Sanctuary Housing Association (202309429)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202309429

Sanctuary Housing Association

21 August 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
1. Leaks and loss of electric in the communal area.
2. Asbestos in the ceilings in the communal area.
3. Damp in the resident’s property.
4. A mice infestation in the resident’s property.
5. Faulty electrics in the resident’s property.
This Service has also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began on 1 April 2013 and ended on 5 March 2023. The resident moved out of the property on 27 February 2023. The property is in a sheltered scheme. It is a studio flat on the ground floor in a block of 17 properties. The resident suffers from hypertension and is diabetic.
The resident exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure on 22 September 2022. The complaints raised at that time were about several issues not relevant to this investigation. Part of the complaint did however include the resident’s concerns about the mice infestation. Reference to these complaints will therefore be required as part of this investigation about the mice infestation. For the purpose of this report these complaints will be referred to as the first stage 1 and the first stage 2.
On 27 February 2023, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. He said the communal area was in poor condition because:
1. There were leaks.
2. The leaks had caused loss of electric at times and unsafe electrics.
3. No remedial works had been completed because asbestos was exposed.
He said within his property he was experiencing the following issues:
1. Damp
2. A mice infestation
3. Loss of electric caused by the landlord’s contractor.
On 20 March 2023, the landlord sent its stage 1 response. It said that it was unable to consider any issues raised regarding the condition of the communal areas, asbestos in the ceilings and a mice infestation. This is because its complaint policy states that it is not appropriate for an issue to be investigated that is more than six months old. Unless there is evidence that it has been raised and no action taken. It did not uphold the complaint on that basis.
On 27 March 2023, the resident raised a stage 2 complaint. He attached pictures and advised that the pictures show the extent of the damage which is not new and has been present for a number of years. The issues raised had been going on much longer than 6 months so this would be why the landlord’s system did not show the reports. A number of contractors had attended previously but repairs had not been completed.
On 4 May 2023, the landlord sent its stage 2 response. It provided a chronology of leaks in the communal area that it had attended to none of which had been raised by the resident. It had checked with its repair team and there had been no recent reports of leaks received.
In respect of the communal electrics being affected by the leaks. It had checked its records, and a report was received on 9 July 2022. It was attended to on the same day and no issues were found. It had not received any further reports. In respect of the mice infestation. It provided a chronology of what it had done since it first received reports on 12 July 2022. In respect of asbestos in the communal ceiling it had received no reports about this until the resident raised the matter in his complaint. In response it had arranged an asbestos survey, and this had confirmed that there was no asbestos present.
It understood that pest control treatment had been completed on 16 November 2022. It did not receive any further reports from the resident until 31 January 2023. This was when the resident informed it that he was terminating his tenancy because of the mice in the property. It was satisfied that it had made every effort to resolve the mice issue.
It acknowledged that its contractor had caused a problem with the electrics in the resident’s property. However, it had attended the same day and resolved the issue. The landlord also assessed its handling of the complaint and apologised for delays and its handling of the stage 1 response. In recognition of the inconvenience, he had experienced it offered £75 compensation. £25 for time and trouble and inconvenience caused. £50 for the delay in its complaint response. The resident remained dissatisfied and contacted this Service.

Assessment and findings

It is noted that the resident has stated that he considers that the issue has exacerbated his medical conditions. However, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s action or inaction and the resident’s medical condition. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his health has been affected.
It is also acknowledged that the resident provided a considerable amount of photographs as part of his evidence. The Ombudsman is however limited in the extent to which it can rely on photographic evidence. This is because it is not possible for this Service to determine the location/circumstances of the photographs, or the validity of the images themselves. As a result, we do not generally place significant reliance on photographs in reaching our decisions.

Leaks and loss of electric in the communal area.

The landlord’s repair policy categorises repairs. Water leaks are classed as emergency repairs and will be responded to within 24 hours. Partial loss of water and electrical power are appointed repairs and will be responded to within 28 days.
It is unknown when the resident first raised the issues in respect of the communal area. It is acknowledged that the resident said the issues had been going on for years and how frustrating this would have been. In the circumstances, however it would have been reasonable for the resident to have raised his concerns sooner so that the issues could have been investigated by the landlord while they were ‘live'”. Given the passage of time, and in accordance with the landlord’s complaint responses. This service has investigated the landlord’s response from May 2022 onwards.
In respect of the leaks in the communal area. The landlord did not address the issues within its stage 1 response. This was a missed opportunity to put matters right at an earlier stage. It did however set out its position within its stage 2 complaint response.
It said that a leak had been reported by another resident on 24 May 2022 and was attended to on 30 May 2022. The records show the leak was reported as a “slow drip,” so it was reasonable that it was categorised as an appointed repair. The landlord had therefore responded within its policy timescale to attend to the leak.
However, the repair records do not show that the issue was resolved at that point. The notes stated a heating engineer was required to trace and rectify the leak on the heating system pipes. The heating engineer did attend 24 days after the original report on 16 June 2022. This again was in accordance with the landlord’s timescales. The records stated that it had checked the pipes and there was no sign of an ongoing leak.
As the records confirm that a different resident reported the leaks the landlord did not have a duty to update the resident directly in respect of its findings and works completed. Also, the leaks were attended to within the landlord’s timescales.
A further leak was then reported by the housing officer on 4 August 2022, but the records show that the job was cancelled due to contractor availability. The landlord then attended 35 days later on 7 September 2022. The report stated that there was no sign of an active leak, and the surrounding area was dry.
The landlord’s response time to complete the repair was 7 days outside of its policy. This was a shortcoming in its handling of the matter. The impact on those that use the communal area is unclear as the duration of the leak is unknown.
The evidence provided confirms the landlord’s position in respect of the report of a leak in August 2022. Another resident reported this. The leak was substantial, and the landlord attended the same day. This was appropriate and in accordance with its own policy.
The records show that another leak was reported by a different resident on 23 December 2022. This was not mentioned in the landlord’s complaint response. The records state that water was in the communal corridor and buckets had been placed there to catch the leaks.
The notes indicate that it may have been connected to an issue with water draining from the roof. The landlord attended to fix the roof on 13 February 2023 but was unable to drain the water. It is unknown when this was fixed and/or whether it continued to cause leaks in the communal area. However, the timing does correspond with the resident’s stage 1 complaint where he states leaks were affecting the communal area.
The landlord’s response in respect of the leak reported by the resident in February 2023 as part of his complaint was inappropriate. It said that as part of its investigation it had contacted its repairs team who had advised that they were not aware of leaks affecting that area. It is acknowledged that the resident had given notice to terminate his tenancy at this point. However, a landlord should be responding to repairs and raising the necessary inspections as soon as it is put on notice. The area was communal and used by all residents. This was a failing in its handling of the matter.
In respect of the landlord’s response regarding loss of electric in the communal area. The landlord states it has only received one report made on 9 July 2022. The landlord’s version of events as set out in its stage 2 complaint response coincide with the records provided.
In relation to the resident’s most recent report within his complaint that a leak was affecting the electrics the landlord has not demonstrated that a repair had been raised. It had been put on notice and failed to evidence that it had raised a repair in response. This was a failing in its handling of the matter.
In summary the landlord had appropriately set out how it had responded to reports it had received in the past. In general, its responses were in accordance with its policy. However, the landlord has failed to show that it responded to repairs raised by the resident within his complaint. That being a leak and concerns about the electrics. This is a failing in its handling of the matter. It is acknowledged that the resident had moved out. The landlord had however been put on notice and the repairs related to its shared communal areas. This Service considers in these circumstances the failings amount to maladministration.

Asbestos in the ceilings in the communal area.

The landlord has a ‘duty to manage’ asbestos, as specified by regulation 4 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012. It requires the landlord to take reasonable steps to identify, maintain records of, protect residents to exposure from, and execute a management plan for asbestos.
The landlord’s asbestos management policy states where there is potential exposure to asbestos containing material a survey will be undertaken to identify any asbestos containing material.
The landlord’s procedure states where damage to material suspected of containing asbestos or disturbance of asbestos containing material as a result of works is raised, a targeted survey: emergency air test and a physical sample must be requested.
On 26 February 2023, the resident stated within his complaint that he had been advised by contractors that the ceiling contained asbestos. He said the ceiling was damaged leaving areas exposed. The repair notes dated 27 September 2022 do state that ceiling tiles were missing in the area where a leak had been reported. It is unknown if or when the tiles were replaced.
The records show that a job was raised to test for asbestos on 28 February 2023. The survey and sample collection was completed 23 days later on 20 March 2023. The fact that the matter concerns asbestos means it should be treated as urgent. The landlord’s actions were in accordance with its policy, but it took 3 weeks for it to complete a survey.
The landlord’s asbestos policy and procedure does not provide timeframes for when it will respond. Its repair policy states that urgent repairs will be responded to within 24 hours. Its policy describes urgent repairs as any repairs necessary to remove a serious threat to the health and safety of the resident, service users or others.
The landlord did not complete its survey until 23 days after the report. This did not reflect the potential urgency of the matter at the time it was reported. The landlord should have satisfied itself of any danger and made safe as soon as it was put on notice.
It is acknowledged that the resident had left the property, at this point but the area reported was communal and used by its staff and other residents. This is a failing in its handling of the matter. Furthermore, there is no evidence to show that it communicated with the resident to provide reassurance that there was no asbestos present until it issued its stage 2 complaint response on 4 May 2023. This was a further failing in its handling of the matter.
In summary the landlord’s failings in response to the resident’s report of asbestos amount to maladministration. Its response time was unreasonable given the seriousness of the report. It did however complete a survey which showed that no asbestos was present. It failed however to show that it had communicated its findings with the resident until May 2023. It is acknowledged that the resident had left the property at this point, so the impact and detriment caused to him were minimal in the circumstances. This has been considered in the order made below.

Damp in the resident’s property.

The landlord has a responsibility under Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard that may require remedy.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) provides recommendations for landlords, including that they should:
1. Adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions. Landlords should review their current strategy and consider whether their approach will achieve this.
The resident reported damp in his property on 27 January 2023. He said that the damp was hidden behind his picture frame. He considered that it was linked to the leak that had occurred in his flat a few months ago. The landlord’s records state that it attended 26 days later on 21 February 2023. This was within its appointed repairs timescale. It is unknown however from the records or the landlord’s complaint response what works were completed.
This was a failing in its record keeping but the detriment to the resident was low. This is because the landlord had responded to the resident’s report within its policy timescales. The landlord should however ensure that it keeps robust records of all of its repairs works. When there is a disagreement in the accounts of the resident and the Landlord with regard to the condition of the property, the onus would be on the landlord to provide documentary evidence showing how it satisfied itself that the repair work had been completed to a satisfactory standard.
It is acknowledged that the resident moved out of the property shortly after on 27 February 2023. There was therefore minimal detriment caused by the landlord’s shortcoming in its record keeping. This Service has therefore found service failure in its handling of the matter. As part of the order below the landlord is required to consider how it records and stores information.

A mice infestation in the resident’s property.

Pests and infestations are a category of prescribed hazards included in the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS).
The landlord’s repair policy states that where damage has been caused by an infestation of pests the responsibility may lie with the resident. Unless it is in a communal area or due to a repair requirement that is the responsibility of the landlord. It has discretion to request treatment for infestations where there Is a high risk of the issue spreading or reoccurring.
The resident states that he is seeking compensation for the impact of the issue on his physical and mental health. However, this Service is unable to establish a causal link between reports of the health issues experienced by complainants and the actions of landlords. The resident may wish to seek legal advice about this, as a personal injury claim may be a more appropriate way of dealing with this aspect of his complaint.
It is acknowledged that the resident stated in his second stage 1 complaint that he had been reporting an infestation for over a year. From correspondence this Service has seen, the resident first reported the infestation on 12 July 2022. The resident did not dispute this either when the matter was investigated in the first stage 1 and 2 complaints.
The landlord responded to the resident’s report on 12 July 2022. It arranged for its pest control contractor to attend within 10 days. The contractor then failed to attend, and the records show that the resident had to call the landlord as he had been waiting at home for the contractor. The landlord explained that the operative was unwell. The landlord rescheduled the appointment with the resident.
The pest control contractor then attended within 15 days on 26 July 2022. As part of the resident’s first stage 2 complaint, he requested £55 reimbursement for the money he had spent on pest control prior to the landlord’s visit. The landlord advised that it would consider this if the resident would provide evidence of the costs incurred. This was an appropriate response and showed it had listened to the resident and taken his concerns seriously.
During the first visit the pest control contractor confirmed that mice activity was present. It laid baits and recommended that access be given to the kickboards in the area so that it could be baited and inspected for ingress points. It also requested access to areas in the communal parts so that it could complete some proofing works.
The pest control contractor attended again on 2 August 2022 it was able to bait under the kitchen units but required removal of a kitchen cupboard to block a hole behind the cupboard. The pest control contractor attended again on 30 August 2022. The second stage 2 response explained that the works had not been completed. This was because the pest control contractor left before its joiner arrived which meant that proofing works could not be completed as arranged.
There were then further delays as works did not go ahead as arranged on 6 September 2022. The landlord explained that there had been timing issues between itself, and its contractors so works did not go ahead.
The records show that the landlord attended on 15 September 2022 and met the contractors as arranged to complete works. There are no records however to show what works were completed. Furthermore, there is no evidence to show that the pest issue had been resolved at this point. It is therefore unknown what records the landlord relied on within its second stage 2 response. This is a failing in its handling of the matter and evidence of poor record keeping which impacted on its ability to provide the resident with a clear response.
The records show that the resident called the landlord on 3 October 2022. He said that mice were still in the property. The landlord appropriately arranged for pest control to attend again on 17 October 2022. The report stated that mice were still present.
The pest control report dated 16 November 2022 advised that the resident had reported no mice sightings for 2 weeks and no follow up works were recommended. On this basis the landlord said that the matter had been concluded.
The pest control report dated 16 November 2022 stated that bait and mouse traps remained across the property to aid monitoring/control of any further activity. It was unclear as to who was monitoring the matter. The evidence does not show what the landlord communicated to the resident in respect of monitoring and traps remaining. Furthermore, it was not clear that the matter had been fully resolved at this point. This was a failing in its handling of the matter. The resident had been living with the infestation for over 4 months. The evidence fails to show that he was kept informed of the landlord’s actions. It was evident that appointments were being arranged to access the property. However, there is no evidence to show whether actions plans or reports were provided to the resident.
The records do confirm that there were no further reports of an infestation until the resident raised concerns at the end of January 2023. The landlord then appropriately met with the resident on 3 February 2023 as he had advised that he wanted to terminate his tenancy. This showed that the landlord had taken the resident’s concerns seriously. It was unable to arrange further treatment at that point as the resident advised he was leaving the property on 14 February 2023.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the role of this Service 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 we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles of be fair (follow fair processes and recognise what went wrong), put things right, and learn from outcomes.
The landlord acknowledged that it had missed appointments in its first stage 2 response. The compensation offered for missed appointments was £30. In its second stage 2 response it said that it considered that it had made every effort to resolve the infestation. As such, this investigation has considered the offer of £30 compensation and whether it fully put things right for the resident, as a whole.
In summary the landlord missed/failed to complete the necessary works on 3 separate occasions. The resident had spent time and effort facilitating access for these appointments. The landlord’s records failed to show how it had communicated with the resident in respect of the treatment plan. It was unclear how the landlord had satisfied itself that the matter had been resolved in September 2022. The landlord then failed to show that it had considered how it would monitor the situation following the pest control report in November 2022. The resident had had to live with the infestation and the uncertainty of what action the landlord was taking for almost a year. The landlord’s series of failings amount to maladministration.
This Service considers that the offer of £30 does not fully reflect the failings identified or the time and detriment caused to the resident. An order has therefore been made below to put matters right.

Faulty electrics in the resident’s property.

The landlord’s version of events coincides with the records provided to this Service. The landlord acknowledged that its contractor had caused a disruption to the resident’s electrics. It had however responded the same day and fixed the electrics.
The landlord acknowledged its failing within its stage 2 response. It apologised for the inconvenience caused. It did not consider however how it could put matters right and whether compensation was appropriate.
The landlord’s complaint policy states it can consider compensation where it has failed in its service. The resident had been put to some inconvenience. He was without lighting and had to facilitate further access. It is however acknowledged that the inconvenience was for a short duration. The landlord’s failure however to consider compensation amounts to a service failure. An order has been made in respect of this below.

Complaint handling.

The landlord’s complaint policy states that it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It has a 2-stage procedure. It will respond to stage 1 complaints with 10 working days. It will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The policy states that it will not consider issues that occurred more than six months ago, unless there is evidence that this has been raised to staff and no action has been taken.
The landlord apologised that it had failed to issue an acknowledgement to the resident’s stage 1 request. The landlord sent what it referred to as an interim response 9 working days after the resident’s request on 9 March 2023. This just set out a list of works that it had completed. The response did however provide timescales for it to provide its full response which was appropriate.
The landlord then issued its stage 1 response 16 working days after the request. Although this was outside of its policy timescales the landlord had evidenced that it had kept the resident informed of timescales which was appropriate.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was poor. It said that it could not look at matters that had occurred six months ago unless evidence showed they had been raised and no action taken. On this basis it failed to consider any of the matters raised. Its response was confusing as the matters raised had been ongoing within the last six months. It acknowledged this by investigating matters within its stage 2 response. By failing to investigate the issues at this stage it missed an opportunity to put matters right sooner. The resident experienced an inconvenience of raising concerns about the landlord’s handling of various matters, without receiving a detailed response.
The landlord’s stage 2 response was issued 26 working days after the resident had requested a stage 2 escalation. This was outside of its policy timescales. The landlord did however send an update 14 working days after the request, and this provided a timescale for its response.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response went some way to putting the above failings right. It apologised for its handling of the matter at stage 1. The landlord set out its position and explained what action it had taken. This was appropriate and evidenced the landlord had listened to the resident’s concerns and investigated. However, the response did not provide any learning.
The landlord had gone some way to consider how it could put matters right and offered £75 compensation. It broke this down as £25 time and trouble caused and £50 for delays in the complaint response. It is not possible to determine how or if the compensation offered was calculated against the individual issues or just the complaint handling. This amount will however be deducted from any order made.
This Service considers the above complaint handling failures amount to maladministration. The £50 compensation offered for its complaint delays does not reflect the additional failings identified. Furthermore, the resident had to spend time and effort pursuing his complaint further.
At both stages of the complaint there was a failure to respond within timescales of the complaint. The stage 1 response demonstrated a lack of investigation and curiosity. The complaint responses failed to put things right, consider appropriate redress or provide a meaningful apology. The landlord also failed to show any learning from its mistakes. In determining an appropriate order for compensation, consideration has been given to the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.

Determination.

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks and loss of electric in the communal area.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of asbestos in the ceilings in the communal area.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp in the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a mice infestation in the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of faulty electrics in the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay directly to the resident a total of £820. £105 of the landlord’s compensation offer made in its first and second stage 2 complaint responses can be deducted from this total, if already paid. The compensation is broken down as follows:
  1. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks and loss of electric in the communal area.
  2. £120 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of asbestos in the ceilings in the communal area.
  3. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp in the property.
  4. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a mice infestation in his property.
  5. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of faulty electrics.
  6. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
The landlord is ordered to review its handling of this case. Particularly:
1. Satisfying itself that it has effective procedures in place to record and store repair information accurately.
2. It should consider its staff training and system needs, regarding how it arranges repairs, maintains repair records, which reflect its own and contractor’s actions and how it will monitor any follow up action.
3. That there is effective internal communication, and that teams are aware of relevant roles in keeping the resident updated and recording the communication.
4. The landlord must share the outcome of its review with this service, also within eight weeks.