Sanctuary Housing Association (202323551)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202323551

Sanctuary Housing Association

28 June 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 resident’s complaints are about:
Complaint 1.
1. The landlords handling of the repairs to the resident’s heating and hot water system.
2. The landlords handling of other repairs to the residents property (toilet, front and rear door).
Complaint 2.
1. The behaviour and conduct of the landlords staff and its standard of communication.

Background

The resident became an assured tenant of the landlord through a deed of assignment, following a mutual exchange 5 October 1998. The property is a 4-bedroom terraced house, in a secluded village location. The residents property is ex-local authority housing. In the 1990’s the district council transferred its stock to a housing association, the residents tenancy commenced with this housing association which has since become the landlord that the resident has today.
There are vulnerabilities recorded for the resident, ill health that prevents the use of stairs. The landlord has extended and adapted the property to provide a 4th bedroom on the ground floor, with an ensuite wet room for the resident. The resident has also declared that she has received treatment for cancer, has ADHD, and suffers with anxiety. The residents adult children are her carers, the resident says both children have anxiety, and her son also has autism.

Complaint 1 – Repairs

The resident reports that she has had problems with the landlord completing repairs to her property. She said following a report of a fault with her boiler in November 2014 the boiler was capped off and she was advised it needed new parts or replacement. Even though the boiler and oil tank were not operational, the required annual gas /oil safety checks which were completed at the property each year, each check confirmed the boiler was capped and not operational. This was evidenced as far back as the landlords records go, which was from 2017. Following the gas/ oil safe check in July 2022, the gas contractor reported back that the boiler was still capped, there were combustible materials next to the oil tank, and the property was looking run down. It sent an email to the landlord which suggested it might need to carry out an inspection as the residents might need assistance. The landlord visited on 18 October 2022 and found the property to be in very poor condition. The surveyor identified 2 urgent repairs to an electric light cord and an uncontained water leak on the bathroom basin pipework. Further areas identified for attention were the boiler, kitchen, bathroom, and windows. On 23 November 2022, it was confirmed that the boiler was uneconomical to repair.
On 12 September 2023, the resident made a formal complaint because a number of the repairs had not progressed . In her complaint she said she had been without heating and hot water for nearly 10 years. She had also experienced significant leaks to both of her toilets, which she felt the landlord took too long to attend to, particularly the one for her use in the disability ensuite. The front and back doors needed replacing, she had previously asked for non-wooden as they rot, and they have. She had been waiting for a new kitchen for 23 years.
The landlord provided a preliminary stage 1 response 31 October 2023 which in summary said that:
1. the boiler was not in use in 2018. It had been agreed to replace both boiler and oil tank, but work was needed to remove foliage in the garden prior to works. Work was raised for the toilet following the inspection, operatives attended on 27 September and follow up works were completed 18 October 2023. The kitchen and doors were part of ongoing works, for which they had no update at the time. It committed to providing a full follow up response.
The resident was not happy with the interim response and requested escalation to stage 2 which was accepted. On 14 February 2024, the landlord provided its stage 2 response in summary it said:
1. It partially upheld the residents complaint in relation to the toilet repairs due to it failing to raise a repair when it was reported on 31 October 2023 and the delayed attendance to the leaking toilet on 27 September 2023. It awarded £150 compensation for time trouble and inconvenience.
2. It partially upheld the heating and hot water complaint. The landlord could not evidence that once the boiler was identified for replacement in November 2022, any steps were taken to replace until September 2023 which was a service failure. It offered compensation for a lack of heating for winter season only, from November 2022 to March 2024, £1116.
3. It apologised for the lack of communication between November 2022 and September 2023, but acknowledged this was being addressed in a separate complaint. It also acknowledged the delay in providing the skip had directly impacted the boiler being replaced for which it apologised. It awarded £200 for time trouble and inconvenience.
4. It also acknowledged complaint handling delays for which it awarded £200.

Post Complaint

In response to the stage 2, the resident sent the landlord an email dated 27/11/2014 from the landlord confirming receipt of a repairs report for a fault with the boiler, she pointed out that it was not her fault the landlord only held records for 5 years and felt it was very convenient. The landlord provided a further final response on the matter. It re-iterated the records indicated attendance for a safety inspection each year. It did however acknowledge it should have communicated with the resident in this period to ascertain why she did not want the boiler re-instated; it apologised and offered a further £800 in recognition of this, bringing the total award of compensation to £2760.

Assessment and findings

Scope

Information that the resident provided indicated that there had been a problem with the boiler and tank in her property since 2014 resulting in no heating or hot water in her property for 10 years. The landlord has little information relating to this period as information related to tenancies is not held for longer than a fixed number of years, which did not extend back to 2014, however it has not disputed that the resident’s boiler has been capped off and decommissioned for many years (earliest available record 2017).
This service was concerned to note the length of time the resident stated she has had no heating and hot water, and it is not clear why the resident did not raise her concerns sooner. However in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not brought to the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.
The Ombudsman needs residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still “live”, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.
Therefore, whilst the historical incidents set out above provide a contextual background to the current complaint, this assessment focuses on events prior to the residents complaint at the last known point of contact, which was following the landlords gas/oil safety check of July 2022. This is approximately 14 monthsprior to the resident logging a formal complaint with the landlord on 12 September 2023.
While the Ombudsman is unable to investigate the historical time period that the boiler had not been operational, the Ombudsman was troubled that a vulnerable resident could be without heating and hot water for 10 years and will be making recommendations to ensure this does not happen again.

The landlords handling of the repairs to the resident’s heating and hot water system.

The landlord has statutory repairing obligations for its rented properties, which is set out in section 11 of the landlord and Tenant Act 1985. It requires that landlords must keep in repair and proper working order:
1. the structure and exterior of the dwelling-house (including drains, gutters, and external pipes),
2. the installations in the dwelling-house for the supply of water, gas, and electricity and for sanitation including basins, sinks, baths, and sanitary conveniences.
3. the installations in the dwelling-house for space heating and heating water.
4. It also requires that all landlord repairs should be completed within a reasonable time.
Whilst there is no statutory definition of a “reasonable” timeframe for repairs, the landlord has set out in its policy target timescales for responding to the various category of repairs. Emergency repairs 24hrs make safe, and ‘appointed repairs’ all non-emergency completed within 28 days.
The operation of the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, implied a term into the resident’s tenancy agreement from 20 March 2020 that the landlord must ensure its dwelling was fit for human habitation at the beginning of, and throughout, the tenancy. The existence of a hazard as defined by the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is one of the factors that may be considered when assessing fitness.
The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by the Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Hazards arise from faults or deficiencies that could cause occupants harm, this includes excess cold.
The tenants handbook states that it is the residents responsibility:
1. to keep their home and communal areas in good working order and to report any repairs promptly.
2. Maintain the garden and fences.
When responding to the residents complaint about her lack of heating and hot water, in February 2024, the landlord was satisfied that it had responded appropriately in addressing the matter up until September 2022.
It stated while it was aware the boiler had been capped off for many years it had subsequently continued to meet its gas /oil safety obligations, and could evidence back to 2017 that it had completed the annual gas safety checks. These established that each year a gas safe operative attended and confirmed the boiler was capped off. It stated as there was no record of the resident requesting the uncapping and re-instatement of her boiler, in line with her responsibility to report outstanding repairs, it was appropriate for it to respond as it did, taking action when it became aware of the issues following the gas /oil safety inspection in July 2022.
The landlord has a statutory duty to carry out repairs in a reasonable timeframe once they are known. The landlord was aware the boiler was not operational because it has confirmed its own operatives capped it off.
While it would have been reasonable and helpful if the resident had continued to raise her concerns about the situation, the landlord cannot absolve itself of all responsibility because she did not, and its records have been disposed of. It was aware that the resident was vulnerable, and the reasons given by her for not pursuing the issues was the deterioration in her physical and mental health. It is not appropriate for the landlord to put the onus solely on residents to address the issue in this situation, particularly when they are vulnerable, as some may not have the capacity to do so.
The Equality Act 2010 requires that landlords have a duty to make reasonable adjustments for residents who are at a substantial disadvantage compared to people who do not have a disability. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Attitudes, Respect and Rights, highlights that social housing residents are ageing, increasingly vulnerable and disadvantaged. It stresses how important a landlords’ approach to vulnerabilities is, including the need to recognise, adjust and respond to their residents’ individual circumstances.
The resident had a known history of operatives not being able to work in the property due to excessive rubbish and unsanitary conditions. Living conditions such as these can often be an indication that a resident is struggling and that there are underlying issues that need addressing. The combination of the households previous living conditions, the health problems, and the continuation of no heating and hot water should have been a trigger for the landlord to take a more proactive approach. It would have been appropriate to contact the family to carry out checks, and determine whether any support or reasonable adjustments were required.
The Spotlight report has highlighted the use of mandatory checks, such as annual boiler inspections, as a ‘touchpoint’ opportunity to undertake welfare checks with residents. The annual gas safe checks the landlord refers to were a reminder of the residents circumstances and a regular opportunity for the landlord to reach out to the family and find out how they were managing with no heating and hot water, which were missed.
The landlords post complaint response, has acknowledged that it should have done more to discuss with the resident why they had not requested their gas be re-instated following these checks and awarded an additional £800 compensation in recognition of this. This was considered to be a reasonable offer and within the range the Ombudsman would recommend for this type of failing.
It did not however demonstrate that it had taken learning from this and identify how it would improve the service to ensure this did not happen again. The landlord’s gas safety policy and procedure goes into great detail on how it meets its statutory gas safety responsibilities and deals with issues of non-access. It does not however explain what the process is when there is a safety concern, and it has to be disconnected leaving a resident with no heating or hot water. This is something that needs to be addressed and would go some way in conjunction with a reasonable adjustments or vulnerable resident policy to preventing a situation like this happening again.
When the landlord was alerted to the gas engineers findings in July 2022, it looked at the residents history. It noted the boiler had been capped in excess of its records of 5 years, and noted there was an unusual lack of contact particularly for repairs. It recommended a visit to inspect the property and check in with the residents. This was appropriate and was a good example of why the practise of utilising mandatory checks as touchpoint opportunities, has been recommended in the Spotlight report.
It was noted it took some time for the landlord to inspect the property, it was evident that this was a combination of poor communication by the landlord, which was accepted, and the lack of availability of the resident, which was outside of the landlords control.
The landlord eventually gained access on the 18 October 2022, on inspection, it identified significant disrepair. Initial repairs were required to the electrics and an uncontained leak in the toilet. The toilet was fixed on 11 November 2022 and the electrics were attended to on 14 December 2022, meeting the landlords responsive repairs policy timescales.
An internal email acknowledged the detrimental impact the lack of heating was having on the health and well-being of the family. The landlord commenced immediate action to re-instate the residents heating and hot water, which was appropriate, however it is still noted had the landlord taken a more proactive approach the problems could have been alleviated for the resident sooner.
With the full knowledge that the resident was in poor health, and had been without the use of the boiler since 2014, the Ombudsman would have expected to see the restoration of the residents heating system carried out by the landlord with some urgency.
It was agreed the boiler should be replaced on 23 November 2022, as it had corroded beyond repair, which was reasonable. However records indicated no further contact on the matterwas made with the resident for a further 6 months. Thiscaused further detriment to the resident, who had no heating and hot water throughout the winter, whichwas in breach of its statutory repairing obligations.
The landlord has accepted that this was a service failing, it has apologised and awarded £250 for the lack of communication and £660 for the loss of amenity (heating) from November 2022 to April 2023 (Total £910). This was considered reasonable for this period of delay; it is how this Service would have calculated it and within the range the Ombudsman would recommend for failings that have had a significant impact on a resident and was therefore a proportionate offer.
A further inspection was raised on 11 July 2023, the resident was unavailable on that date and efforts to re-arrange the appointment failed due to poor communication by the landlord. The landlord has acknowledged this and apologised, but made no offer of redress as the issue was being dealt with under a separate formal complaint which was reasonable.
On 12 September 2023, the landlords surveyor attended, he discussed the condition of the property with the resident and her daughter. The surveyor expressed his concern that operatives would be unwilling and unable to carry out works under those conditions. The surveyor suggested the landlord provide the resident with a skip to enable them to clear and clean the property. Once the property was clearer a follow up inspection could take place to ensure all issues had been captured and then contractors could be arranged. This was appropriate and demonstrated the landlords willingness to make reasonable adjustments.
The surveyors report 12 September 2023, acknowledged that it was evident the family were struggling, and that the housing team were tasked with making a welfare referral for an assessment for some support which was appropriate.
On receipt of the quote for the heating the landlord was advised the garden needed to be cut back and cleared before work could commence. The landlord undertook the clearance, which is normally the residents responsibility, this was reasonable and demonstrated again its willingness to make reasonable adjustments.
The new oil tank was fitted on 6 December 2023. This was to be followed by the new boiler on 7 December 2023. When the operatives attended, they were unable to fit the new boiler due to the amount of rubbish and dog faeces in the area. It was also noted access was denied by the resident, to fit the necessary radiator valves internally.
The Ombudsman accepts that the landlords operatives would not be required to work in unsanitary conditions to carry out a repair, as this is a health and safety issue. It was acknowledged that the conditions at the residents property were a contributory factor in some of the delay to resolving the repair issue. The landlord was within its rights to request that the resident clean the area before an operatives attendance.
However part of the landlords action plan to assist the family to clear and clean the property, was a skip that had been promised some months prior and had still not been provided, which was not reasonable. The skip did not in fact arrive until 2 February 2024, which the landlord has admitted impacted the progression of the heating work.
The landlord appropriately apologised and awarded £200 compensation for the delay in providing the skip, and £456 for the loss of heating from 1 October 2023 to 1 March 2024, (total £656) which is how this service would calculate, and was a reasonable and proportionate offer and in line with what the Ombudsman would recommend.

The landlords handling of other repairs to the residents property (toilet, front and rear door).

The resident complained about the landlords response time to leaks from her toilets. It was noted in the landlords complaint response, that 2 of the leaks were picked up by the surveyor on his visits and not reported by the resident as required by her tenancy agreement.
The first was raised following the inspection of 18 October 2022, it noted an operative wanted to attend on 20 October 2022, but they were unable to confirm the appointment with the resident. The operative did attend on the 11 November 2022, and completed the repair which was within the landlords responsive repair timescale.
The second leak was picked up in the inspection of the 12 September 2023, an operative attended on 27 September 2023, and stopped the leak but needed to return when replacement parts arrived, he returned on 18 October 2023 and replaced the toilet pan. It is accepted that waiting for the order for the new toilet, would have been an inconvenience for the resident, but this was outside of the landlords control and was still completed within a reasonable timescale.
On 31 October 2023, the resident reported to the landlord that the back toilet in her property was leaking. The landlord acknowledged in its complaint response that it had failed to raise an order following this report, and that the resident was forced to contact them again on 10 November 2023. At this point her electric shower had also broken. It apologised for this failing and noted that an emergency repair was raised for both jobs. Both items could not be repaired and had to be replaced. The shower was completed on 13 November 2023 and the toilet was completed on 5 December 2023. While this was inconvenient for the resident the order and waiting time for new fittings is outside of the landlords control.
The resident complained that she was advised following the landlords inspections that she needed a new kitchen and a new front and back door, and this had not been progressed. The landlord advised that these items had been identified for replacement, however they were not deemed urgent, and would not be progressed until the work the resident was doing to clear the property had been completed and the boiler replaced. The surveyor would return at this point to draw-up a schedule of works for both, but the kitchen was likely to be placed on a programme of works for replacement.
This was not unreasonable, the resident had already agreed to clear the property in order for repairs to be carried out, so waiting to progress the new doors until this had happened was reasonable. Although it is not set out in the landlords repairs policy, it is usually standard procedure for major works such as kitchens, to be placed on a landlords planned maintenance program for replacement, unless a kitchen is unsafe or beyond economical repair. The landlord offered the resident the opportunity to contact them should this become the case.
Overall, it was evident that there had been some significant delay in addressing the issue of the boiler and oil tank since it was referred to the landlord by the gas service team in July 2022. It had significantly exceeded the landlords repairs policy response timescales, but it was noted that not all of the delay was down to the landlord. Some of this was down to the condition of the property, the residents availability, and her ill health.
The landlord has accepted that during this period there have been failingsin its handling of the repairs and unexplained delays. However, its complaint response has acknowledged all instances where service has not been acceptable and put measures in place to put things right. It has offered redress to the resident with a written apology, and offered the total sum of £2760 compensation. In the Ombudsman’s view this was a significant compensation award within the range that the Ombudsman would recommend for failings that have had a serious long-term impact on a resident and was therefore a proportionate offer.

Background

Complaint 2 – The behaviour and conduct of the landlords staff and its standard of communication.

Following its findings at a property inspection on 18 October 2023, the landlords housing team contacted the resident to arrange a visit. An appointment was emailed to the resident for the team to visit on 1 November 2022 to discuss the condition of the property and what would need to be done in order for repairs to be carried out. This and a subsequent appointment on 15 November 2022 were unsuccessful as the resident was not in. She was asked in writing to provide a convenient date as she was in breach of her tenancy if she did not provide access. The landlord arranged a further appointment by email for 5 December 2023, when they attended the resident was again not in.
When the resident returned home that day and found the landlords visiting cards she made a formal complaint. She said she had received the card which referred to a planned visit, she said the visit was not planned and was harassment. She had received notification of a possible visit the previous week but had responded to ask what time, as she was likely to be unavailable that day, and she received no response. She said she did not want a visit to discuss her complaint or other issues.
The landlord provided the resident with its stage 1 response on 18 December 2023, in summary it said:
1. having spoken to all involved and seen all the appointment emails, it agreed the appointment had not been confirmed, it would be taking this back to the teams concerned to rectify this going forward.
2. It did not agree the attempted visit constituted harassment, the purpose of the visit was to attempt to address issues the resident had raised, and the staff involved (although incorrectly) believed the appointment had been confirmed. It could see no intention to cause alarm or distress or any inappropriate conduct at the visit.
3. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused.
The resident escalated her complaint because, she felt bullied and harassed and the person who investigated her complaint was the subject of her complaint, so therefore lacked impartiality.
The stage 2 review was completed and responded to on 12 February 2024, in summary,
1. Its system for arranging, receiving information, and confirming appointments during this period was under pressure and failing. It re-iterated its apology and upheld this part of the complaint offering £50 compensation.
2. It found no evidence of poor staff conduct.
3. It was satisfied that it was not a breach of its complaints policy for the officer being complained about to respond to the stage 1 complaint.

Assessment and findings

Complaint 2

The residents tenancy agreement Section 3.7 requires the resident to admit any officer, agent, or workmen of the landlords, at reasonable hours of the day for the purpose of inspection and carrying out repairs.
The landlords tenancy handbook states that it is the responsibility of residents to give the landlord access to their home when necessary.
Following its findings at the inspection of the residents property and the length of time since its last contact, it was not unreasonable for the landlords housing team to request a home visit with the resident. Under the terms of the tenancy it was legally within its rights to do so; the request and subsequent visit would not constitute harassment.
The resident is legally obliged under the terms of her tenancy agreement to comply with this request. Although it is not stated in the agreement, the Ombudsman would expect reasonable notice to be given, ahead of any visit.
It was evident that the landlord did give advance notice of all 3 planned visits to the residents property which was reasonable. It further explained that its own appointment emailing system had a backlog, it was aware the resident had responded querying the appointment, but because of the backlog this had not been recorded in time.
The confirmation appointment email was sent out late, and the visiting officers had not been advised the appointment had not been confirmed This led to appointments going ahead that had not been confirmed which caused undue stress on the resident. The landlord acknowledged this on recognition of the problem, and in its complaints responses. It apologised and awarded £50 compensation for the failings in its appointment emailing system which was proportionate and reasonable.
In response to the harassment and bullying by staff the stage 2 complaint response confirmed the visit went ahead. At the property, the officers spoke to the residents son and left their contact card. On receipt of the contact from the resident the visiting officer emailed to apologise for the confusion, and offered a further appointment at the residents convenience. It found no evidence of harassment or staff misconduct.
The resident complained about the impartiality of the stage 1 response as the investigating officer was an officer she was complaining about. The landlords complaints policy does not identify who can and who cannot in its organisation, respond to a stage 1 complaint. However landlords complaint policies are required to comply with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code. The Code requires that “the complaint handler appointed must have the appropriate complaint handling skills and no conflicts of interest.”
In the Ombudsman’s view the complaint handler being the subject of the complaint was a conflict of interest. While this caused no actual detriment to the resident, as a further review of the complaint found no evidence of any policy breach or staff misconduct, it was not appropriate for this member of staff to deal with the complaint. The response could not be considered impartial, and this risks a break down in residents trust in the organisation and the complaint handling procedure.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlords handling of the repairs to the resident’s heating and hot water system.
In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlords handling of other repairs to the residents property (toilet, front and rear door).
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlords handling of the behaviour and conduct of the landlords staff and its standard of communication.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that the landlord within 4 weeks pays the resident the sum of £50 for the failure identified in the landlords handling of the complaint about staff.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord if it has not already done so pays the resident the sum of £2760 that it previously offered, as the finding of reasonable redress is dependent on the landlord paying the offer of compensation it offered.
The Ombudsman recommends in order to prevent any vulnerable resident being left without heating and hot water for excessive periods of time in the future, that the landlord considers:
1. reviewing its gas and safety policy / procedure to include the process to be followed when a residents supply has been capped and there is no heating and hot water.
2. considers developing a vulnerable persons or reasonable adjustments policy.
3. Implementing a rolling program of tenancy audits.