Sanctuary Housing Association (202301864)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301864

Sanctuary Housing Association

14 March 2024

 

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 resident’s:
    1. Reports of leaks into the property.
    2. Associated formal complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is the leaseholder of the property, a 1-bedroom, second floor flat in a building owned by the landlord.
  2. The resident reported a leak through her bathroom ceiling to the landlord on 3 March 2021. As the issue had not been resolved, she raised a formal complaint on 3 April 2021 but received no response. She raised her complaint again on 14 October 2021 about delays in repairing the leak which was causing damage, damp, and mould in her property.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 23 June 2022, explaining that it had arranged for further works and investigations to find and repair the source of the leak. It noted that she had already requested escalation to stage 2 of its complaints procedure but told her that doing so would not get the works done any sooner.
  4. The resident maintained that she wished to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 23 June 2022 as she was unhappy with the progress the landlord had made with repairs.
  5. In its stage 2 response on 10 August 2022, the landlord said the repairs had taken much longer than necessary and offered its apologies. It asked the resident to provide quotes for damage caused to her home so it could consider reimbursement and offered compensation of £450.
  6. The leak continued until October 2022 and the resident provided initial quotes to the landlord in December 2022. It made a revised compensation offer of £3,000 on 20 February 2023. She had obtained further quotes as the level of damage had increased following further leaks and provided these to the landlord in March 2023. On 10 March 2023, it made a final compensation offer of £5,000.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to this Service in May 2023. She wanted the leak properly repaired so she could complete refurbishments in her bathroom. The leak was finally repaired in June 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident had previously reported problems with leaks to the landlord in March 2020 which did not form part of the complaint considered in this report. She also made further reports of leaks after the process for this complaint had concluded. As such, this report has only considered events that occurred between March 2021 and March 2023 as part of the relevant complaint period. Any further mention of leaks outside of this period are only for context within this report.

Reports of leaks into the property

  1. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy and procedure describe a leak through the ceiling as an emergency repair. Its response to emergency repairs is to attend and make the property safe within 24 hours of the request. Non-emergency repairs are completed within 28 days. It is responsible for keeping the structure and outside of the home and block in a good state of repair.
  2. The lease agreement specifies that it is the landlord’s responsibility at the tenant’s expense to keep in good and substantial repair and condition the main structure of the block, including all party walls and structures, all load-bearing walls and all walls dividing the flats from any other flat or from the common areas. This excludes the internal plaster, windows, electrical and other fittings of any individual flat which are the responsibility of the tenant.
  3. Also included in its repairs and maintenance policy, is the landlord’s need to access a property to make safe a repair that is likely to cause substantial damage to the property. In such cases, it must take all reasonable actions to contact the tenant and the decision to access the property must be made by a senior member of staff.
  4. The landlord’s compensation guidance states that payments of up to £400 may be made in recognition of time, trouble, and inconvenience in relation to service failures.
  5. It is not disputed that the landlord failed to address and repair the leak in a reasonable timescale. In its stage 2 response it apologised for delays in works being arranged to address the leak and for taking much longer than it should have to complete repairs.
  6. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, this Service will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, compensation, and offer to complete repairs) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, this Service considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  7. The resident reported a leak through her bathroom ceiling on 3 March 2021 and the landlord attended the same day. However, it was unable to gain access to the property above as the tenant had concerns about COVID-19. The resident made a further report about the leak on 5 March 2021 as no action had been taken, but she stated that there was an ongoing issue with the tenant above refusing access to contractors. However, it did not attend to this report within 24 hours, as outlined in its policy, and no evidence has been provided to this Service showing it attempted to contact the tenant above, or that it attended again until 15 March 2021.
  8. The landlord identified a leak in the property above on 26 March 2021 and updated the resident. She responded and said that mould was starting to spread in her property. On 29 March 2021, it was still waiting for a quote for works to repair the leak. She did not feel the landlord was treating the matter with the urgency it deserved and made a formal complaint on 3 April 2021. This was 1 calendar month after the leak was first reported which exceeded the 24-hour emergency repair period and exceeded the 28-day repair period for non-emergency repairs. However, the initial issues the landlord faced accessing the property above are noted and certainly contributed to initial delays.
  9. No evidence has been provided to this Service showing that the landlord took any further action to repair or prevent leaks between April and October 2021, despite at least 6 attempts by the resident to make contact about the problem. This was not a reasonable or timely response to an issue it had identified in March 2021.
  10. The resident raised the issue again, along with subsequent damp and mould in her property, to the landlord on 14 October 2021. At this stage, it formally logged a complaint and arranged an inspection at her property for 21 October 2021. While this was a positive response, it still did not treat the leak as an emergency under its repairs and maintenance policy. It did not acknowledge a leak had been found until 11 November 2021, a further 21 days after it inspected.
  1. The resident made 3 further reports about leaks affecting her property between November 2021 and February 2022. On 20 November 2021 and 9 January 2022, she advised the landlord the leak was affecting her kitchen, which she had recently replaced. The landlord completed some repairs in the property above on 4 January 2022, but did not take any further action until attempting to access the property above on 9 February 2022, after the resident returned from holiday on 2 February and advised it the leak remained. The resident emailed her MP to request assistance as she was concerned about the level of damage to her flat.
  1. The resident made a further report of a leak through her bathroom ceiling on 8 March 2022, just over 1 year since her initial report. In communication sent to her on 17 March 2022, it explained that it was still working to locate the leak. This Service finds that the delay of over 1 year was not reasonable, and its responses were not appropriate as it was aware of the damage being caused to her property.
  2. On 4 April 2022, the resident reported that she had no power in any of her light switches. She had found the circuit board had turned off the lighting circuit and when she tried to switch the bathroom light on, it had sparked and created a burning smell. During its repair visit, it noted that a lot of damage had been caused to her property over the time the leak had been ongoing. On this occasion, it attended and made the lighting safe within 24 hours, demonstrating good practice.
  1. The landlord continued to investigate the source of the leak throughout May and June 2022, when it found the leak may have been coming from a different property above the resident’s flat. No evidence was provided to this Service to show that it took any further action after this until 2 August 2022. This was a further unnecessary delay and demonstrated a continued lack of urgency in rectifying the problem.
  1. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 10 August 2022. It offered an apology for the delays in works being arranged and acknowledged that the repairs had taken much longer than they should have. It asked her to provide quotes for works in her property so it could consider reimbursement, and made a compensation offer of £450, which comprised of £250 for delays in repairs, and £200 for the multiple times she had to chase for a response, time, trouble, and inconvenience.
  2. The compensation offer was in line with the landlord’s policy when considering high effort and impact. It was reasonable in its request for quotes as it made it clear it was considering further financial redress for its failings. However, the resident did not feel that she could accept the initial offer while the leak and associated repair issues were ongoing. Once she had assurances the leak would be fixed permanently, she would source private quotes for repairs to avoid further unnecessary damage. It was reasonable in its response to this request and continued to work with her over the next few months to reach an agreement for reimbursement of works.
  3. The resident continued to chase the landlord for updates about repairs to the leak in August and September 2022. It continued to investigate and found the source in a property above on 20 September 2022. Works were completed and the leak was resolved on 24 October 2022, over 85 weeks since her first report in March 2021. This repair timescale far exceeded both its emergency and routine repair targets and the leak had caused substantial damage to her property during this time.
  4. The resident provided quotes to the landlord for works to repair her property on 4 December 2022. It also priced the works itself and found the cost to be £1,714.25. However, the resident had experienced a new leak by this time. It revised its compensation offer, without consideration of the new leak, to a total of £3,000 on 20 February 2023, broken down as follows:
    1. £450 previously offered in August 2022.
    2. £400 additional payment for time and trouble relating to delays in repairing the leak.
    3. £2,000 payment towards required repairs based on its internal quote.
    4. £150 for the length of time her complaint remained open and further delays in responding.
  5. The resident rejected this offer on 1 March 2023, stating that she needed new quotes for works following the most recent leak and found the costs had increased. She provided it with 2 quotes, totalling £5,295 and £4,850, respectively. It responded to her on 10 March 2023, offering a total payment of £5,000. This included £4,000 towards repairs and £1,000 for inconvenience and complaint handling delays. She accepted the offer, and the complaint was closed.
  6. The financial remedies offered by the landlord after the complaints process had concluded were reasonable and appropriate. However, its original stage 2 response did not offer any explanation on how it would learn from the outcomes of this case and the resident did not feel its apology was sincere. As such, a finding of service failure will be made, and further non-financial orders will be made.

Associated formal complaint

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process. Stage 1 complaints are responded to within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  2. The landlord’s compensation guidance allows for payments of up to £150 in relation to complaint handling service failures.
  3. There were significant delays and failures in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. The resident originally raised her complaint on 3 April 2021 which the landlord acknowledged but failed to respond to. She chased a reply to her complaint on 20 May 2021, but received no response. It noted that it had not dealt with her complaint internally in July 2021, but still offered no response and took no further action. This was not in line with its complaint policy and was not reasonable in the circumstances.
  4. Following a residents association meeting on 14 October 2021, in which the resident raised her complaint to the landlord again, it formally logged a complaint on 20 October 2021. It acknowledged this at the time but did not respond within its 10-working day timescale. She chased an update to her complaint on 17 December 2021, but again received no response.
  5. On 18 February 2022, the landlord apologised for the delay in responding to the resident. In this email, it advised her that she could escalate her complaint to stage 2 if she was unhappy with its response. It offered the same advice on 17 March 2022, along with an update that it was still investigating the leak and was not able to offer a full stage 1 response. Its reluctance to provide a response further undermined the relationship and trust between the resident and the landlord.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 12 June 2022, as she was still awaiting a stage 1 response and the issues were worsening. It did not respond to her until it provided a stage 1 response on 23 June 2022, 168 working days after her initial complaint, and 158 days outside of its complaints policy timescale.
  7. In its stage 1 response, the landlord noted that she had requested escalation to stage 2 but advised her that this would not get the works done sooner. This response was not in line with the dispute resolution principles set by this Service and although it apologised for delays, it did not offer any further remedy in line with its compensation guidance which allows for payments of up to £150 for delayed complaint responses.
  8. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 23 June 2022. This was not escalated by the landlord until 11 July 2022. This was a further unnecessary delay of 12 working days. It acknowledged the escalation on 14 July 2022 and requested an extension for its investigation on 8 August 2022, as it was awaiting an inspection report before replying. It provided its stage 2 response on 10 August 2022, 34 working days after escalation. While this was not significantly over its policy timescale, at 14 working days late, it would have added further frustration for the resident given its previous failings.
  9. In its stage 2 response, the landlord offered its apologies and acknowledged the serious inconvenience its delays had caused the resident. It stated that it had not correctly logged her original complaint in April 2021 and apologised for this. It offered £200 compensation, which was comprised of the following:
    1. £100 for failing to log a complaint in April 2021 and delays in escalating to stage 2.
    2. £100 for the length of time taken to resolve her complaint.
  10. The compensation offered by the landlord relating to complaint handling was in line with its compensation guidance but was not proportionate to the substantial delays or the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and did not resolve the matter.
  11. The landlord’s stage 2 response did not acknowledge how it was hoping to learn from the outcomes of this case and she did not feel the apology was sincere. It has not demonstrated how it intends to learn from its failings in this case. Therefore, a finding of maladministration will be made, and further non-financial remedies will be ordered.
  12. After negotiation between the two parties, the landlord offered a final amount of £5,000 in March 2023. £1,000 of this was for inconvenience and delays in resolving the resident’s complaint. This final offer exceeded its own compensation guidance and was in line with remedies guidance published by this Service. The resident confirmed that she had received this payment.

Review of policies and practices

  1. The Ombudsman has found maladministration (including severe maladministration) following several investigations into complaints raised with the landlord involving leaks, damp, and mould. As a result of these, a wider order has been issued to the landlord under paragraph 54(f) of the Scheme. This is for the landlord to review its policy or practice in relation to service failures identified, which may give rise to further complaints about the matter.
  2. The landlord was ordered to carry out a review, within 12 weeks of the determination of case 202224898, of its practice in relation to responding to requests for repairs due to leaks, damp and mould. Some of the issues identified in this case are similar to the previous cases and so the learning from this complaint should be incorporated into the wider review. In addition to this, we have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case, which would duplicate those already made to the landlord as part of the wider order.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks into the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated formal complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to conduct a senior management case review of this complaint and the failings identified within this report to identify any additional learning and improvements required. It should complete a report on its findings and provide a copy of the report to this Service and the resident, along with a written apology to her for its failings.