Sanctuary Housing Association (202342149)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202342149

Sanctuary Housing Association

27 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 that the property was not in a liveable standard when let.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 2 February 2023. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a 2 bedroom house. The resident lives with his daughter. The landlord had no recorded vulnerabilities.
On 7 February 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to notify of his wish to make changes to the property. He specified that he wished to remove and replace all the bathroom tiles. The resident said the kitchen units needed ripping out due to them being “rotted and unusable.” He asked the landlord to grant approval for the changes.
The landlord responded on the same date to say that the resident would need to complete any alteration requests at his own expense. The landlord asked the resident to confirm if that was what he was looking to. The resident responded on 10 February 2023 to say he had sent an improvement request via a webform, which he said was for retiling the bathroom and kitchen. The landlord said the relevant team would receive the form sent online and when it had made a decision it would contact the resident.
On 16 March 2023, the resident reported to his housing officer, during a settling in visit, that the kitchen had damp, mould and had broken units. The resident said the housing office had thought they might need replacing. The landlord scheduled in appointments to inspect both issues.
The resident cancelled the appointment to inspect the damp and mould on 11 April 2023 as he said everything was ok.
An operative visited the resident’s property on 12 April 2023 to inspect the kitchen. At this visit, the operative found the resident had removed the kitchen himself and requested a joiner to attend. A joiner attended on 20 April 2023 and confirmed the kitchen units were in the resident’s garden.
A surveyor attended on 28 April 2023. The report states that there was no sign of damp present during the inspection. The surveyor could not see why the resident had removed the kitchen. As the resident had placed the units outside, they were damaged and therefore unusable. The report suggested recharging the resident for the replacement kitchen.
The resident raised a formal complaint, on 4 May 2023, about the condition of the property when he moved in. The key points were as follows:
1. He had got the keys to the property in February, but the property was still not in a liveable condition.
2. He said he had photos and videos of the property which showed a “disgusting” bathroom and kitchen. The resident said 4 different members of staff had assessed the kitchen as needing replacing.
3. He said he was having to hire plumbers, electricians, and carpenters at his own expense as he had lost patience with the landlord.
The landlord gave its stage 1 response on 8 June 2023. It gave a chronology of the events leading up to the complaint. It said it had viewed the pictures taken by the landlord when the property was void. It confirmed the kitchen and bathroom were in a liveable condition and could not see any traces of damp or mould. It accepted that the property needed decorating but could not see any faults with the property itself.
The resident requested escalation to stage 2 of the complaints process on 8 June 2023 which the landlord acknowledged on 12 June 2023. The resident said he had photographic evidence of everything he had complained about.
The landlord gave its stage 2 complaint response on 7 June 2023. It again gave a history of the complaint. The key points were as follows:
1. As the landlord had been unable to inspect the units before the resident had removed them, the resident was liable for replacement costs.
2. The landlord sent the quote for approval. The resident had chased the landlord for updates on 18 May and 22 May 2023 when he had informed the landlord that he was going to hand his keys in and therefore, end his tenancy.
3. The resident informed the landlord on 27 June 2023 that he was not prepared to pay for the kitchen and would replace it himself.
4. It confirmed it had viewed the void photos and did not consider the property in a condition that prevented the resident from moving in. It reminded the resident that he had entered into a legally binding agreement being fully aware that he accepted the property in its condition at that time.
5. It gave compensation of £75 for a delay in recording his complaint and £75 for a delay in responding at stage 2.

Post complaints process.

On 18 July 2023, the resident responded and said he found the response “insulting”. He said when he had reported the failing kitchen in February, the landlord told him it was obliged to replace it. He gave a further chronology of events and said the delays meant he had lived with the mould for 3 and a half months.
In the same response, the resident said 3 members of staff at the landlord had agreed that the kitchen units needed replacing but that now the landlord held him accountable for the state of the property. He said at the sign up visit he did not get a proper look at the property, just a quick glance.
The resident confirmed he had replaced the kitchen himself on 31 July 2023.
The landlord conducted a further review of the complaint. The landlord explained they had undertaken a further review given the resident’s response to their stage 2. The resident received this on 9 August 2023. They key points were as follows:
1. It could see the resident had sent in, via email, a notification of expression to make changes and alterations to the property. The landlord had recommended that the resident make this request via its website. As the resident had said he had done that already, the landlord said the relevant team would contact the resident.
2. It confirmed it had received no request via its website and that it was reasonable to assume that the resident intended to replace the units himself.
3. During the settling in visit on 15 March 2023, the resident reported damp and mould to the housing officer. It could find no evidence that the resident had reported damp and mould or the condition of the kitchen to the repairs team directly.
4. When the resident had viewed the property, prior to moving in, the housing support officer had pointed out there was a lot of work needed to the property and had provided a paint pack in recognition of that.
5. It confirmed that its operative found no mould during the surveyor visit on 26 April 2023 but acknowledged that the resident said he had spent time removing it.
6. It said that as the resident had not reported the issues to them, they were unaware of any potential action to take.
7. It did not uphold the complaint as the resident did not give it chance to inspect the condition of the kitchen units prior to removing them and said it was unclear what his intentions were when he initially contacted the landlord to ask for permission to remove and replace the units himself.
8. It offered a further £50 compensation as recognition that it should have told him that it had never received his request to make the alternations.
After contacting the landlord’s Chief Executive Officer on 12 September 2023, the landlord conducted a further review of the complaint. It provided its response on 27 October 2023. The key points were as follows:
1. When the resident sent the original request to make changes in February 2023, it appeared to the landlord that the resident intended to replace the kitchen. However, it accepted it missed an opportunity to inspect the kitchen sooner if it had taken note of the resident’s comments that the kitchen was in a poor state of repair.
2. In response to the resident’s comment about the state of the property, it said the property was a lettable standard and it had provided a decorating pack. It confirmed the housing officer had pointed out the work needed at the sign up visit.
3. It did not consider that the property, particularly the kitchen, were in a condition that prevented the resident from moving in. However, as the resident explained his property became liveable in from August 2023, it has awarded compensation from that point.
4. It awarded compensation of £1258, made up of the following:
  1. £633 for loss of enjoyment of home between February and August 2023.
  2. £75 for poor communication.
  3. £400 for time trouble and inconvenience.
  4. £150 for its complaint handling, which it had previously awarded.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The resident’s tenancy agreement states that a resident must report promptly any disrepair or defect for which the landlord is reasonable when it comes to the resident’s attention.
It also says that a resident must not make improvements, alterations, or additions to the property without first obtaining written consent from the landlord.
It says that where repairs have been caused by a failure to report issues, the later repairs will be logged but damage due to neglect will be the resident’s responsibility.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance procedure set out that will attend and make safe emergency repairs within 24 hours. It will attend for appointed repairs and planned repairs within 28 days. It says that the landlord is responsible for the repairs to any installations in the property provided by the landlord.

Condition of property

The resident initially requested the landlord to make alterations to the property, mentioning that the kitchen cupboards had rotted and were unusable. However, it was unclear whether the resident was reporting a repair or requesting an alteration. The landlord appropriately sought clarification, and the resident clarified that he was seeking approval to retile the bathroom and kitchen. It is therefore reasonable that the landlord did not log this as a repair at this stage given that the resident’s clarification confirmed he wished to retile the rooms.
Although, it is important to note that the resident’s tenancy agreement sets out that a resident must report a repair as soon as they become known. In this instance there is no evidence to show that the resident reported any further issues until the visit by the landlord on 16 March 2023. However, given the resident’s report of the condition of the kitchen, it would have been helpful for the landlord to have picked that up and to have explored this further with the resident. It would have also been an opportunity for the landlord to have said that it held responsibility for the kitchen repairs and to have highlighted the implications of the resident replacing the kitchen himself and to have linked this to its policy. Not doing so caused a delay in the resident receiving support for his issue from the landlord.
In the settling in visit conducted by the landlord on 16 March 2023, the resident reported the broken kitchen units and damp and mould in the property to the housing officer. The landlord attended to inspect the kitchen on 12 April 2023; 18 days after the resident raised the issue. This is in line with its repairs policy which says it would attend within 28 days.
When a resident reports damp and mould, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to take immediate action. However, the evidence shows that it did not schedule an appointment until 16 May 2023, 40 days after the housing officer had reported the issue. Although the landlord did not have a damp and mould policy at the time, the Ombudsman would still expect swift action. This would include discussing the nature and seriousness of the problem with the resident and considering any necessary temporary solutions. The landlord’s failure to do so demonstrated a disregard for the resident’s situation.
The evidence shows that the housing officer had told the resident to report these issues to its repairs team, yet there is no evidence that the resident did this. While the housing officer had assured the resident that it would raise the issue, the officer told the resident to also report the issues himself as per the tenancy agreement, which says a resident must report any disrepair or defect when it comes to their attention. However, there is no evidence to show that the resident did report these repairs. Residents have an obligation under their tenancy agreement to report all repairs to the landlord, not doing so could have denied the landlord to opportunity to resolve the issues.
On 11 April 2023, the resident cancelled the damp and mould inspection that the landlord had scheduled. Given that the resident advised everything was ok it was reasonable of the landlord to assume that the damp and mould was no longer an issue. If the damp and mould was still present, the resident should have reported that the issue had got worse, in line with his obligations under the tenancy agreement and explained that he was going to remove the kitchen himself. Not reporting this denied the landlord the opportunity to put things right for the resident. Furthermore, it denied the landlord to opportunity to explain the implications of the resident removing the kitchen himself.
The resident had removed the kitchen himself when the landlord visited to inspect the reported issues. When the surveyor attended, he confirmed he could see no evidence of damp and could not see why the resident had removed the kitchen. Furthermore, he said storing the kitchen outside had damaged the kitchen and was it therefore unusable. While the Ombudsman can understand that the resident took the action he did, doing so ultimately denied the landlord to opportunity to undertake an inspection of its own property. Given that an unreasonable amount of time had not passed since the resident had raised the issue with his housing officer, and the landlord had scheduled the repair in line with its repairs policy, it was appropriate for the landlord to therefore discuss recharging the resident for the kitchen.
Following this visit, the evidence shows the landlord sought internal clarification about the condition of the property prior to the resident moving in. The landlord looked at the photos of the property taken during the void period and discussed the details of the sign up visit with the housing support officer who had been present. The records show that the landlord was satisfied from the photos and the officer’s account that the kitchen was not in the condition described by the resident. While the Ombudsman appreciates that the resident disputes this, the landlord is entitled to rely on the information provided by its staff and the documentary evidence that it had.
Furthermore, throughout the duration of the complaint, the resident said that several members of staff had attended his property and told him that the kitchen needed replacing urgently. Following this, the landlord spoke to each member of staff who had spoken to the resident to learn if they could confirm the nature of any conversations they had and if there was evidence to support the resident’s position. It is also important to note that the resident himself said he had evidence to share to support his position which the landlord appropriately recommended that he send to them. The evidence also highlights that the landlord gave him the opportunity and time to send these in, but he declined. Doing this highlighted a commitment by the landlord to help the resident in finding a resolution.
Given that a joiner attended on 20 April 2023 to measure up for a new kitchen, it is not appropriate that the landlord did not raise the order for the new kitchen until mid-July 2023; 3 months after the landlord was aware that the resident was without a kitchen. During that time, that the landlord left the resident without a space to store food and essentials and had no area for food preparation. This is not appropriate. Regardless of how the resident arrived at having no kitchen, the landlord still had a duty of care to the resident and its delay in ordering the kitchen showed a disregard to situation the resident found himself in.
During that time, the resident had to chase the landlord for updates 6 times for an update. A landlord needs to ensure it has effective systems in place to ensure that it keeps residents up to date with outstanding repairs and that it returns a call to residents promptly after chasing a response. Not doing so caused the resident to spend time chasing a response.
The resident informed the landlord on 31 July 2023 that he had replaced the kitchen himself as he did not wish to pay the landlord for the replacement. In its fourth review of the complaint, the landlord appropriately agreed to attend to inspect the kitchen with a view to granting retrospective permission.
In this case, the landlord completed 4 complaint responses to the resident. Ordinarily, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to follow its Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out that a landlord should have a 2 stage complaint process before referring a resident to this Service. However, the landlord has provided evidence which shows that the resident requested the landlord to undertake 2 further reviews. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord did this and showed it was committed to helping resolve the outstanding issues for the resident.
In conclusion, when the resident initially contacted the landlord to ask for permission to renovate his property, the landlord missed an opportunity to seek clarity on the condition of the kitchen which caused a delay in the resident gaining a resolution. However, the resident did not then raise the issue until 6 weeks later when the landlord conducted a settling in visit. Following this, the landlord appropriately arranged for a contractor to attend to inspect the kitchen. It did delay unnecessarily, however, to inspect the damp and mould. However, when it attended, in line with its policy, the resident had already removed the kitchen and therefore denied the landlord the opportunity to inspect the kitchen properly and to consider reusing the units if possible. The landlord appropriately told the resident that he would now be liable for the cost of replacing the kitchen. However, it then delayed unnecessarily in raising the kitchen repairs and the resident had to spend time chasing the landlord for updates.
In its final review of the complaint, the landlord compensated the resident. Recognising that the resident was without a kitchen for an extended period, the landlord provided £633 for the loss of amenity over seven months, which was about a third of the resident’s total rent for that time. Additionally, the landlord offered £75 for poor communication and £400 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused. It was also appropriate for the landlord to further recognise the delays in its complaint handling and offer compensation to the resident of £150. The total amount awarded was proportionate to the failings shown by the landlord and highlighted in this investigation. Therefore, taking into account the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies, a finding of reasonable redress has been made.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its handling of the resident’s report that the property was not in a liveable standard when let.

Recommendation

The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress is based on the landlord’s compensation offer to the resident of £1258. Therefore, the landlord should pay this to the resident if it has not already done so.