Sanctuary Housing Association (202214329)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214329

Sanctuary Housing Association

23 August 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 the landlord’s handling of the:
   1. kitchen flooring replacement works; and
   2. kitchen base units renewal works.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The resident moved into the property following a mutual exchange in October 2019.
3. In November 2021, the resident reported an issue with the kitchen flooring. She stated the kitchen floor had been affected by a leak and had shifted and become uneven. This was reported again in January 2022.
4. In May 2022, the landlord’s contractor attended the property to inspect the kitchen floorboards. Further inspections took place in July and August 2022 where she was informed there was rot and black mould present on the floorboards that required replacement. The contractor provided quotes for the kitchen flooring replacement.
5. On 16 September 2022, the resident raised a formal complaint about the kitchen floor stating it was deteriorating, uneven and spongy with several holes under the lino flooring. The resident said she had reported this since she moved in.
6. On 26 September 2022, the landlord issued its stage 1 response in which It apologised for the delays and offered £150 compensation comprised of £50 for delays and £100 for time and trouble. It also said within 28 days its contractor would contact the resident to carry out the proposed works to her kitchen. This included to remove and set aside the base units and replacement of the floor.
7. On 10 October 2022, the resident escalated the complaint as she had not received contact from the contractor. Shortly after, the landlord inspected the kitchen base units (on 14 October 2022). The resident highlighted, on 26 October 2022, that the 28 days for the landlord’s contractor to arrange works had now passed.
8. The landlord issued its final response on 7 November 2022. In summary, it:
   1. apologised for the delays and lack of communication.
   2. said it had initially misunderstood the request as replacement of vinyl flooring which it said would have been the resident’s responsibility.
   3. its contractor attended in July 2022 and established more extensive work was needed. A surveyor carried out an inspection on 11 August 2022 and requested the contractor provide an additional quote which was approved on 26 September 2022.
   4. reattended on 14 October 2022 to inspect the kitchen base units and it agreed to replace any kitchen unit carcasses that were not in a suitable condition and reuse the old door fronts.
   5. said that if it agreed to decant the resident, it would be in touch.
   6. offered £350 compensation; comprised of £150 for further time and trouble, £50 for the lack of answers and the £150 offered in its stage 1 response.
9. The resident referred her complaint to this Service on 4 October 2022 dissatisfied that the agreed works had not yet been completed. As a resolution to her complaint, she sought the completion of the works and a compensation review.
10. Throughout November 2022, the resident asked whether a decant could be provided given the nature of the works and chased this numerous times without response. In mid-December 2022, she was decanted and the works were subsequently completed around 19 December 2022.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

11. The Ombudsman recognises the residents comments that the kitchen flooring became affected as a result of a leak in the property and she reported this to the landlord shortly after she moved in. It appears the resident made a complaint about a number of repairs including the kitchen floor in July 2020. The nationwide COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns took place in 2020 and 2021 which affected contractors’ abilities to attend properties for non-emergency repairs. It is unclear if the resident continued to pursue this complaint or exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure back in 2020 or soon after this time.
12. Nevertheless, it is noted that the resident first brought the matter to the Ombudsman’s attention in October 2022. The Ombudsman expects residents to bring issues with which they are dissatisfied to the landlord’s attention in good time. This is set out in paragraph 42 (c) of the Scheme, which explains that the Ombudsman may not investigate a complaint which was not brought to the attention of the landlord, by way of a formal complaint, within a reasonable period – which would normally be within six months of the matter arising.
13. As such, the investigation will not examine the handling of matters in 2020 nor 2021 but will focus on the landlord’s actions between March 2022, six months prior to the resident raising the complaint, and December 2022, when the works were completed. This service appreciates that the resident had reported this before this time and does not doubt the floor may have deteriorated further. This service will investigate whether the landlord followed its policies, treated the resident fairly and whether its actions were reasonable in the circumstances.

Tenancy agreement and repairs policy

14. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for maintaining the floors and its fixtures and fixings keeping them in good condition and proper working order.
15. The landlord’s repair policy distinguishes between emergency and non-emergency repairs. While not specifically referred to in the examples of non-emergency repairs, it was reasonable for the landlord to not have initially considered the kitchen flooring and the cracks in the kitchen base units to be a “serious threat to the health and safety”.
16. Under this policy, non-emergency repairs are to be completed within 28 days. The Ombudsman understands that where specialist assessment and works are required, this timeframe is not always possible. In such circumstances, the Ombudsman expects a landlord to act proactively, not cause unreasonable delay, and to keep the resident informed. The policy notes that unforeseen delays can occur, following which the landlord will provide as much warning as possible and agree a suitable way forward.
17. The mutual exchange leaflet states that a resident must accept a property in the condition it is in. This does not prevent the resident from raising new repairs once they take up occupation of the property, however. The resident took over the tenancy of the property in 2019, therefore when the resident reported repair issues with the kitchen floor and kitchen base units in November 2021, the landlord was obliged to investigate the issues and complete any required repairs.

Kitchen flooring replacement

18. It is not disputed that there were failings in the landlord’s handling of this matter. The landlord acknowledged that there had been significant delays prior to the replacement of the kitchen flooring. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman assesses whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles:

a.         Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes; 

b.         Put things right; and

c.         Learn from outcomes. 

19. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
20. The resident reported the issue of the kitchen floor in November 2021. From the landlord’s records, it seemed to be unsure whether the vinyl or floorboards were to be replaced. In both November 2021 and January 2022, the resident advised that it was a structural issue with the floorboards themselves. An inspection was carried out in December 2021 and a quote provided.
21. The landlord sought further clarity from its contractor as it was unclear on the nature of works from its internal notes and its contractor’s initial quote. There were significant periods where no action was taken and, as a result, there were substantial delays before its contractor inspected the property again in May 2022 and provided a further quote for the works.
22. This was already beyond the 28 days for appointed repairs and the resident frequently chased for updates. When the landlord is unable to adhere to its outlined timeframes, it is good practice for it to liaise regularly with the resident to explain any difficulties and manage their expectations. However in this case, there was no evidence the landlord communicated any warning of these delays to the resident.
23. The landlord’s contractor reattended in July 2022 and identified that the kitchen floor was increasingly rotting. Following this, the landlord’s maintenance surveyor carried out an inspection on 11 August 2022 and subsequently its contractor provided yet a further quote. This quote for the works was above what the surveyor could approve and therefore was sent for authorisation.
24. It was understandable that the landlord obtained quotes for the kitchen floor replacement, given the scale of the works and the likely costs involved. It is important to note that social landlords have limited resources and are expected to manage these resources responsibly, to the benefit of all their residents. Therefore, landlords are expected to ensure that repairs provide good value for money, including seeking the most cost-effective quote where appropriate. 
25. The landlord was entitled to rely on the opinions of its appropriately qualified staff which it did, but it is unclear why there were delays in sending the quote for approval in August 2022. There seemed to be confusion on part of the landlord. It appeared only until the resident made a formal complaint did the pro-forma get sent to the relevant service area on 21 September 2022 and subsequently approved on 23 September 2022.
26. It was reasonable for the landlord to reinspect the floor following a further report of deterioration. However, the fact remains the landlord had been notified of this issue and had already inspected the property and provided a quote for the kitchen flooring work in May 2022.
27. There was a significant lack of contact with the resident throughout her request for works and complaint. There were numerous of examples where the resident initiated contact with the landlord due to the absence of updates. This was not in line with its repairs policy which suggests that it will keep service users informed of the progress of their repair and provide an update when works are completed. As such, this was a failing on the part of the landlord.
28. The landlord’s stage 2 response of 7 November 2022 suggested the works may take up to two weeks to complete and that the contractors manager had contacted the landlord’s maintenance surveyor to establish if it was appropriate to decant the resident. The landlord acted appropriately by decanting the resident which it did around 12 December 2022, but only did so after the resident chased a number of times.
29. From internal landlord emails, it deemed the works could go ahead with the resident in situ. However, this service has been unable to see that the landlord communicated this to the resident and so she continued to chase the matter. It is noted that the resident was unwilling to allow work to start without a decant as she felt it was unreasonable for her and her daughter to stay in her property with no use of a kitchen for over three days. It took over 1 month to decant the resident and while, in isolation, the Ombudsman considered this a reasonable timeframe, taking into account the previous delays, the landlord could have decanted the resident earlier and therefore could have carried out the works sooner.
30. The decants team required forms to approve a decant and the members of staff that could supply the forms were on annual leave. This created unnecessary delays which added to the resident’s frustration. Given its final response advised that the works could take up to two weeks, it is unclear why this process was not fast-tracked or signed off by another member of staff.
31. Overall, it took the landlord almost 13 months to complete the kitchen flooring replacement works. The delays were considerable and would have caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident. The landlord apologised for its failings and acknowledged missed opportunities to complete the works sooner.
32. Further, its communication with the resident was unsatisfactory and frequently the resident had to chase the landlord for updates. The landlord did make an attempt to put things right, however, the Ombudsman considers its overall offers in its responses and goodwill gesture totalling £575 compensation was not proportionate to the adverse effect caused by the failings identified in this investigation.
33. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests that compensation between £600 – £1,000 should be considered where there has been a significant failure that has adversely affected the resident. The landlord’s offer of compensation, while in line with its compensation policy, was not in line with this service’s guidance and the Ombudsman has considered this as part of its orders.

Kitchen base units renewal

34. Following the stage 1 response and the list of proposed works, the resident reported that the base units were cracked and could not be reused and therefore should not be ‘set aside’. The landlord arranged an inspection in a timely manner and following this it was proposed that if the unit carcasses were unable to be reused, they would be replaced while maintaining the old door fronts.
35. The landlord is responsible for the maintenance of the fixtures and fittings in the property which it provides. This includes the kitchen base units where they are damaged or no longer functional. It was therefore obliged to carry out the repairs where it learned of the issues. However, a landlord would not be expected to replace a unit until it has become impractical or uneconomical to repair. The landlord has a duty to ensure that it makes the best use of its resources to provide an appropriate standard of service to all residents.
36. It was appropriate for the landlord to undertake an inspection, to establish for itself whether a replacement was required. It was not unreasonable that it proposed to only repair or replace those components in need of repair. 83 days passed, however, from the moment the resident alerted the landlord to the cracks in the units up until the renewal works were carried out. This was outside of the landlord’s 28 calendar day timeframe.
37. While the Ombudsman has seen no evidence to suggest that the cracks made the kitchen units unusable, the resident still made concerted efforts to chase this work and the delays would have invariably caused frustration for the resident.
38. It is clear the kitchen base units were unable to be renewed before the kitchen flooring was replaced and the landlord communicated this to the resident before these works were carried out in tandem. However, as there had been previous inspections carried out by both the landlord and its contractor, these should reasonably have established the extent of the cracks of the base units without the resident prompting. This, in conjunction with the inconvenience and distress which would have resulted from continually chasing the works, amounts to a service failure.

Determination

39. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
    1. maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the kitchen flooring replacement works; and
    2. service failure in the landlord’s handling of the kitchen base units renewal works.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

40. Within 28 days of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Pay the resident the £575 offered in its responses and goodwill gesture, if it has not done so already.
    2. Pay the resident further compensation of £150 for distress and inconvenience comprising of:

i. £100 for delays in the kitchen replacement flooring.

ii. £50 for delays in renewing the kitchen base units.

41. The landlord must provide evidence that it has attempted to make the above payments to the resident within 28 calendar days of the date of the determination.

Recommendations

42. The landlord should ensure there is seamless transmission of information between departments and if internal communication has been sent to an incorrect department it is promptly relayed to the correct department.
43. The landlord should make appropriate arrangements moving forward to ensure that its service continues to appropriately function where there are staff absences.