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

Sanctuary Housing Association (202337287)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202337287

Sanctuary Housing Association

23 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Report of a leak into the property and associated communication.
    2. Associated formal complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is the leaseholder of the property, a first floor flat in a block owned by the landlord. He lives with his wife and children.
  2. The resident reported a leak from the flat above his to the landlord in May 2019. It repaired this leak, and the next report of a leak was on 11 September 2023, when he reported a new leak into his bathroom ceiling from the flat above.
  3. On 16 October 2023, the resident complained to the landlord as it had provided no updates following his report of a leak. He wished to claim on its insurance to get repairs completed but it had not contacted him to confirm whether it had fixed the leak. He reported that his bathroom ceiling was becoming mouldy, and electrics had been exposed to water.
  4. The landlord responded to the resident at stage 1 of its complaints process on 22 November 2023. It stated that it could not provide him with details of the repair due to data protection, but that it could assure him that it was dealing with the leak. It advised that it had attended within its published timescales. It asked its homeownership team to call him and discuss his insurance request. It offered compensation of £25 for its delayed complaint response.
  5. The resident requested escalation of his complaint to the landlord on 22 November 2023. He stated that it had not provided him with the requested insurance information or communicated with him about progress. In a further email on 1 December 2023, he said that he just needed confirmation that it had completed works. He had found the insurance information himself and was requesting that the landlord pay the policy excess of £250.
  6. The landlord provided the resident with its stage 2 complaint response on 27 February 2024. It apologised for its delayed complaint response and its failure to escalate the complaint after his request on 22 November 2023. It apologised for having unclear records of his reports and for not providing him with information on whether it had resolved the leak. It confirmed that it had arranged works in the flat above for completion on 8 March 2024. It offered compensation totalling £1,650, broken down as follows:
    1. £400 for delays in its complaint handling at stage 1.
    2. £100 for its delayed stage 2 response.
    3. £400 for unclear record keeping and a failure to keep the resident updated with the repair, including time, trouble, and inconvenience caused to him by having to chase it for updates.
    4. £250 for reimbursement of the insurance excess.
    5. £400 for the loss of enjoyment of his home.
    6. £100 for the future impact of the matter up to 8 March 2024.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and its offer of compensation and brought his complaint to this Service for investigation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident submitted an insurance claim for damage to his property from the leak. The landlord’s insurance company settled this with him at a value of £1,200 (minus the £250 excess paid). The Ombudsman is unable to comment on the outcome of the insurance claim as under paragraph 41.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), this Service can only consider the actions of the landlord as a member of the Scheme, and the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over its insurers.
  2. The resident has referred to issues occurring in the property in both 2019 and 2021, however, this report has only assessed issues occurring since September 2023. Paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme states that ‘the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which, in his opinion were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising.’ In accordance with the above paragraph, this Service cannot consider the previous incidents in assessing the landlord’s handling of the present case as these have become historical and cannot reasonably be investigated at this time. Any mention of past events in this report would be solely for contextual purposes.

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance procedure from September 2023 states that it would class any water leak coming through the ceiling as an emergency repair. Its response to emergency repairs is to attend and make the property safe within 24 hours. At the discretion of its directors, the landlord may need to access a property to make safe a repair that poses an immediate threat to residents in neighbouring properties or of substantial damage to their properties. A second appointment may be required to complete remedial works after emergency attendance.
  2. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints procedure. It aims to acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 3 working days of receipt and to respond within 10 working days. It aims to respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of an escalation request.
  3. In its compensation guidance, the landlord states that when a service failure has occurred, it may make payments of up to £400 in recognition of time, trouble, and inconvenience. It may offer payments of up to £250 for complaint handling failures. The guidance confirms that these payments also apply to homeowners.

Reports of a leak

  1. The landlord did not dispute that there were failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak into the property, its record keeping, and its communication with him. While it failed to provide the resident with any useful information at stage1, in its stage 2 complaint response it stated that the records it held were unclear and that it should have provided him with more information relating to repairs at stage 1 and apologised for this. It stated that the length of time it had taken to complete the repair and the communication it had provided was not to the standard that it would expect.
  2. Where there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, this Service will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, this Service considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles, which are to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  3. The resident stated that he reported the leak into his property from the flat above to the landlord on 11 September 2023. However, it holds no record of this report. He further reported it as part of his complaint on 16 October 2023, in which he reported that his bathroom light had filled with water, the bathroom ceiling had become mouldy, and that he had received no communication from it about the ongoing leak. There is no evidence that it communicated with him about this ahead of providing its stage 1 complaint response. In the response it offered no information on timescales of repairs, stating it was unable to do this because of data protection. It also did not provide details of its insurance company as he had requested. It failed to recognise that it could have provided further information while remaining compliant with data protection legislation.
  4. The landlord advised its insurer that it had attended and completed all repairs in the flat above on 27 November 2023, but no evidence of its attendance and the repairs it completed has been provided to this Service. The resident reported that the leak remained ongoing on 24 December 2023 and again on 12 and 17 January 2024. Despite attempting to bring further repairs forward, it was unable to do so due to the work commitments of its tenant. It did complete some repairs on 8 March 2024 as promised but it had far exceeded the timescales set out in its repairs and maintenance policy.
  5. As previously stated, the landlord acknowledged the failings in its handling of the leak and communication with the resident. It offered apologies for its poor record keeping, the length of time taken to complete the repairs and for its poor communication. It stated that it had discussed the findings with its property services team to remind them of the importance of completing repairs within satisfactory timescales and updating its customers. It confirmed that it had planned works to prevent the leak from reoccurring. It offered a total of £1,650 compensation, £1,150 of which related directly to its handling of the leak as previously detailed in the background section of this report.
  6. The remedies offered as part of the landlord’s stage 2 response were fair and appropriate in the circumstances. It offered reimbursement of the insurance excess, which it was not obliged to do, and this demonstrated good practice in attempting to put things right. The compensation offered was in line with its compensation policy and the remedies guidance published by the Ombudsman. Its confirmation of providing guidance to its property services team showed a willingness to learn from the failures in this case.
  7. In conclusion, while there were clear and obvious failings in the landlord’s handling of the leak and its associated communication with the resident, the redress offered as part of its stage 2 complaint response was reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances of the case. It acknowledged where it had failed and demonstrated a good approach to redress, in line with the dispute resolution principles.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord has also not disputed that there were failings in its complaint handling. It provided a stage 1 complaint response 27 working days after receiving the resident’s complaint, which exceeded its policy timescale of a 10-working day response. It then provided its stage 2 response 66 working days after his escalation request, which also exceeded its policy timescale of a 20-working day response for stage 2 complaints.
  2. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord offered £25 compensation and apologised for its delayed response. At stage 2, it increased this offer to £400 for its handling of the complaint at stage 1, along with the delay in escalating his complaint to stage 2. It offered a further £100 for its delayed stage 2 response. Its total offer of £500 compensation for complaint handling exceeded its own compensation guidance and was appropriate in the circumstances.
  3. The landlord’s apologies and compensation demonstrated good adherence to the dispute resolution principles. It acknowledged that its complaint handling had fallen below its expected standards and offered the resident appropriate redress for this. As such, a finding of reasonable redress is appropriate for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the complainant, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaints about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Report of a leak into the property and associated communication.
    2. Associated formal complaint.

Recommendations

  1. This Service recommends that the landlord pay the resident the compensation amount of £1650 offered as part of its stage 2 complaint response if it has not done so already. The offer recognised genuine elements of service failure, and the sufficient redress finding is made on that basis.