Sanctuary Housing Association (202343645)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202343645

Sanctuary Housing Association

25 September 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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of a leak and the associated repairs.
  2. This Service will also investigate the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord since 2018. The resident occupies the property with her 4 children and partner. The resident has asthma and depression. The property is a 3-bedroom third floor flat in a purpose-built block. The landlord is a housing association and the freeholder of the building.
  2. In April 2022 the resident reported mould inside the property. She said she suspected the mould was caused by a roof leak which the landlord was aware of. The landlord completed works to the roof in December 2022.
  3. In March 2023 the resident reported new leaks. The resident made a stage 1 complaint. She complained the landlord had not repaired the internal damage caused by the leaks. She informed the landlord the situation was affecting her health and mental wellbeing. The landlord issued an interim stage 1 response stating it had organised an inspection of the property and repairs would take place on a specified date in June. In its final stage 1 response it acknowledged there had been substantial delays and offered £150 in compensation.
  4. The works were not carried out in June as the roof was leaking into various rooms of the property. In July 2023 the resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2. In response to this, the landlord said it needed to complete an asbestos test before roofing and internal works could take place. It said the asbestos test would take place on a specified date in August 2023. It said it would contact her when it knew the results of the asbestos test.
  5. In August the resident contacted the landlord to say the asbestos contractor had not attended the appointment. She informed the landlord she would be contacting this Service and Citizens Advice. In October the landlord escalated the complaint to stage 2. In its stage 2 response it apologised for the delays and offered £1992 in compensation for its handling of matters since March 2023. It said it would complete works by the end of December 2023.
  6. In January 2024 the resident contacted the landlord to say the roof was leaking and the internal works were still outstanding. She requested to escalate her complaint to stage 3. In March 2024 the landlord’s contractor inspected internally. It found mould in every room and areas of water ingress. It said it believed the roof was in need of renewal.
  7. In July 2024, the resident sent the landlord a video of water dripping through the lounge ceiling into a bucket. The landlord inspected and concluded that the roof must be made watertight before internal works could take place. She also escalated her complaint to this Service.
  8. In August 2024 the landlord provided an update to this Service. It said the target for its contractor to complete the roofing repairs was 20 October 2024. It said it had inspected and would begin internal works after the roof repairs.

Scope of investigation

  1. The evidence provided shows the repairs were not carried out by the date given in the landlord’s final complaint response. In August 2024 the landlord confirmed the roof repairs remained outstanding. Therefore, this Service will consider the landlord’s handling of the matters from April 2022 up to August 2024.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of a roof leak and associated repairs

  1. The tenancy agreement states the landlord shall maintain and keep in proper working order the structure and outside of the property, including the roof, drains and gutters. The tenancy agreement also states it is responsible for walls, floors, ceilings, and major internal plasterwork.
  2. The landlord has a Repairs and Maintenance policy and procedure. The policy applicable at the time of the resident’s complaint was issued 26 January 2022. Neither its repairs policy or repairs handbook set out how it will respond to reports of damp and/or mould. (Since the time of this complaint the landlord has introduced a damp and mould policy). The repairs handbook defines an appointed repair as ‘repairs that are not emergencies such as… or a leaking gutter.’ It says it will complete these within a maximum of 28 days.
  3. In October 2021 this Service published its spotlight report on damp and mould ‘It’s not lifestyle’. This recommends landlords adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould.
  4. On 5 April 2022 the resident reported mould inside the property. She stated this was caused by blocked guttering. The landlord arranged an inspection of the guttering. This was an appropriate step to take but no evidence has been provided to show it organised an inspection of the mould. Given mould was the resident’s substantive complaint. This was inappropriate.
  5. The landlord’s record keeping between April 2022 and December 2022 meant it was difficult for this Service to gain a precise overview of events during this time. The limited records provided suggest an initial delay was caused by the landlord failing to consider the contractor’s scaffolding requirements. The records also indicate that when its contractor inspected the works it made the landlord aware of other faults with the roof tiles and flashing. This increased the scope of the works and the landlord decided to invite quotes from other contractors.
  6. The landlord completed the work to the guttering and lead flashing in December 2022. This was 8 months after the resident reported it. Even allowing for a second contractor to provide a quote, this was a significant delay which exceeded its timescale for appointed repairs by 7 months. The landlord has not provided any reason or mitigating factor for its delay. Additionally, the resident told this Service that during this time she had to continually chase the landlord for updates on its next steps. The landlord’s approach lacked urgency and customer focus.
  7. Three months later on 6 March 2023, after heavy rainfall, the resident reported leaks through the ceilings in the lounge, the back bedroom and toilet. The repair records provided by the landlord show that on 24 May 2023 its contractor provided a quote for roof repairs. This meant 11 and a half weeks had passed since the resident reported the leak with no repairs carried out. This timescale was unreasonable and again exceeded its timescale for appointed repairs. When the contractor provided its quote, it requested the landlord confirm the asbestos status of the roof prior to it carrying out works. There is no evidence the landlord arranged the asbestos test requested by its contractor. This was unreasonable. This Service finds the landlords failure to promptly request the asbestos report contributed to the delays in resolving the repairs. Additionally, the resident’s enjoyment of her home was also impacted because when it rained, she was anxious and spent time monitoring and checking the areas for water penetration.
  8. On 20 March 2023 the resident made a stage 1 complaint. She said the landlord had not completed the internal repair works needed because of the April 2022 gutter leak and the March 2023 roof leak. She explained mould was still present, plaster was peeling and crumbling, and there were stains on the ceiling. She said her asthma and depression had been made worse, and she was impacted financially due to the costs of redecorating. She asked the landlord to carry out the repairs. The landlord provided an interim stage 1 response on 13 April 2023. (The landlord’s complaint handling has been investigated later in this report). It said an internal inspection would take place on 21 April 2023. It asked her to provide photos of damaged furniture and items. The resident did not report any damage to furniture or items so the landlord’s reason for requesting this is not clear. The landlord appears to have misunderstood the resident’s statement that she had been financially impacted by the cost of redecorating after the leaks. The landlord did not respond to the residents reports that the situation had made her asthma and depression worse. This was unreasonable. Where a resident informs the landlord that a medical condition has worsened because of the condition of the property, this Service expects the landlord will explore this further with the resident and carry out a risk assessment if appropriate. There is no evidence to show the landlord asked any further questions about this. The landlord missed an opportunity to understand the health vulnerabilities of the resident and the household. This was a failing in the landlord’s approach and likely to undermine the landlord tenant relationship.
  9. The landlord provided its final stage 1 complaint response on 2 May 2023. It apologised for the delay in completing works but offered no explanation. This was also unreasonable. This Service expects that where the landlord acknowledges there have been failures or delays in its service delivery it will carry out a root cause analysis so that it can learn from it and take steps to prevent a reoccurrence. Additionally, because the landlord’s focus was on the external gutter and roof issue it overlooked the resident’s substantive complaint which was about mould growth inside the property. Given the landlord is aware that damp and mould are potential category 1 hazards that fall within the scope of HHSRS, this was unfair and unreasonable. The landlord should have organised an inspection or treatment of the mould at the same time as works to the gutter and roof. Because the landlord did not do this the mould was untreated for 8 months. This was a failing in the landlord’s approach. It acknowledged the substantial delay and upheld her complaint. It offered £150 in compensation broken down as £125 for time, trouble, and inconvenience, and £25 for its late complaint response. It said internal repair works would take place on 15 and 16 June 2023. The landlord’s approach was fair and reasonable. It recognised its failings and set out what it was going to do to put it right.
  10. When the contractor arrived on 15 June 2023 the roof was leaking through the ceiling into the lounge, toilet, and bedroom. This is because the leak reported earlier in March had not been repaired. The contractor informed the landlord of the situation. The landlord informed the resident it would need to address the issues with the roof before carrying out any internal works. It was reasonable for the landlord to postpone some internal works while it identified and repaired the leaks, however, the landlord should have considered what works it could carry out in the meantime in relation to the mould growth. The landlord’s approach meant the mould was untreated for over 1 year.
  11. On 21 July 2023, the resident contacted the complaints team to say the landlord had not carried out works promised in its stage 1 complaint response. She requested the complaint be escalated to stage 2. The complaints team responded 2 weeks later. It said it could see an asbestos report was needed and it would organise this. It suggested it could make a revised offer of compensation once the works were complete. In some circumstances this approach may be appropriate. This might be where the landlord has provided the resident with a firm date in the very near future and is certain it will complete the repairs. In this case the landlord did not have a schedule of works in place or firm date of completion to offer the resident. This meant she had no certainty about when the repairs would be complete. Given this, this Service does not consider it was an appropriate suggestion. The landlord should be clear on when it would be appropriate to suggest a resident wait for a revised compensation offer. In relation to the resident’s request to escalate the complaint it did not escalate the complaint to stage 2.
  12. On 24 August 2023 the landlord informed the resident its asbestos contractor would attend on 26 September 2023. The landlord was notified of the need for an asbestos test on 25 May 2023, this meant it took the landlord 16 weeks to carry out the asbestos test. Considering the landlord’s service standard for completion of appointable repairs is 28 days, this Service’s finds the landlord unreasonably delayed in arranging the asbestos report.
  13. On 3 October 2023 the landlord contacted the resident to state it had escalated the complaint to stage 2. On 31 October 2023 it provided its final response. In relation to the delays since 2022 it offered its sincere apologies for the significant inconvenience caused. It said the delays were caused by its internal processes and the need for an asbestos survey. It acknowledged it had not provided the level of service it should have. It offered £1992 in compensation broken down as £1282 for loss of enjoyment of living room, WC, and daughter’s bedroom. £400 for time, trouble, and inconvenience,  £200 for its complaint handling at stage 1 (delayed response and failure to escalate to stage 2), and £10 for a misunderstanding about the date of the asbestos appointment. It said works would be completed by end of December 2023 and offered £100 up to this time.
  14. The landlord did not complete the internal works by the end of December 2023. The documents provided show the landlord arranged these to take place on 9 February 2024. No evidence has been provided to show the landlord agreed this date with the resident, that it apologised, or explained its reasons for not keeping to the date given in its complaint response. This was unreasonable and would have been disappointing to the resident. On 11 January 2024 the resident provided the landlord with a video showing a leak in the WC. She said a surveyor’s visit was outstanding. She requested to escalate the complaint to stage 3. The landlord has not provided any documents that show how it responded to the resident’s request to escalate to stage 3 (this will be considered in more detail in the complaint handling section of this report).
  15. In response to the leak the landlord asked 2 contractors to provide quotes for roof works. A roofer attended on 14 March 2024. The landlord again failed to consider the scaffolding requirements, so the roof inspection was cancelled. However, the roofer took the opportunity to inspect the property internally. The roofer informed the landlord  ‘the flat suffers from a lot of mould in every room and some rainwater leaks. The roof has been repaired a couple of times, but mould is still coming through.’ The roofer documented its belief that the roof was in need of a renewal. It said when scaffolding was provided it would return to measure up for a roof renewal. The records indicate an inspection of the roof took place between 2 and 15 May 2024. This timescale was unreasonable and exceeded its repairing obligations. This landlord has not provided any reason as to why it did not carry out its initial inspection within 4 weeks of the contractor’s feedback. This service finds the landlord’s approach lacked urgency and caused delay. It also caused inconvenience, and distress to the resident. Additionally, this Service is concerned that the landlord has not provided any evidence that it took any action about the reports of mould in every room. This was a failing in the landlord’s handling of the matter.
  16. The landlord was provided with a quote for roof works on 18 June 2024. The landlord’s actions after this are not clear. On 15 July 2024 after a period of heavy rain, water leaked through the living room ceiling. The resident provided the landlord with a video of water dripping through the ceiling into a bucket. On 6 August 2024 the landlord’s surveyor carried out an internal inspection. The landlord has not provided any earlier inspection reports, therefore this Service concludes on the balance of probabilities this was the first internal inspection carried out by the landlord’s technical team since the residents reports of mould in 2022. The inspection report noted mould where there had been water ingress. It created a specification of works such as mould washes, stain blocks and provision of dehumidifier and redecoration in all bedrooms, WC, and living room. These were appropriate measures that would have helped the resident manage the situation of mould while awaiting the roof repairs. However, the evidence shows the landlord did not follow through on any these measures. This was unreasonable.
  17. The resident is reliant on the landlord to look after and keep the major components of the property in good repair. In this case the roof of the property had not been watertight since April 2022. The landlord took 8 months to repair the April 2022 leak. When the roof leaked again in March and June 2023, the landlord took 9 months to complete the repair. The roof leak returned in January 2024 and remains unrepaired. Assuming it completes the repair by the 20 October 2024, this means the landlord took 10 months to carry out the repair and overall took on average 9 months to carry out a repair each time it was reported.
  18. In March 2024 its contractor informed the landlord that it believed the roof is in need of renewal. The landlord informed this Service it will carry out repairs by the end of October 2024. This Service does not know if these are further patch repairs, or it intends to carry out a full roof renewal. This Service recommends the landlord carefully consider the measures needed to bring about an effective and lasting repair to the roof to prevent further internal disrepair.
  19. This Service finds the landlord failed to effectively manage and monitor the roof repairs between April 2022 to the date of this report. This led to unreasonable delays in getting the matters resolved for the resident. It failed to consider scaffolding requirements to allow inspections to take place leading to delays in inspecting. It had difficulty deciding the scope of the works required, there were delays during its internal processes relating to the approval of quotes, and there was a lack of ownership and timely progression of matters such as the asbestos report needed to progress the repair.
  20. It carried out patch repairs, but these were not effective as evidenced by the recurrent leaks in the WC and lounge. As a result, the resident has been negatively impacted by widespread, untreated internal mould. The landlord failed to carry out any interim measures in relation to the mould when it would have been appropriate to do so. The recurrent leaks also caused cracks in the ceiling and plasterwork, water staining, and spoiled decorations in the rooms of the property. These were made worse by each subsequent leak. The situation caused an unsightly environment for the resident and her household for over 2 and a half years. The landlord’s delays and mismanagement of the roof repairs had a detrimental impact on the resident and caused inconvenience and distress.
  21. Additionally, the evidence shows that between April 2022 and to date communication about the issues was mostly initiated by the resident. When she initially contacted this Service with her complaint, she expressed a desired outcome was for the landlord to improve its communication on the issues. This Service will take this into account when considering any orders or recommendations. This Service finds the resident had to spend an unreasonable amount of time and effort engaged with the landlord on the issue. The resident advised this Service at the start of the issues her 4 children were aged under the age of 12. She said the amount of time spent engaged on the issue left her feeling tired and stressed. The landlord is also aware the resident has made an application for rehousing with the local authority due to the property condition and loss of confidence in the landlord. Since escalating her complaint to this Service, it is understood the local authority’s environmental health department visited the property on 31 July 2024. It referred to the vulnerabilities of the household and asked the landlord to provide a timescale for carrying out repairs. It is clear the resident has  had to spend a great deal of time, trouble, and effort to get the repairs completed.
  22. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s disclosure about the impact of the mould on her asthma. This is concerning and a failing in the landlord’s handling of the matter. After the complaint was escalated to this Service the landlord inspected the property. It set out a specification of works such as mould washing in all bedrooms and provision of a dehumidifier but failed to deliver on these. Taking everything into account this Service finds there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a leak and the associated repairs.
  23. Looking at the landlord’s compensation offers for the matters. At stage 1 it offered £150. At stage 2, it offered a 20% reduction in the weekly rent for loss of enjoyment of living room, WC, and bedroom. It is not clear how the landlord arrived at the 20% point of compensation. Its compensation policy breaks down the percentage amount if will offer for loss of rooms. In this case the breakdown of the combined rooms totals more than 20%. It also does not appear to have considered the individual circumstances of the resident. It awarded this from March 2023 up to 31 December 2023. This totalled £1282. It offered an additional £400 for time, trouble, and inconvenience, and £10 in recognition of a misunderstanding about the date of the asbestos inspection. The total compensation offered for the roof repair issues was £1692.
  24. It was appropriate for the landlord to award compensation for ‘loss of enjoyment. However, this Service has considered the amount offered and finds that the landlord’s stage 2 compensation offer did not go far enough in putting things right. This is because the evidence shows 3 rooms of the property were affected between March 2023 and December 2023. These included the bedroom and the living room. The loss of enjoyment of these rooms for a prolonged period had a high impact on the household. Additionally, the landlord’s compensation policy states ‘if more than 1 room is affected, staff will increase the offer of compensation to a maximum of 50% of rent ’, as such, this Service makes an order for the landlord to award compensation based on 50% of the weekly rent for the period March 2023 to 31 December 2023 (taking the April rent increase into account).
  25. Additionally, the loss of enjoyment compensation was effective from March 2023. However, it appears to have used an incorrect rent figure for March 2023 which was the starting point of its calculation. The weekly rent stated in the compensation offer was £149.01. In September 2024 the landlord informed this Service the weekly rent in March 2023 was £161.77. The amount offered also did not take into account the rent increase effective the following month in April 2023. From April 2023 the weekly rent was £176.60. As a result of the incorrect rent figure used in March and the overlooked April rent increase, the landlord offered an incorrect amount of compensation. This Service understands compensation calculations can be complex at times. A revised calculation for the period March 2023 to December 2023 has been included in the orders section of this report.
  26. The landlord failed to complete the repairs by the 31 December 2023 as stated in its final complaint response. As such, this Service makes an order for the landlord to continue paying compensation for loss of enjoyment from 1 January 2024 until such time repairs have been completed. It is not possible for this Service to determine whether the rooms were completely or partially unusable during the period, so a compensation amount based on approximately 50% of the rent has been made. This additional compensation is awarded in recognition of the additional inconvenience caused to the resident and her family by not having full enjoyment of the rooms in the property. The compensation is based on 50% of the weekly rent and is not a rent refund or intended to be an exact calculation.
  27. This Service recognises that some resident’s circumstances mean they are more affected by the landlord’s actions and inactions than others. This might be due to their particular circumstances, or because of a vulnerability or health issue. This Service has considered the landlord’s failure to respond to or take into account the vulnerabilities of the household and considers an additional remedy would be appropriate for the impact and distress caused. An order is made for the landlord to pay an additional £500 in compensation to the resident.
  28. The Ombudsman has found severe maladministration following a number of investigations into complaints raised with the landlord involving leaks, damp and mould, and vulnerabilities. These cases were 202224898 and 202216547. As a result of these the Ombudsman issued a wider order to the landlord under paragraph 54.f of the Scheme. The landlord was ordered to review its policy or practice in relation to the service failures identified which may give rise to further complaints about the matters.
  29. The issues identified in this case are similar to the case(s) we have already determined. The landlord has demonstrated compliance with our previous wider order so we have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case which would duplicate those already made to the landlord. The landlord should consider whether there are any additional issues arising from this later case that require further action.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints policy and procedure. It states it will aim to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. It also states that customers have the right to request their complaint is escalated to stage 2 if they remain unhappy with the outcome of stage 1.
  2. The resident complained on 20 March 2023. This means the landlord’s response was due by no later than 31 March 2023. The landlord did not respond by this date. This Service has not seen any evidence that it updated the resident that it would not be able to provide a response by the due date. This Service expects that when a landlord becomes aware it is not able to provide its complaint response by the timescales set out in its procedure, it will contact the resident to apologise, explain, and provide a date by which it will respond. The landlord lacked courtesy when it did not do this. The situation also suggests a lack of oversight of complaints.
  3. On 13 April 2023 it provided an ‘interim stage 1 response’. It said an appointment had been booked and it would provide an update on or before 5 May 2023. This approach is not set out in its complaints procedure, and it is not clear why the landlord was not able to issue a full stage 1 response by this time. The landlord’s policy and the Complaint Handling Code provides for the landlord to extend its complaint response time by an additional 10 days, where there is good reason. If the landlord needed more time to respond it should have contacted the resident and confirmed the extension in writing.
  4. The landlord provided its final stage 1 response on 5 May 2023. This was 5 weeks past its due date. It failed to apologise or offer an explanation for its late response. This was inappropriate and meant the stage 1 process took longer than it should have.
  5. On 21 July 2023 the resident requested her complaint be escalated to stage 2. This was because the internal works had not been completed. The landlord failed to handle the escalation request appropriately. This is because it offered to re-open the stage 1 complaint and make a fresh offer of compensation once the outstanding works were complete. This was not the correct approach to take which led to a delay in escalation to stage 2. The situation caused the resident inconvenience and frustration as evidenced by her email to the landlord on 5 September questioning why it had not escalated her complaint to stage 2.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 31 October 2023. This was in line with its service standard. However, it also overlooked that it had not responded at stage 1 to the health matters of the resident or that she was financially impacted. For the complaints process to be effective landlords must address all points raised in the complaint. The landlords handling of the complaint meant 2 parts of the resident’s complaint were not addressed at any stage during the complaints process. This was unreasonable.
  7. On 11 January 2024 the resident remained unhappy about the lack of progress on the issues. She requested her complaint be escalated to stage 3. At this point the landlord should have provided details of this Service but there is no evidence it did this. It would have also been appropriate for the landlord to carry out an examination of the issues to identify what led the resident to request this course of action. The records provided also show the resident’s complaint record was not updated with this information.
  8. The landlord offered £200 for the failings it identified in its complaint handling, however, this Service finds there were additional failings not recognised by the landlord which when taken together amount to maladministration. This Service finds there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling and makes an order for an additional £100 in compensation to be paid.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a roof leak and the associated repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 2 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. Carry out mould treatments and provide a dehumidifier as set out in its surveyor’s report dated 6 August 2024. This includes the window frames and casements as noted in the surveyor’s report. The landlord must discuss with the resident any new areas of mould growth and provide an action plan to address these.
    2. Identify a specific point of contact for the resident in relation to the repairs up to the point of completion. The landlord must provide the resident with an update on progress of external and internal repairs. The landlord must contact the resident to find out her preferred frequency and method of receiving the updates.
    3. The landlord must contact the resident to discuss her health conditions and vulnerabilities of the members of her household and update its repairs and tenancy databases accordingly.
  2. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident for its handling of the issues. The apology should come from a senior member of staff.
    1. Pay the resident £8480 in compensation (this includes the £1992 it offered at stage 2) broken down as:
      1. £7680 for loss of enjoyment from March 2023 – 20 October 2024. Based on 50% of the weekly rent and takes the April 2023 and April 2024 rent increases into account.
      2. £500 for the impact of failing to take into account the residents health issues and vulnerabilities.
      3. £300 for the inconvenience caused by the failings in its complaint handling.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should provide support and assistance to the resident in respect of the rehousing application she has made to the local authority.