Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Sanctuary Housing Association (202339708)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202339708

Sanctuary Housing Association

21 October 2024


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration,’ for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a roof leak and the associated repairs.

Background

  1. The resident has held an assured tenancy with the landlord since 2022. She occupies the property with 2 children. The resident informed this Service that both children are disabled. Her eldest son is autistic. The property is a 3-bedroom house. As a result of a merger the current landlord became the freeholder of the property on 25 March 2024.
  2. In October 2023, the resident reported a leak through the ceiling of 1 bedroom which also affected the adjoining bedroom. The landlord cleared the gutter and redressed the leadwork. In January 2024 the resident complained the roof was still leaking and the internal repairs to the bedrooms could not be carried out. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint. It said it was waiting to hear from its scaffolding provider and it would update her the following week.
  3. In February 2024 the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. She complained the roof works and associated internal works had not been carried out. She requested compensation for damaged belongings. In April 2024 the landlord provided its final response. It upheld her complaint about the time taken to identify the source of the leak, and time taken to carry out repairs. In relation to her damaged belongings the landlord said she should make a claim on her home contents insurance policy. It said it would consider whether any compensation was due when it had completed all the repairs.
  4. In May 2024 the resident reported a further leak into the third bedroom. The landlord carried out major repairs and completed these in July 2024.
  5. In October 2024 this Service asked the landlord to provide information about the compensation offer referred to in its final complaint response. The landlord informed this Service it would offer the resident £1100 in compensation for the issues.

Scope of Investigation

  1. The evidence shows the resident continued to be affected by the leaking roof after the landlord’s final complaint response. This was a continuation of the issues. Therefore, this Service will consider the landlord’s handling of the matters up to 31 July 2024.
  2. The resident informed the landlord the value of her belongings damaged was more than £20,000. Unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or award damages. This means we are unable to determine whether the landlord was responsible for any damage to the resident’s personal belongings. We can look at how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of damage and if this was appropriate and in line with any policy. Where the Ombudsman finds failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.

Assessment and findings

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

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement shows the landlord is responsible for the structure and outside of the premises which includes drains, gutters, external pipes, and roofs.
  2. The repairs and maintenance policy applicable at the time, categorised repair types as follows:
    1. Immediate – attend and make safe within 4 hours.
    2. Emergency – complete repair within 24 hours.
    3. Standard – complete repair within 15 working days.
    4. Planned – complete repair within 45 working days.
  3. In this case the resident reported a leak through the bedroom ceiling on 30 October 2023. The landlord asked its contractor to ‘make safe’ the ceiling in the affected bedroom. In the circumstance.es this was not an appropriate course of action to take. The landlord should have arranged a roofer in the first instance to investigate the leak on an immediate or emergency basis. The landlord’s contractor attended and reported back that it could not carry out ‘make safe’ work because the roof leak needed to be repaired first. The documents show the landlord then raised a roofer to attend on a routine priority. The roofer attended on 20 November 2024. They cleared guttering and replaced some leadwork. This was 3 weeks after the leak was reported. Given the response and repair completion timescales contained in the landlord’s repairs policy for emergency repairs, this timescale was unreasonable. The situation caused inconvenience and frustration to the resident. This Service finds the landlord mishandled the resident’s initial report leading to a delay in the appropriate trade attending.
  4. On 01 December 2023 the landlord’s surveyor attended to inspect the internal works needed because of the leak. The surveyor’s report sets out a schedule of works, the resources, number of operatives and time needed. This was effective planning and good record keeping by the landlord. However, the contractors did not attend until 5 January 2024. This was almost 6 weeks after the surveyor’s inspection. Given the landlord’s 15 working days timescale to complete a standard repair, this meant the landlord should have completed the repair on or around 22 December 2023. The landlord’s delay in attending after its inspection caused inconvenience and distress to the resident as evidenced by her stage 1 complaint in which she complained she was told the works would be completed before Christmas.
  5. On 27 December 2023 the leak reoccurred. The resident reported this to the landlord who again arranged for a roofer to attend on a routine priority. The roofer was booked to attend on 23 January 2024. The landlord failed to identify it had arranged internal works to take place on 5 January, and therefore it would be appropriate to postpone these until such time the roof leak was resolved.
  6. Because it did not postpone the internal works, the contractor attended. As part of the works, they cut away a section of ceiling. They found the roof was still leaking and a large pool of water on the roof membrane. The resident was provided with a bucket to collect drippings from the area. The contractor informed the landlord of the situation and requested the roof be repaired first. At this stage it would have been appropriate for the landlord to arrange a roofer to attend on an emergency basis. However, there is no evidence the landlord considered doing this. During the time the resident was waiting for the roofer to attend, the bedroom ceiling had a section missing, leading to draughts, water ingress, dust and particles of insulation blowing into the bedroom. This was unsatisfactory. The landlord does not appear to have provided any advice or guidance about the protection of furniture and belongings from the debris. The adjoining bedroom wall was also affected by wetness and peeling plasterwork.
  7. On 22 January 2024 the resident made a stage 1 complaint. She complained about the length of time taken to repair the rook leak. She said she and her 2 disabled children had to sleep in her room which was stressful and made it hard to sleep. The beds, furniture, toys, clothes, and belongings from the affected bedrooms had to be stored in the hallways creating a clogged and hazardous environment. She complained that personal belongings had been damaged and about the landlord’s lack of communication. A few days later the resident emailed the landlord again to inform it she would instruct a solicitor to begin a disrepair claim. There is no evidence the landlord responded to this communication. This was unreasonable.
  8. On 23 January 2024 the roofer attended. This was 4 weeks after the second leak was reported. The documents show the roofer identified 2 separate issues with the roof. They informed the landlord they had carried out some works but needed a scaffold to complete the remainder of the works. The landlord did not arrange the scaffold until 11 March 2024. This was 7 weeks after it was informed of the need for it. During these 7 weeks the water ingress, draughts, and dust continued to impact the bedroom.
  9. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 5 February 2024. It apologised for the delay. It explained it was waiting for the roofer’s report. Given that the roofer had inspected the property 2 weeks earlier, this Service finds the landlord lacked urgency in its approach. In the circumstances it would have been appropriate for the landlord to be proactive and request or chase up the roofer’s report at an earlier stage. There is no evidence it did this. The landlord acknowledged the situation caused inconvenience and frustration to the resident, therefore it would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider a financial remedy to put things right. However, the landlord did not do this. This was unfair and unreasonable. It did not respond to the resident’s complaint about damaged belongings or her intention to instruct a solicitor. It did not make any enquiries about the impact on her disabled children. This was a failing in the landlord’s approach. Disability is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010. The landlord should have sought more information about this to understand the impact of the situation on the members of the household, and to decide if it needed to adjust its service delivery in any way. It also missed the opportunity to update its records with important information about the household. In relation to the resident’s complaint about damaged belongings it would have been appropriate to consider carrying out an inspection of these or ask her to provide evidence for further consideration but there is no evidence it did this. It said it would provide an update on the roof repairs by 13 February 2024.
  10. The landlord did not provide the update as promised. This was unsatisfactory and caused inconvenience and distress to the resident. Consequently, during week commencing 19 February 2024, the resident emailed the landlord on a number of occasions complaining roof repairs were outstanding. She requested compensation for damaged belongings and reimbursement of additional heating costs. In response to this the landlord escalated her complaint to stage 2. It said it would consider her compensation request, but it did not ask for any evidence of the damaged items or the additional heating costs. The landlord missed an opportunity to understand the details of the residents claim which affected its ability to carefully consider the matter.
  11. The landlord installed scaffolding on 11 March 2024. On 21 March 2024 (11 days after the scaffold was in place) It attended and carried out further works. The landlord’s lack of timely coordination caused delay because it would have been appropriate to arrange the roofer to attend at the same time or as soon as the scaffold was in place.
  12. On 2 April 2024 the landlord provided it stage 2 response. It apologised for its delays, and that the initial repairs in November 2023 had not resolved the leak. It apologised the resident had not been able to use the bedrooms and upheld her complaint. It said it would review whether it could pay any compensation when all the repairs were complete, but it did not provide an expected completion date. This Service recognises this approach might be appropriate in some circumstances. This could 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 date of completion to offer the resident. This meant she had no certainty about when the repairs would be complete. While it is positive the landlord took responsibility for the delays in its handling of the repairs, its  approach to the issue of compensation was inappropriate. This Service considers a fair approach would have been to offer compensation for the delays and inconvenience up to that point (especially given the resident had been financially impacted), and then review the compensation again once it had completed the repairs to assess whether any further compensation was due.
  13. In relation to damage caused to personal belongings the landlord said she should make a claim on her home contents insurance. This was an inappropriate response to this part of the resident’s complaint. The landlord’s compensation policy states it will consider compensation for damage or loss of belongings due to its action or inaction. It also states, ‘claims for damaged items valued at over £5000 will be assessed and usually passed to the landlord’s insurers.’ Given that it had not completed the repairs within its published timescales, and it accepted its inaction had caused delays in handling the matter, it would have been appropriate to consider whether it should pay compensation for the damaged belongings or given the value of the claim to pass the matter to its insurers. In relation to her increased heating costs the landlord did not respond to this part of the complaint. This was also unreasonable.
  14. Two days later on 4 April 2024 the resident inquired how to escalate her complaint to stage 3. This should have prompted the landlord to contact the resident to discuss the reasons for her request but there is no evidence the landlord did this. The landlord missed an opportunity to understand the reasons for the resident’s continued dissatisfaction and consider how it might be able to put things right.
  15. The records provided show the landlord completed internal works to 1 of the affected bedrooms on or around 20 May 2024. The landlord has not provided any evidence as to when it completed the works to the second bedroom. The resident informed this Service the landlord completed works at the end of July 2024.
  16. On 22 May 2024 the resident reported water leaking though the light fitting of the third bedroom. The landlord attended and concluded the ceiling had been structurally affected by water ingress. It said it would need to carry out major internal works. It asked her to clear the room of all furniture in preparation for the work. The landlord then removed the ceiling. The evidence shows the resident slept in the living room during this time. The lack of ceiling affected the thermal efficiency of the property in that the resident reported she had difficulty keeping the property warm during this time. This resulted in increased heating costs. The landlord asked a different roofing contractor to attend and survey the roof. This was an appropriate step to take given the 3 previous repairs did not resolve the issue. It organised scaffolding for a second time and further external repairs to the roof. The records show the landlord reinstated the bedroom ceiling on or around 15 July 2024. The landlord completed associated plastering and redecorations on 31 July 2024. The time taken exceeded its published timescale of 45 working days for planned repairs but compared to the October 2023 and January 2024 leaks, the landlord handled this leak and associated repairs in a more customer focused and organised way. The landlord is encouraged to examine the factors contributing to this.
  17. This Service finds the May 2024 leak was a complex repair because of the discovery of asbestos, testing , removal, and reinstatement of the ceiling. During this time the resident was displaced from her bedroom. The situation caused discomfort, and inconvenience for longer than necessary.
  18. The resident is reliant on the landlord to look after the structure of the building. In this case the roof to the property was not watertight for over 7 months. The landlord’s early attempts at repairs did not last and leaks continued to affect all the bedrooms in the property at different stages. The situation caused inconvenience, discomfort and distress to the resident and her family for a prolonged period. Overall, this Service finds the landlord failed to effectively manage and monitor the roof repairs between October 2023 and May 2024. The landlord repeatedly raised works orders for the leaking roof on a routine priority when in the circumstances it would have been appropriate to arrange works on an immediate or emergency basis as set out in its repair’s timescale. The landlord’s lack of urgency caused unreasonable delays in getting the matters resolved. It failed to organise scaffolding in a timely manner which meant roof repairs were left incomplete causing the leak to reoccur. The lack of effective coordination and oversight meant trades attended at the wrong time and had to cancel work because the roof was still leaking. Between October and May 2024, the resident experienced multiple visits from the landlord’s staff and contractors with little progress made on the issues. A further leak in May 2024 was managed more effectively than the earlier leaks. However, the evidence shows the root cause of the roof leak reported in October 2023 was not resolved until July 2024. This was too long and exceeded its published repairs timescales. This Service finds the landlord’s handling of the issues had a detrimental impact on the resident and caused inconvenience, discomfort, and distress to all members of the household. Additionally, the landlord was aware the resident had 2 disabled children who were impacted but it failed to make any enquiries about this. This Service finds there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the roof leak and associated repairs.
  19. On 4 October 2024 the landlord informed this Service it intended to offer the resident £1100 in compensation, £500 for its delays and £600 for loss of use of bedrooms. The landlord’s offer of compensation came too late for this Service to consider it as part of its efforts to put things right. Additionally, a late offer of compensation is not sufficient to avoid a maladministration finding. The landlord should have offered the compensation at the appropriate stage of the complaints process. This Service may then have found the landlord had put things right and resolved the issue fairly resulting in a finding of reasonable redress. However, any orders for compensation will be inclusive of the £1100 offered.
  20. The landlord’s compensation policy states it will pay a room loss allowance for each unusable room after 48 hours. The rate set out for a bedroom is the maximum of 20 per cent of the rent. Where rooms are partially affected it will pay a reduced rate of compensation. This Service finds that 1 bedroom was out of use for 30 weeks between 30 October 2023 and 20 May 2024. In relation to the second bedroom, this bedroom was partially affected by damaged plasterwork and a wet wall for 30 weeks between 30 October 2023 and 20 May 2024. This Service considers compensation at a rate of 10 percent of the rent would be appropriate. Combined, this totals a 30 per cent reduction for the period 30 October 2023 to 20 May 2024. The rent was £116 per week (rounded up). Therefore, the total compensation payable for the period should be £1044.00.
  21. In relation to the May 2024 leak in the third bedroom. The evidence shows the third bedroom was fully out of use for 9.5 weeks between 25 May 2024 until 31 July 2024. Compensation for this room should be 20 per cent of the rent. The rent at this time was £124 (rounded up). Therefore, compensation payable for room loss for the period should be £223.
  22. This Service finds the landlord did not offer the correct amount of compensation as set out in its policy for loss of rooms because it did not  cover the complete period where rooms were out of use or partially affected.
  23. The landlord has not offered any compensation for the resident’s time and trouble.  In the circumstances this is unreasonable given the landlord’s policy states it will pay up to £400 in recognition of time, trouble, and inconvenience where there is high effort and high impact. This Service makes an order for the landlord to pay £400.
  24. The landlord also failed to respond to the resident’s complaints about damaged belongings. An order is made below for the landlord to assess the residents claim for damaged belongings as per its compensation policy and inform the resident of its decision. If it decides to pass the claim to its insurers it should assist the resident with the claims process.
  25. In relation to the resident’s complaint about increased heating costs during the time of works to the ceiling, an order is made for the landlord to assess these against the same period in the previous year and refund the difference.
  26. 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.
  27. 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.

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 associated repairs.

Orders

  1. 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 must be in writing from a senior member of staff.
    2. Pay £2167 in compensation (this is inclusive of the £1100 offered by the landlord) broken down as:
      1. £1267 for room loss and loss of enjoyment.
      2. £500 for the impact of the delays.
      3. £400 for the resident’s time and trouble.
    3. Assess the residents claim for damaged belongings and inform her of its decision in writing. If it decides to pass the claim to its insurers it must assist the resident with the claim process.
    4. The landlord must request information from the resident in relation to the resident’s energy usage between October 2022 and May 2023. It must then compare this to the energy usage between October 2023 and May 2024. The landlord must refund the difference.
    5. Provide evidence that it has complied with the orders.