarding the resident’s complaints about the conduct of operatives (complaint 1), on 13 October 2021, the landlord initially offered £25 in a Front-Line Resolution response. The resident escalated the complaint on the same day stating that the landlord had ignored the fact that the fence was his neighbour’s and that operatives “had physically broken into his garden on two occasions breaching his rights and statute”.
The landlord sent a further response on 18 November 2021 with an increased goodwill offer of £225 which comprised:
1. £25 previously offered for a delay in the response.
2. £75 for the lack of response to previous correspondence sent raising concerns about conduct of operatives that attended to the broken fence and numerous contacts made.
3. £50 for the complaint not being recorded earlier after no response given by the Trade Supervisor.
4. £25 for a delay in stage 2 acknowledgment being sent.
5. £50 for the inconvenience caused by the resident having to contact Housing Ombudsman to raise the complaint.
The resident accepted the offer of compensation offer and the landlord closed the complaint.
The resident complained on 14 December 2021 that a contractor called him without warning (complaint 2). He stated that he had requested on several occasions since the start of his tenancy that the landlord did not call him without warning as a reasonable adjustment. The landlord responded on 15 December 2021 apologising for any distress caused but advising it was obliged to provide his contact details to subcontractors so they could arrange access. It confirmed this was outlined in the privacy statement provided at the start of the tenancy, which it quoted from.
After a further phone call without notice from the landlord’s maintenance team, the resident sent further emails in which he reiterated his anxiety in social situations, including the phone. On 21 December 2021 the landlord agreed for an alert to go on the system regarding the resident’s communication requirements. On 22 December 2022 it sent a Front Line Resolution response to the complaint apologising for not previously actioning the resident’s request about his communication needs and for the his experience. It advised that it was adding an alert and offered £50 compensation. On the same day, the resident rejected the compensation referring to the “organisation’s discriminatory practices”.
There was a delay in registering an escalated complaint while the landlord sought advice from its insurance team how to proceed. The landlord did not advise the resident of this and on 21 January 2021 he emailed it stating he was waiting for an official response to complaint 2. He advised that he retracted his previous acceptance of compensation as he had found out from a Subject Access Request that staff had “lied” during internal investigations. In particular, it was stated access through his garden was the only way to access the fence when it was secured from the neighbour’s side and was reported by the neighbour. The resident also stated that a Trades Supervisor had lied about phoning and calling him. On 31 January 2022 the landlord advised it would investigate the complaint at the Investigation stage and send the response by 22 February 2022.
In his email of 21 January 2021, the resident noted that the staff member who had agreed to update his communication needs had called him a month later, leaving a voicemail with no return number. On 12 February 2022 the landlord stated to the resident that the staff member had called him on 19 January 2022 to discuss concerns about people attending his property unannounced and that she was returning his call. In response the resident denied having made the initial call.
On 22 February 2022, the landlord responded to complaint 2:
1. It noted that the resident had requested on several occasions that if it or its contractor wished to contact him, it should email before calling. It apologised for not recording this arrangement on its systems.
2. It noted that it had made the resident aware on 15 December 2021 that it was obliged to provide his contact details to contractors to gain access; however, it apologised for not making the contractor aware of his communication requirements.
3. It confirmed that an alert had now been added to the property to ensure emails were sent before any calls made.
It offered compensation of £450 which comprised:
1. £50 – previously offered at Front Line Resolution Stage due to inconvenience caused.
2. £300 – length of time taken to update its records with the resident’s contact requirements.
3. £50 – delays escalating the complaint.
4. £50 – delays responding to recent emails.
On 24 February 2022 the resident responded expressing dissatisfaction with the response as the landlord did not accept that there was a breach of the Equality Act 2010, and that the maintenance team was “lying”. The landlord on 11 March 2022 offered the resident the opportunity to discuss the complaint with a senior member of staff.
On 23 February 2022 the resident reported that masonry, bags of rubbish and wood had been left outside his window by subcontractors when working at another property. He asked if the items could be taken away that day. As the rubbish was not taken away, the resident raised a complaint (complaint 3) the next day. On 25 February 2022 the landlord raised an order for its Estates Team to remove the items. On the same day the landlord sent a Front Line Resolution response to the resident advising that an order had been raised to clear the rubbish. It apologised for the issues the resident had experienced with the rubbish and for having to raise a complaint and offered £25 compensation.
The resident sent 13 emails between 23 February 2022 and 6 March 2022 complaining that the rubbish had not yet been taken away. The rubbish was collected on 9 March 2022. In the interim, the resident complained on 26 February 2022 that a member of staff from the repairs team had phoned him about this matter, and that he was “literally close to suicide”. The landlord’s internal records confirm that it phoned the resident.
Aside from his complaints the resident also emailed the Chief Executive about the condition of his property and his general dissatisfaction with the landlord since the start of his tenancy. He stated its actions were criminal, constituted discrimination and exacerbated his illness. The resident had agreed to speak to a senior member of staff on 27 February 2022 about the landlord’s handling of the issues. However, following the phone call of 26 February 2022 he cancelled the planned call. In cancelling the call, he alleged harassment and discrimination and a failure to make reasonable adjustments, and stated that the landlord’s actions had caused “literal self-harm and suicidal ideation”.
On 9 March 2022, the landlord sent another Front Line Resolution response to complaint 3. It stated that there had been no failure in service as the rubbish was not reported before the complaint was made; however, considering the resident’s time, trouble and experience it would offer a goodwill gesture of £25. On 10 March 2022 the resident advised he wanted to escalate this complaint as the response did not address the actual issue.
On 13 March 2022 the resident emailed the landlord stating that its Estates Team had called him which brought him “closer to killing myself” and questioning whether it practiced resident safeguarding. The landlord apologised for the incident and agreed that it would be considered within complaint 3. It advised it would send the response by 8 April 2022.
On 4 April 2022 the landlord sent the stage 2 response to the complaint:
1. It confirmed the order to remove the rubbish was raised a routine priority repair, not an emergency as there were no health and safety or security concerns. Therefore, the target date was 25 March 2022.
2. It acknowledged the items should not have been left there and that the resident had sent numerous emails to chase up the removal. It apologised for this.
3. It apologised for a member of the Estates Team phoning without having sent an email.
4. In recognition of the inconvenience to the resident, the landlord offered compensation of £125 comprising:
  1. £25 – time, trouble and inconvenience offered at stage 1.
  2. £100 – failure to adhere to reasonable adjustment.
The resident responded on 14 April 2022 stating that he remained dissatisfied as the rubbish should not have been left there in the first place. He added that the maintenance team and the CEO should have responded to correspondence and staff had harassed and discriminated against him.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to reports of operatives entering the garden without permission

The resident reported twice in March 2022 that operatives had entered his garden without notice. In doing so, the resident made clear that the operatives were unsure which garden they should be attending to and how to gain access. There is no evidence that the landlord ascertained why the operatives had entered the resident’s garden and how they could correctly gain access to the neighbour’s garden. The landlord therefore failed to appropriately investigate the resident’s reports with a view to preventing further incidents where the resident could be distressed by operatives unexpectedly entering his garden. This failure was compounded by a failure to investigate a further incident reported by the resident on 12 May 2021.
The landlord did not respond to resident’s reports thereby failing to resolve his uncertainty and sense of alarm that further incidents would occur. This prompted him to make a formal complaint through the Service. The landlord in the response of 18 November 2021 acknowledged its prior failure to respond to the resident’s reports and the resident accepted its offer of compensation at the time.
It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge its failings in relation to the complaint handling, and to offer some compensation. However, the landlord had still not ascertained why and how operatives had entered the resident’s property and how they should gain access for the repair of the neighbour’s fence. This omission was particularly significant as the resident had stated that the operatives had physically broken into his garden. Moreover, it was important that the resident was not alarmed by people entering his garden unexpectedly given his vulnerabilities. The landlord missed a further opportunity to investigate when the resident in his email of 21 January 2021 specifically disputed that access to the fence was only through his garden. Therefore, in conclusion, while the landlord has accepted that it failed to respond to the resident’s reports of operatives entering his garden, it has still not fully investigated the substantive issues raised. Therefore, it has not taken the necessary steps to put the matter right.

The landlord’s response to reports of non-household rubbish left outside the property

On 23 February 2022 the resident reported non-household rubbish left outside his property which he believed had been left by the landlord’s subcontractors. The landlord did not deny that its subcontractors had left the rubbish behind, therefore it assumed responsibility to remove the rubbish. The landlord was not obliged to act in the timeframe requested by the resident, to remove the rubbish on the same day. The landlord’s second stage response of 4 April 2022 confirmed that it applied its timeframe for routine repairs, 28 days, to the request for the removal of rubbish. As such the landlord met the timeframe by removing the rubbish on 9 March 2022.
However, the landlord missed opportunities to manage the resident’s expectations about when the rubbish would be removed, both when failing to respond to his initial report and when sending the Front Line Resolution response of 25 February 2022. Furthermore, the resident sent several further emails before the rubbish was removed but at no point did the landlord advise him when the rubbish would be removed or why it could not be removed sooner. This was particularly unreasonable as it was evident that the resident’s frustration was increasing.
The landlord in its complaint responses acknowledged the resident’s inconvenience and time and trouble in pursuing the clearance of the rubbish, therefore it was appropriate that it offered compensation. The landlord’s offer was ambiguous as while in the stage 2 response of 4 April 2022 it reiterated the stage 1 offer of £25, the landlord had in fact sent 2 stage 1 responses each offering £25, making a total of £50. An award of £50 is in line with the landlord’s compensation procedure and proportionate to the circumstances of the case given that there was no delay in removing the rubbish. On the basis that the landlord awarded £50 in total, it offered reasonable redress that satisfactorily resolved this complaint although this is contingent on the payment being made.

The landlord’s response to concerns about contact arrangements

The resident first made the landlord clear of his communication needs on 4-5 December 2019, specifically that the landlord should email him and not call him without an appointment. Landlords have a responsibility to take into account a resident’s needs and adjust the way it provides services to that resident accordingly, including contact arrangements. In this case, there is no evidence that the landlord accommodated the resident’s communication needs when first requested.
It was only after the resident reported receiving further phone calls and complained in December 2021 that the landlord took steps to ensure that it followed the resident’s contact needs, by putting an alert on the system. While the exact number of times since 2019 the resident had repeated his request to not be phoned is unclear the landlord had accepted he had made several requests. It ultimately took the landlord 2 years to accommodate his request which was an unreasonable and avoidable delay. In the response of 22 February 2022, the landlord offered £300 compensation for the delay, and £50 for the inconvenience caused.
Even after the alert the resident reported incidents of staff phoning him, one of which was acknowledged in the stage 2 response of 4 April 2022. This indicates that the landlord’s database on which the alert is recorded may have operational faults, and/or that staff and contractors do not always see or follow the alert. For this incident the landlord offered £100 compensation in the response of 4 April 2022. However, there is no evidence that the landlord assured the resident that it would investigate why the incidents occurred.
In total, the landlord has offered the resident £450 in respect of its failures around the resident’s contact arrangement. However, the resident’s contact arrangement is related to his vulnerability. He has made clear on several occasions that he has mental health issues and that phone calls have a high detrimental effect on him. He has referred to suicide and the need for safeguarding. Given the prolonged time that the landlord was not sensitive to the resident’s needs in relation contacting him, and the elevated and composite impact of this, the landlord’s offer was not proportionate to the circumstances of the case.
Furthermore, social landlords have a key safeguarding role to play along with other professionals and should be responsive where residents cite self-harm. To fulfil its safeguarding role, landlords should maintain records of a resident’s vulnerability. However, despite the resident’s reports about his mental health, the landlord has stated that it has no specific details of his vulnerability. This indicates that the landlord has failed to obtain full details of the resident’s vulnerability and record them on its systems to ensure that it can adapt its services as necessary.

Complaint handling

The landlord did not register the resident’s first complaint about operatives entering his garden at the earliest opportunity causing the resident to approach the Service. Having received the resident’s complaint from the Service, the landlord’s responses at stages 1 and 2 were outside the timeframe for responding as stated in the complaint procedure, 10 and 20 working days respectively, although not significantly so.
The landlord at stage 2 on 18 November 2021 offered compensation that recognised the delay in registering a complaint, the resident’s time and trouble in pursuing the complaint and delays in complaint responses. The offer was in line with the landlord’s complaints procedure and taken together provided reasonable redress for its failings in the handling of this complaint.
With regards to complaint 2 the first stage response of 22 December 2022 was sent within the timeframe for responding. However, there was a delay in the landlord escalating the complaint while it considered whether to do this. It did not send holding responses to the resident to keep him informed; it only responded after the resident pursued a response on 21 January 2022. However, in the stage 2 response it offered compensation of £50 for the delay and a further £50 for delay in responding to other correspondence. This award was in line with the guidance within the Compensation Procedure and proportionate to the delays therefore constituted satisfactory redress.
With regards to the resident’s third complaint about the removal of rubbish, the landlord sent stage 1 responses on 25 February 2022 and 9 March 2022, both within 10 working days of registering the complaint, in line with the Complaints Procedure. While the landlord did not make clear why it sent 2 stage 1 responses, this was not to the resident’s detriment. In fact, the Service considers the landlord to have made two compensation awards. After the resident escalated the complaint on 10 March 2022 the landlord responded in a timely way within 20 working days and by the stated deadline on 8 March 2022. It was also prudent that the landlord incorporated the resident’s complaint about the phone call of 13 March 2022 in the stage 2 complaint, although as noted above there was a failing in the landlord’s overall handling of its contact arrangements with the resident and consideration of his vulnerability.
In summary, the landlord has handled 3 separate complaints by the resident. Where there have been failings in its complaint handling it has offered compensation that was in line with its complaints procedure and proportionate to the failings. It has therefore offered redress that has satisfactorily resolved the failings in its complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to reports of operatives entering the garden without permission.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme the landlord has offered redress to the resident that in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its response to reports of non-household rubbish left outside the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to concerns about contact arrangements.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme the landlord has offered redress to the resident that in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the failings in its complaints handling.

Reasons

While the landlord has accepted that it failed to respond to the resident’s reports of operatives entering his garden, it has still not fully investigated the substantive issues raised. Therefore, it has not taken the necessary steps to put the matter right.
The landlord missed opportunities to manage the resident’s expectations about when the rubbish would be removed. However, it has offered compensation that constitutes reasonable redress that satisfactorily resolves this complaint.
The landlord delayed in adding an alert to its systems regarding the resident’s contact arrangements and has since phoned him without emailing. The landlord has failed to obtain full details of the resident’s vulnerability and record them on its systems to ensure that it can adapt its services as necessary. While it has offered compensation, its award was not proportionate to the circumstances of the case.
The landlord has handled three separate complaints by the resident. Where there have been failings in its complaint handling it has offered compensation that was in line with its complaints procedure and proportionate to the failings. It has therefore offered redress that has satisfactorily resolved the failings in its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Within the next 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. confirm to the resident what steps it will take to ensure that, if repairs are required in future to the neighbour’s fence, operatives will be clear where the broken fence is and will not enter the resident’s garden.
3. take steps to confirm the resident’s vulnerabilities and update its systems, including the alert about contacting the resident, accordingly. This should include ensuring that all teams and external contractors who may need to contact the resident can see the alert on its systems or otherwise will be aware of the contact arrangements in place.
4. review its processes for adding vulnerabilities/contact preferences. In carrying out the review the landlord should consider why staff phoned the resident and assess whether it was human error or if its process in relation to such matters needs improving.
5. pay the resident compensation of £1,325, comprising:
  1. the £225 offered in the complaint response on 18 November 2021 in respect of the failings in its response to operatives entering his garden, if not already paid.
  2. a further £100 in respect of the distress and inconvenience caused by not fully investigating why and how operatives had entered the resident’s property and how they should gain access for the repair of the neighbour’s fence.
  3. £1,000 in respect of the resident’s time and trouble and distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in the landlord’s response to concerns about contact arrangements. (If the landlord has paid the £450 offered for these issues in the responses of 22 April 2022 and 4 April 2022 it may deduct this amount).
The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord pay a further £150 compensation comprising:
1. £50 compensation to the resident in respect of its response to non-household rubbish left outside his property, if it has not already done so, as the finding of reasonable redress is contingent on this payment.
2. £100 compensation offered to the resident in the response of 22 February 2022 in respect of complaint handling failures if it has not already done so, as the finding of reasonable redress is contingent on this payment.