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

Sanctuary Housing Association (202205192)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205192

Sanctuary Housing Association

30 October 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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of health concerns following a fire in the bin store.  
    2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a smoke odour affecting her property and belongings.
    3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to move out of the property due to reported smoke damage to her property.
  2. This Service has decided to consider:
    1. The landlord’s communication with the resident.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. At the time of the complaint, the resident occupied a 1 bedroom flat on the 6th floor. She held an assured tenancy with the landlord with the tenancy beginning in March 2002.
  2. On 16 July 2020, a fire took place in the communal bin store. The resident’s flat is located next to fire doors in the corridor, leading to the bin chute which is connected to the bin store at ground level.
  3. The resident first reported a smoke odour in her flat on 5 September 2020. She advised the smoke odour was entering her property from the bin chute which was affecting her breathing and making her sick. She advised she had existing breathing difficulties which were worsening with the odour. The resident requested to be moved to alternative accommodation.
  4. The resident continued contacting the landlord and raised a formal complaint on 17 September 2020. Within the complaint, the resident said she did not feel the fire door was fit for purpose as the smoke odour was entering her property from the bin chute outside her flat and circulating round her property. She explained that the odour impacted her health and said that she had been in hospital from smoke inhalation. In addition, she reported throwing away personal belongings, but the smell still being present in her flat. She was dissatisfied with the landlord’s lack of communication surrounding her report and said that a deep clean had not taken place as advised by the landlord.
  5. On 20 October 2020, the resident was temporarily moved into supported accommodation due to ill health.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 20 October 2020. It stated the fire risk assessment team visited the resident’s home and block of flats on 2 October 2020, concluding there was no evidence of fire damage to the bin chute, or a smell of smoke. A housing officer visited on 15 October 2020 and did not find any evidence of an odour or fire damage. The landlord reviewed photos the resident had sent of her belongings and could not see any signs of damage. It explained that it could not substantiate her claims.
  7. The resident requested escalation of her complaint to stage 2 on 8 February 2021. She explained she had not been able to respond earlier as her mental health had deteriorated and she had moved into supported accommodation. The resident was dissatisfied that the landlord had not taken sufficient action in response to her reports and said the only time anyone had attended her flat was 2 weeks after she requested to be moved. She raised concerns that the bin chute hopper did not close properly, and the odour entered her flat when the wind blew in a certain direction. She wanted the landlord to look at her complaint again and look at how the smoke affected her possessions.
  8. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 12 April 2021. It apologised for the issues the resident had experienced and advised that following inspections, the building was fully compliant with building regulations. The landlord had contacted the resident on occasions to discuss her concerns and continued to assist with her request to move from her flat. The landlord could not identify any service failures.
  9. On 5 July 2021, the landlord issued a further complaint response. It reiterated the information it provided in its previous responses and added that transfer forms had been posted to the resident in October 2020.
  10. The resident referred her complaint to this Service on 14 June 2022. She remains dissatisfied at the landlord’s lack of action in response to her reports of the smoke odour in her property. To resolve the complaint, she is seeking financial compensation for her damaged belongings, and for the trauma she experienced.
  11. The resident terminated her tenancy in December 2020 and no longer lives in the property.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of health concerns following a fire in the bin store

  1. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to determine whether the smoke affected the resident’s health, property, and belongings. Rather, the role of the Ombudsman is to determine if, in responding to the resident’s concerns about this, the landlord complied with its relevant policies and procedures and whether its response was reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. This will include a consideration of how the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint about its handling of the matter.
  2. The resident raised initial concerns about a smoke odour following the fire affecting her health in her property on 5 September 2020. She advised that she had contacted the landlord previously to report concerns. However, landlord records do not evidence this. In response to the resident’s report, the landlord logged the matter and informed the resident’s housing officer. However, the housing officer did not contact the resident to discuss her concerns until 10 September 2020, 5 days after the initial report. During this time, the resident made repeat calls to the contact centre, raising further health concerns from the smoke odour, citing she was experiencing breathing issues, felt sick from breathing in smoke, and had been to hospital. The housing officer advised they would call the resident back on 7 and 8 September 2020, but failed to adhere to this, leaving the resident unclear on when the landlord would respond.
  3. Landlord records show on 8 September 2020, the landlord requested an urgent survey to inspect the property due to the alleged smoke damage affecting the resident’s health. However, this was not carried out and there are no records to confirm why.
  4. Given the health and safety concerns raised by the resident, this Service would expect the landlord to prioritise responding to the resident and urgently inspect the property to ensure it was safe for the resident to continue residing in.
  5. The landlord said its contractor would visit the property on 15 September 2020 but did not attend until 18 September 2020, 13 days after the resident initially raised health concerns about breathing in smoke. The delay for the landlord to attend the property after the initial report was unacceptable, and the resident incurred time and trouble chasing the landlord for an update.
  6. On 1 April 2021 upon reviewing the complaint, the landlord noted that following the resident’s initial reports, ‘there was only 1 interaction at the time from the housing officer’, and that ‘at the time the housing officer felt there was no concern that they had to visit’. This evidences a shortcoming from the landlord. There was no sense of urgency to address the resident’s concerns.
  7. The resident advised this Service that the landlord did not enter her property at any time to experience the smoke odour in her flat. However, records evidence that contractors attended the resident’s property on 18 September 2020 and noted that no cleaning was required as the flat was in a clean condition. The contractor noted no smoke odour. In light of the resident’s further concerns, it was appropriate for the landlord to arrange a fire risk inspection on 2 October 2020 and for a housing officer to attend on 15 October 2020. By completing its inspections of the property, the landlord ensured the property was habitable and safe for the resident.
  8. During the resident’s contact with the landlord, she advised on occasions that the smoke odour impacted her mental health. The landlord made a referral to its support service for the resident at an early stage on 10 September 2020, and signposted the resident to its support service on 18 September 2020. This was an appropriate response.
  9. However, the resident advised the landlord that she was suicidal because of the smoke odour during phone calls on 5 and 8 October 2020. During the call on 8 October 2020, she reported feeling like she was not receiving any support from the landlord. In response, the call handler forwarded the call details to a housing manager and asked someone to call the resident back as soon as possible. However, records show the resident never received a call back. The landlord did not appear to have taken sufficient steps to safeguard the resident.
  10. Overall, it is noted that from 18 September 2020, the landlord completed sufficient investigations into the resident’s concerns and was unable to substantiate her reports. However, the landlord delayed responding to the resident’s initial health concerns logged on 5 September 2020. Given the severity of her reports, the landlord should have been more proactive in its response. Its lack of response caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. Further, the landlord did not respond appropriately to her reports that she was suicidal.
  11. There was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of health concerns following a fire in the bin store. In light of this, the landlord is ordered to compensate the resident £150.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a smoke odour affecting her property and personal belongings

  1. The landlord completed sufficient enquiries into the resident’s concerns about a smoke odour affecting her property and belongings. Fire technicians who attended the block on 2 October 2020 concluded that the fire measures in the building were fully compliant with building regulations at the time, and that fire compartmentation was suitable and contained the spread of smoke within the building at the time of the fire. Upon inspection, it found that there were no signs of smoke damage to the bin chute on the 6th floor and no smoke odour. Further, the fire technician logged that the resident’s flat was located on the sixth floor with 2 fire doors plus the resident’s door leading to the bin chute access hatch. They noted that smoke would have had to carry up 7 floors and through the doors to reach the flat by which time it will have almost disappeared.
  2. The housing officer’s inspection on 15 October 2020 was consistent with the findings of the previous attendances. Further, the housing officer inspected the bin store and found no sign of damage or smell. They also noted there had been no reports from other residents about the fire except one report of smoke inhalation on the day of the fire. In its complaint responses, the landlord sought to reassure the resident by outlining a detailed explanation of its findings. The steps taken by the landlord in response to the resident’s concerns were thorough and its complaint responses were appropriate.
  3. The landlord sought further advice from fire technicians about the resident’s additional concerns. The resident reported that beading around her door had only been installed after the fire took place. The fire team advised the landlord that the resident’s front door was compliant with fire safety regulations and that the beading was for aesthetic purposes only. In addition, the resident was concerned that the bin chute hopper did not close properly, which she felt was a contributing factor to the reported odour. The fire technicians advised that the hopper not fully closing was not an issue as it was contained within a protected area of the building. The landlord appropriately investigated all of the resident’s concerns.
  4. Due to the lack of evidence of smoke affecting the resident’s property following the landlord’s investigations, the landlord advised the resident throughout the complaints process that it could not reimburse the resident for her report of damage to her personal belongings. However, the resident persisted that she had to dispose of a large number of belongings due to them smelling of smoke. It is worth noting that the landlord’s compensation policy outlines that, ‘damage caused by floods/fire/leaks and other events outside of the landlord’s control must be covered by the customer’s own contents insurance’. In light of this, the landlord would not have been expected to reimburse the resident for her reports of damage to her belongings.
  5. Overall, the landlord completed thorough investigations into the reports of a smoke odour affecting the resident’s property and belongings. It appropriately responded to the resident’s concerns relying on the evidence available to it and there was no maladministration in its handling of the matter.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to move out of the property due to smoke damage to her property.

  1. The resident requested to be moved out of her property. The landlord noted it would not be able to grant priority for a transfer based on risks to the resident’s health from reports of smoke inhalation as this had not been identified as an issue. Given the lack of evidence following the landlord’s investigations into the presence of smoke in the resident’s property, the landlord would not be expected to offer the resident a permanent transfer on these grounds.
  2. The landlord instead advised that it would independently consider the resident’s mental health as a reason for a transfer following receipt of medical evidence. On 23 October 2020, the landlord received transfer forms and evidence from the resident and forwarded this to the relevant team. The landlord noted in its stage 2 response that the resident had since ended her tenancy in December 2020 and moved to her current address. The landlord took into consideration all circumstances when considering the resident’s request for a transfer and provided information until she ended her tenancy. In light of this, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to move out of the property due to smoke damage to her property.

The landlord’s communication with the resident

  1. Landlord records show that from 6 October 2020 the resident’s housing officer went on leave, and they did not handle the case moving forward. Although a new housing officer worked on the case from 12 October 2020 and enquiries were carried out internally, the resident was not provided with regular updates. Consequently, the resident chased the landlord and spoke to several different staff members. She repeatedly explained her situation and expressed during a call that she was finding it difficult speaking to different staff each time she phoned. By the landlord failing to provide the resident with regular updates, she expressed feeling that she had been forgotten about.
  2. When the resident contacted the landlord, call backs were frequently logged and not returned within the landlord’s 48 hour timeframe resulting in the resident incurring time and trouble chasing. This was evident when the resident first reported the matter (as outlined in paragraph 15). Further, on 30 September 2020 the contact centre booked for a housing officer to call back the resident. Records show that she was not called back and was instead emailed on 13 October 2020. This was despite the resident repeatedly chasing, and the contact centre following up with housing officers for the call back to be actioned. The resident was left unclear on what actions the landlord was taking in response to her complaint, and the lack of contact would have caused her frustration.
  3. The landlord fell short in its communication with the resident and failed to acknowledge this within its complaint responses. Therefore, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s communication with the resident.
  4. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £150 compensation to put things right for its poor communication with the resident including time and trouble incurred chasing for updates.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints processadopts a 2 stage process consisting of stage 1 (front line resolution), and stage 2 (investigation). At stage 1 the landlord aims to respond within 10 working days, and at stage 2within 20 working days. It adds that if a resident remains dissatisfied with the outcome of the stage 2 complaint, they can provide details of why they remain unhappy, and a further response will be issued.
  2. The resident experienced delays with her stage 1 complaint response, receiving her response on the 20th working day after her complaint had been logged. However, its stage 2 response was issued within the 20 working day timeframe. Overall although there were minor delays for the stage 1 complaint response to be issued, this does not amount to service failure.
  3. In response to the landlord’s stage 2 response, the resident expressed dissatisfaction to the landlord on 3 June 2021. The landlord subsequently issued a further complaint response on 5 July 2021. Although issuing a further final response was in line with the landlord’s complaints policy, both stage 2 responses outlined they were final responses and contained referral rights to this Service. This was likely to have caused a lack of clarity to the resident. The landlord is therefore recommended to review its complaints process with the view to reduce its stage 2 to a singular complaint response. This service considers that a 2 stage complaint procedure is ideal to ensure that the complaints process is not unduly long. If landlords strongly believe a third stage is necessary, they should set out their reasons for this as part of their self-assessment.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of health concerns following a fire in the bin store.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a smoke odour affecting her property and belongings.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to move out of the property due to the smoke damage to her property.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s communication with the resident.
  5. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £300 compensation comprising of:
    1. £150 for the landlord’s delay to attend the resident’s property after the resident’s raised health concerns and failing to take sufficient action in response to the resident’s mental health concerns.
    2. £150 for the landlord’s lack of communication with the resident in relation to her concerns about a smoke odour in her property, and the time and trouble incurred by the resident chasing for updates.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is recommended to review its complaints procedure with the view to consider reducing itsstage 2 to a singular complaint response.