Sanctuary Housing Association (202310266)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202310266

Sanctuary Housing Association

30 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 handling of:
1. A boiler replacement.
2. Issues with the resident’s electricity supply.
3. A leak through the resident’s living room ceiling.
4. The resident’s associated complaint.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy for a 1 bed flat, which is situated within a block of flats.
The landlord is a housing association. It is aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities.
On 19 December 2022 the resident told the landlord water was leaking through her living room ceiling. On 23 December 2022 the resident contacted the fire brigade who located the cause of the leak and stopped it. The landlord attended the resident’s property on 20 January 2022 to assess what repairs were needed and booked an appointment to carry out the repairs on 8 March 2023. The resident states the operator attended the appointment on 8 March 2023, however, she had already paid to have the ceiling replastered and painted before this date.
The landlord completed an annual gas safety check at the resident’s property on 13 February 2023. The boiler was condemned, and a replacement needed. The landlord fitted a new boiler on 22 March 2023. However, the installer found a gas leak in the pipework. The gas leak was resolved on 23 March 2023 and pipework repaired on 27 March 2023.
On 28 February 2023 the resident told the landlord there was a fault with her electricity meter. The electric company and the landlord restored the electricity to the block of flats on 28 February 2023. However, the resident’s electricity was not restored until 1 March 2023 as her electricity supplier needed to replace her meter.
On 27 March 2023 the resident made a complaint to the landlord. She said:
1. She had no heating or hot water for 6 weeks in winter due to the delays in her boiler being replaced.
2. Her mental health had been affected, she asked for the wellbeing team to contact her that day and no one had.
3. Her television screen had not worked since the power cut.
4. She had a water leak through her living room ceiling for 5 days. She paid for her ceiling to be repaired and redecorated herself as she could not wait until 8 March 2023 for the landlord to do it.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 18 April 2023. It partially upheld the complaint. In its response it:
1. Said there were delays in replacing the resident’s boiler due to it needing to obtain an asbestos survey and due to contractor availability.
2. Confirmed the wellbeing team had made a payment to the resident for the cost of running temporary heaters.
3. Apologised that it did not check whether her electricity had been restored after the power cut on its initial visit.
4. Acknowledged the resident had to call fire brigade to get the leak stopped, however, it said it did not have authority to enter a property without warning. It apologised for the delay in booking in the repairs to rectify the damage caused by the leak.
5. Offered the resident £358 compensation. Which was broken down as:
  1. £100 for the inconvenience caused.
  2. £258 for the loss of facilities.
The resident escalated her complaint on 2 May 2023. On 16 May 2023 she told the landlord she wanted £1995 compensation for the loss of heating and hot water for 6 weeks, the loss of electricity for 36 hours, and for the water leak and the damage it caused to her ceiling, walls and flooring.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 7 June 2023. It partially upheld the complaint. In its response it:
1. Apologised for the delay with its stage 1 complaint response.
2. Said it would not reimburse the resident for works she arranged to repair her living room ceiling. It had the works scheduled in following the drying out period. It asked the resident to provide evidence that the leak damaged her flooring.
3. Said it would not consider the damage to her television screen following the power cut, unless the resident provided it with an electrical report.
4. Acknowledged and apologised for its communication and the delays with replacing the boiler.
5. Said the resident had already received a payment for the electricity costs for running the temporary heaters. Although the resident claimed she was also without hot water, its records showed she told it she had an immersion heater as a back–up for hot water.
6. Appreciated the inconvenience caused by not having electricity for 24 hours, however, this was an exceptional case, and it resolved the issue within its timescales. It did not uphold this aspect of the resident’s complaint.
7. Upheld the resident’s complaint about the delay in its stage 1 complaint response, and its delay in replacing the boiler and carrying out the repair to the ceiling.
8. Offered a revised compensation payment of £600. It said it had rounded up the total, but it included:
  1. £25 for the delay in its complaint response.
  2. £258 for the loss of facilities.
  3. £100 for the time, trouble and inconvenience due to the delay in repairing the ceiling.
  4. £200 for the time, trouble and inconvenience due to the delay in replacing the boiler.
The resident approached the Ombudsman as she was unhappy with the amount of compensation the landlord offered.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health or wellbeing. Whilst the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s claims that the landlord’s handling of repairs had a negative impact on her health and wellbeing. These matters are better suited to be considered by a court or via a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

The landlord’s obligations

The landlord has a statutory duty under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, as well as the installation and supply of water, gas, and electricity. It is obliged to complete repairs within a reasonable timeframe.
The landlord’s repairs policy states it will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours, and non-emergency repairs with 28 calendar days. The policy states it will treat water leaks coming through the ceiling and heating repairs during winter as emergency repairs.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. Its complaint’s policy states it will acknowledge a complaint within 3 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation procedure states the landlord will pay:
1. Up to £75 for poor complaints handling, where there is a delay in responding to an issue without updating the resident.
2. £3 per day for the loss of heating and hot water.
3. £5 per day for temporary heating.
4. General compensation at amounts between £50 and £400.

The landlord’s handling of the boiler replacement

The landlord carried out its annual gas safety check on 13 February 2023. The boiler was condemned, and it notified the resident she would need a replacement boiler the same day. The landlord replaced the boiler on 22 March 2023, this was 37 calendar days later, which was outside its 28-calendar day target timescale for non-emergency repairs.
The landlord acted appropriately by responding to the gas leak in the pipework as an emergency repair and stopped the gas leak within 24 hours. It repaired the pipework on 27 March 2023, which was within its target timescale of 28 calendar days for non-emergency repairs.
The landlord said in its stage 1 complaint response that the delays were because it needed to obtain an asbestos survey and due to its contractor’s availability. The landlord’s records show that an asbestos survey was carried out on 22 February 2023, this was 8 working days after the landlord became aware the boiler needed replacing. The landlord received the asbestos survey from the surveyor on 28 February 2023, and on the same day it instructed its contractor to install the new boiler. The landlord acted reasonably by obtaining the asbestos survey and instructing its contractor within a reasonable timescale.
The contractual obligation remains between the landlord and the resident. The landlord was therefore responsible for updating the resident, setting expectations of when visits would take place, and notifying the resident if delays were expected. The evidence shows the landlord did do this. Its records show it regularly chased the contractor for updates, asked it to bring appointment dates forward, and made sure the contractor was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities. The landlord acted appropriately by taking a pro-active approach to the repair.
Although the resident did chase updates, the landlord communicated well with the resident throughout the repair process. The landlord always responded to the resident within a reasonable timeframe, it kept her updated and managed her expectations well.
The landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities.Her vulnerabilities were relevant factors to inform the nature, tone, and communication of the landlord’s handling of the repairs. The landlord acted reasonably by making a referral to its wellbeing team as soon as it became aware that the boiler needed replacing. The wellbeing team contacted the resident on 16 February 2023 and agreed a communication and action plan with the resident.
The landlord acted appropriately by considering what interim measures could be put in place as soon as it was made aware the boiler was condemned. It provided 3 temporary heaters for the resident on 14 February 2023. The resident notified the landlord she was struggling to afford the cost of the heaters on 23 February 2023. It made a payment of £210 to her the next day, which was broken down as £15 per day from 14 February to 27 February 2024. This was more than the amount set out in its compensation policy. This was evidence that the landlord was considerate of the resident’s vulnerabilities and was customer focused.
Although the landlord’s records do not show it discussed a decant with the resident, in the resident’s complaint dated 27 March 2023 she said her housing officer offered her a decant on 13 March 2023, but she refused this as she did not want to leave her pet. Although this was 1 month after the resident’s boiler was condemned, the landlord’s records show prior to this it thought the resident was using an immersion heater for hot water. The landlord acted appropriately given its understanding of the situation.
As part of this investigation the landlord informed the Ombudsman that the resident does not have an immersion heater. On 23 February 2023 the landlord recorded a phone call with the resident which said she was struggling to afford the cost of using an immersion heater. This seems to have been an administrative error. Unfortunately, this resulted in the landlord assuming the resident had hot water when she did not, and therefore it failed to provide adequate support or interim measures at the earliest opportunity. This was a record keeping failure which resulted in significant distress and inconvenience to the resident.
In summary there was a delay in the landlord installing a new boiler, however, the evidence shows it acted proactively in trying to resolve the repair. It communicated well with all parties throughout the repairs process and considered the resident’s vulnerabilities and what interim measures it could take. However, due to poor record keeping the landlord was unaware the resident did not have access to hot water and therefore failed to initially offer adequate support and interim measures. It also failed to identify this failing in its complaint responses and therefore its redress did not reflect the impact the delay to the boiler replacement had on the resident.
The landlord offered the resident £458 compensation in its stage 2 response for the loss of facilities and the time, trouble and inconvenience caused due to the delay in replacing the boiler. It also paid the resident £615 for the cost of running temporary heaters. This amount of compensation is above what the landlord’s compensation procedure states it will offer and is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance. However, the landlord failed to fully investigate the lack of hot water and did not consider redress for the distress and inconvenience this caused the resident.
Based on the above, the Ombudsman finds service failure for the landlord’s handling of the boiler replacement.

The landlord’s handling of issues with the resident’s electricity supply

The resident reported a fault with her electricity meter to the landlord on 28 February 2023. The landlord acted appropriately by treating this report as an emergency repair and attended the property within its 24-hour target response timescale. The electricity company attended initially and disconnected the electricity to the block of flats, after the landlord had repaired the fault, the electricity company attended on the evening of 28 February 2023 and restored the electricity to the block of flats.
The resident’s electricity could not be restored as her electricity supplier needed to install a new electricity meter. The resident’s electricity was restored on 1 March 2023. The landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities and that she had no boiler at this time, however, there was no evidence that it considered offering her a decant or any support. This was a significant failing.
The resident told the landlord that the power cut had broken her television screen and asked for it to compensate her for this. The landlord acted appropriately by asking for evidence that the television screen had broken before considering whether it would offer compensation. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence the resident provided this to the landlord.
In summary the landlord took action within the agreed timescales set out in its repairs policy. The landlord was not responsible for the delay in the resident’s electricity being restored, however, there was no evidence it considered the resident’s vulnerabilities and what support she might need. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord apologised for not contacting her to check her electricity had been restored at the initial appointment, and for any inconvenience caused. The Ombudsman feels this does not reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
Based on the above, the Ombudsman finds service failure for the landlord’s handling of issues with the resident’s electricity supply.

The landlord’s handling of a leak through the resident’s living room ceiling

The resident reported a leak coming through her living room ceiling to the landlord on 18 December 2022. The landlord acted appropriately by treating this report as an emergency repair and attending the property within its 24-hour target response timescale. However, it could not gain access to the flat above to investigate the cause of the leak.
The landlord told the resident it did not have permission to access the neighbour’s property to investigate the leak or carry out repairs. The landlord’s records show it attempted to contact the neighbour several times between 18 and 21 December 2022. On 21 December 2022 the landlord told the resident it had not been successful in speaking to her neighbour and she would need to contact the fire brigade. This was not resident focused. The Ombudsman would have expected to see the landlord liaise with the fire brigade to comply with its repairing obligations.
There was a lack of communication with the resident towards the end of December 2022. There was no evidence the landlord investigated the leak, contacted the resident to ask if the leak had been resolved, or discussed the damage caused by the leak and its repairing obligations. While it is recognised that the Christmas period may have caused some delays, the landlord was aware the resident’s living room ceiling had been damaged by the leak and the impact this was having on her. This resulted in the resident reporting the damage to the landlord on 3 January 2023. The landlord acted unreasonably by failing to communicate effectively with the resident and by failing to be pro-active in resolving the repair.
The landlord arranged a visit to assess the damage on 20 January 2023. This was 34 calendar days after the resident first reported the leak. The resident told the landlord on 3 January 2023 that there were holes in her ceiling, there was no evidence the landlord considered any risks or whether this should be treated as an emergency repair. There is no evidence the landlord considered if any interim measures, such as temporary repairs to make the ceiling safe and/or dehumidifiers, could be put in place whilst the resident waited for the landlord to inspect the damage.
The landlord arranged an appointment to carry out repair works to the resident’s ceiling for 8 March 2023. This would have left the resident without full use of her living room for 81 calendar days. The landlord acted inappropriately by failing to take steps within a reasonable period to restore the property to the condition it was in before the leak occurred.
The landlord acted appropriately by asking the resident to provide evidence that the leak damaged her flooring so it could assess its repairing obligations. The resident also asked the landlord to reimburse her for the cost of the repair works she arranged herself. It would be unfair for the Ombudsman to order the landlord to pay for works the resident had completed herself, as the landlord had agreed to do these works itself. However, we can consider the overall distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the leak and whether it offered the resident suitable redress.
In summary the landlord inspected the leak within its agreed timescales, however, it failed to take appropriate action to investigate and resolve the leak. There was evidence of poor communication and there was a delay in it inspecting the damage from the leak and arranging repairs. The landlord apologised for its failings and offered the resident £100 compensation for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused due to the delay in repairing the ceiling. The resident did not have full use of her living room for a long period of time, she had to take action herself to stop the leak and had to chase the landlord to carry out repairs. Due to this the Ombudsman considers the compensation offered was not in line with the landlord’s compensation procedure for a situation that caused the resident significant time, trouble, stress and inconvenience.
Based on the above, the Ombudsman finds service failure for the landlord’s handling of a leak through the resident’s ceiling.

The landlord’s handling of resident’s associated complaint.

The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 27 March 2023. The landlord acknowledged this on 28 March 2023, which was within its target response timescale of 3 working days. There was no evidence the landlord contacted the resident to discuss the complaint.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 18 April 2023, this was outside its target response timescale of 10 working days. The landlord failed to contact the resident to extend the deadline, however, there was no evidence the short delay caused the resident any inconvenience, time, or trouble.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 2 May 2024. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s email on 4 May 2023, which was within its target timescale of 3 working days. It asked the resident to provide details on why she was not happy with the stage 1 response so it could escalate the complaint. The landlord acted appropriately by escalating the complaint to stage 2 on 9 May 2024, despite the fact the resident did not respond.
The landlord acted appropriately by contacted the resident to discuss a resolution to the complaint before providing its stage 2 response. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 7 June 2023, this was within its 20–working day target response timescale.
Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case the landlord failed to contact the resident to discuss the complaint at stage 1 and there was a short delay in it providing its stage 1 response. However, the landlord showed learning as it improved its communication with the resident and took action to put things right. In its stage 2 complaint response it apologised and offered £25 compensation for its complaint handling failures. This was in line with its compensation procedure and the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance.
Based on the above, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the boiler replacement.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of issues with the resident’s electricity supply.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of a leak through the resident’s living room ceiling.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failures identified during this investigation.
2. The landlord must pay the resident £350 in addition to the £600 previously offered by the landlord in its stage 2 response. This is broken down as:
  1. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of the boiler replacement.
  2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of issues with the resident’s electricity supply.
  3. £150 compensation for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident by its handling of the leak through the resident’s living room ceiling.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must carry out a case review of the failings identified in this investigation, in relation to its practices and procedures when a resident reports a leak from a neighbouring property. The review should consider but is not limited to: what actions it should take when access is not permitted to the neighbouring property, its staff training needs, and its record keeping practices. A copy of the review should be provided to the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

If the landlord has not already paid the £600 compensation offered to the resident in its stage 2 complaints response, it should consider re-offering this amount to the resident.