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

Sanctuary Housing Association (202318899)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318899

Sanctuary Housing Association

24 January 2025


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:
    1. The resident’s reports of disrepair to the windows and kitchen worktop.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord with the tenancy beginning in July 2020. The property is a first–floor 1–bedroom flat. The landlord is aware that the resident has vulnerabilities in relation to mental health.
  2. On 2 June 2021, the resident reported that the windows were draughty and that he could see gaps to the outside. The landlord’s contractor attended the property on 19 July 2021 and could not gain access. The contractor “rang the resident and left a card” requesting he call for a new appointment.
  3. On 15 May 2023, the resident reported a repair in relation to draughty windows and damage to the kitchen worktop. The case notes show that the repair was raised by the landlord but cancelled on 17 May 2023 and sent to external contractors to attend.
  4. On 13 and 27 July 2023 contractors attended the property, but no access was provided by the resident. The visit was rescheduled for 21 August 2023. On 27 July 2023, the resident contacted the landlord explaining that his mental health was “poor” and that a private contractor had attended his property saying the property should be condemned. The case notes show that the landlord attempted to call the resident, but his phone was turned off.
  5. An inspection of the windows was carried out on 21 August 2023. The contractor’s notes said that the windows were draughty because “they had been neglected for so long”. It said that it would be sending a quote for any additional works that may be needed.
  6. On 29 August 2023, the resident made a stage 1 complaint. He said he was unhappy that he had been ignored for 3 years and was not getting a new kitchen. He said that he had spent £2,000 decorating upon moving into the property as the condition of the walls was so bad. He went on to say that the wooden windows were in disrepair, meaning an increase in electricity costs for him, and that the condition of the property was affecting his mental health.
  7. The landlord chased the contractor on 31 August 2023 in relation to the repairs. On 5 September 2023, the contractor said that it had attended the property, reporting that the kitchen worktop had water damage and would need replacing for which it would send over a quote.
  8. On 14 September 2023, the landlord contacted the resident. The case notes said that the resident was “quite upset” at the condition of his flat and wanted to be rehoused. He said that he would not let anyone in to do the repairs. The case notes noted that the landlord was awaiting a quote from the contractor regarding the windows and kitchen worktop. An internal email of 15 September 2023 said that the windows were not on that year’s (2023) replacement programme and “would be looked at for a future programme”.
  9. On 9 October 2023, the resident contacted the landlord asking to speak with a manager. The landlord advised him to speak with its complaints team. The resident then contacted the landlord on 11 and 12 October 2023 detailing the repair issues with the windows and kitchen and saying he “still [did] not want the work done”. He requested to escalate his complaint to stage 2.
  10. In October 2023, the following events took place:
    1. The landlord provided the resident with housing advice regarding moving.
    2. Following contact from the resident, the landlord chased the contractor for a quote for the window repair. The landlord noted that the resident was angry and “clearly suffering”.
    3. Internal emails were sent by the landlord saying that a “joined up approach” was needed to assist the resident.
  11. The resident contacted the landlord on 31 October, 1 and 8 November 2023. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 8 November 2023 outlining a timeline of events and when visits were made to the resident. It said it would contact the resident again once it had further information in relation to the window repairs.

Post internal complaints process (ICP)

  1. On 17 November 2023, the landlord contacted the resident and requested details of his support worker. The resident contacted the landlord 4 times between 20 November and 7 December 2023.
  2. On 7 December 2023, the landlord sent a follow–up response to its stage 2 response. It said that the windows would be repaired as part of its planned maintenance programme with the timescale unknown. It apologised to the resident for the inconvenience and offered him £375 compensation.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 10 and 11 December 2023. The landlord again asked for his support worker’s details and said that it would support him with his rehousing request. On 13 December 2023, the landlord revised its offer of compensation to £600. This was broken down into:
    1. Length of time the complaint had been open – £150
    2. Misinformation received from the contractor concerning windows which led to delays – £150
    3. Delay in providing a response at stage 2 – £150
    4. Further inconvenience caused by poor communication at stage 2 and delays in receiving contact from the housing team – £150
  4. The case notes show that the landlord attended the property on 15 January 2023, 21 February 2023, and 27 October 2024, but no access was provided. In September 2024, the landlord advised this Service that the windows were due for replacement within the next 12 months. It said that the resident had failed to provide evidence that his electricity costs had increased due to the window disrepair, and it would revisit this if evidence was provided. It also said that its contractor had attempted numerous times to complete the works required in the kitchen but was unable to gain access.
  5. During recent contact with the resident in January 2025, he advised that he will be moving out of the property soon. He also made reference to other repairs he had reported after this complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to the impact he felt the situation had on his health. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. This Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on the resident’s health and wellbeing. Such matters are best suited to investigation through the courts or a personal injury insurance claim.
  2. The resident said that he had spent £2,000 decorating upon moving into the property as the condition of the walls was so bad. While we do not dispute this, the Ombudsman encourages residents to raise unresolved complaints to this Service in a timely manner so that any service failure by the landlord can be addressed promptly. As issues become historical, evidence becomes difficult to obtain and authenticate. Therefore, this investigation will focus on the events surrounding the resident’s formal complaint in relation to the window and kitchen worktop repair.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of disrepair to the windows and kitchen worktop

  1. Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985) a landlord has a responsibility to carry out necessary repairs/works within a reasonable timeframe.
  2. The landlord’s repair handbook says that all appointed repairs will be carried out within 45 days and at the appointment time originally agreed with the resident, with an enhanced service of within 28 days for residents with vulnerability. Any planned repairs will be carried out as a programme of works. It goes on to say that if a resident reports a repair such as a damaged kitchen worktop, it will check to see if this is due to be replaced as part of a programme of works. If it is, the landlord may bring this work forward. If a repair is not urgent it may ask the affected resident to wait until the programmed works take place, as long as it is not causing them any serious inconvenience.
  3. The repair handbook also outlines the repair responsibilities for the landlord, which include:
    1. Damaged kitchen worktops
    2. Windows and glazing.
  4. The case notes show that the resident made the landlord aware of the disrepair to the windows on 2 June 2021. He said that they were draughty and gaps were visible to the outside. The repair log shows that an appointment was arranged for 19 July 2021, but access was not provided. This was 47 days later, and so slightly exceeded the maximum 45-day timescale set out within its repair policy (it is unclear if the landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities at this point in order to apply the 28-day timescale). This Service notes that in the landlord’s stage 1 response it said that appointments were made on 15 June 2021 (cancelled by the landlord due to sickness) and 24 June 2021 (no access provided by the resident). The repair log seen by this Service did not evidence that any appointments were scheduled for June 2021. This Service’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management says record keeping is a core function when providing a service. It says a landlord should keep a robust record of contacts, which is vital to provide an audit trail. It also helps this Service to understand the landlord’s actions and confirm that an action took place, yet the evidence has not been comprehensive in this case. Given the nature of the reports from the resident where “gaps were visible to the outside”, the landlord should have done more to investigate the issue (and documented that it did so) in 2021.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord on 15 May 2023 saying the kitchen worktop was damaged and the windows were draughty. The case notes show a works order was raised and then cancelled on 17 May 2023. Further entries for 13 and 27 July 2023 show that visits were attempted but no access was provided. While the case notes do not appear to specify why the works order was cancelled, it still took the landlord 59 working days to attend. This was 31 days outside of its 28–day policy timescale, and therefore not appropriate.
  6. The resident contacted the landlord on 29 July 2023 explaining that his mental health was “poor”, and he was in “distress”. The landlord attempted to contact the resident the same day, however the case notes say the phone was switched off. It was appropriate for the landlord to call the resident given his comments, and to ensure the appropriate level of support was being provided and any safeguarding issues were identified. Nevertheless, there was no evidence to suggest that any further follow–up calls were made, or referrals made to relevant agencies such as social services. This was not appropriate.
  7. A visit was carried out to the resident on 21 August 2023. The contractor’s notes said that the windows were draughty, having been “neglected for so long”, and needed replacing. The contractor said it would send a quote for the works needed. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 28 August 2023 highlighting the repair issues already raised, which he said had affected his mental health.
  8. Internal correspondence of 31 August 2023 shows that the landlord chased the repair with the contractor. A visit was carried out on 5 September 2023, with the case notes saying that the kitchen worktop needed replacing and the contractor was going to send a quote for the works. The landlord appropriately chased the contractor in relation to the works on 14 September 2023. Internal correspondence shows that the contractor said it would provide the necessary quotes on 19 and 27 September 2023. However, further internal correspondence showed that the landlord was still chasing the quote for the window repair on 17 October 2023. Ultimately, it is the landlord’s responsibility to ensure its repair obligations are met under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act. It is clear that the landlord was having difficulty obtaining the necessary quote in order to progress the repair. Therefore, the landlord should have taken steps to ensure that it maintained oversight of the actions of its contractor in relation to the repair and that it had access to the records of the actions taken by the contractor. This was not demonstrated in this case and was not appropriate.
  9. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 12 October 2023. It said that it had received the quote for the kitchen worktop repair, which would be escalated to be processed, and was waiting on the quote for the window repair. This was an appropriate response, as it kept the resident updated on the action it was taking in order to resolve his complaint. The landlord also explained to the resident that it needed confirmation from him that he wanted the works progressed having previously said that he would not provide access. This was reasonable given the resident had failed to previously provide access on 13 and 27 July 2023 and said on 14 September 2023 that he would not “let anyone” do the repairs.
  10. Nevertheless, it was clear that the resident was distressed from previous correspondence and the landlord had noted that he had “got quite upset” in a telephone call of 14 September 2023. It would have been good practice for the landlord to explore with the resident why he felt he could not provide access. This would have also provided the landlord with the opportunity to ensure the resident had the correct support and if any referrals to the relevant agencies were necessary. This was another missed opportunity by the landlord.
  11. It is noted that the landlord has since introduced a new “vulnerable customer” policy and procedure (in May 2024). Therefore, we have not ordered any learning in recognition that this has already been carried out by the landlord in implementing the policy and providing training for its staff.
  12. On 12 October 2023, the resident requested to escalate his complaint to stage 2. The case notes said that the resident became upset and said he “still did not want the work done”. On 16 October 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and outlined his “mental health struggle”. He said that the water heater only gave half a bath of hot water, the wooden window frames were not secure, and the kitchen worktop was damaged. Internal correspondence demonstrated that the landlord was sympathetic and understanding of the resident’s vulnerabilities. It identified the need for a “joined up approach and full understanding of everything” which was appropriate.
  13. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 8 November 2023. It said it would provide the resident with a further update once it had received the quote in relation to the window repair. While it was appropriate to update the resident that it was still awaiting the quote, it was unfair to the resident that he was still not provided with a resolution. The resident had reported the window repair in both June 2021 and May 2023. The landlord’s contractor identified on 21 August 2023 that the windows had been “neglected for so long”. Therefore, it was unreasonable that 2.5 months later the landlord was not in a position to provide the resident with a full response.
  14. On 17 November 2023, the landlord contacted the resident requesting contact details for his support worker. While this was an appropriate request, it was something that should have been investigated much earlier given the resident had said in July and August 2023 that he was in distress and the situation was affecting his mental health. Furthermore, the landlord acknowledged in September and October 2023 that the resident was upset and clearly suffering.
  15. The resident sent the landlord 4 emails between 20 November 2023 and 7 December 2023. These were not responded to until 7 December. This was not appropriate as the landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities and the need to contact his support worker.
  16. The landlord sent a further stage 2 response on 7 December 2023. It clarified that the windows would be repaired under its planned maintenance programme and apologised for any inconvenience caused to the resident. It offered him a total of £225 compensation. This was broken down into £150 for the length of time the complaint had been ongoing for, and £75 for the misinformation in relation to the window repair – that being that the windows would be repaired as a planned programme of works, rather than a routine repair. The landlord sent another response on 13 December 2023 revising its offer of compensation to £300. This was broken down into £150 for the length of time the complaint had been ongoing for and £150 for the misinformation in relation to the window repair. While it was resolution focused for the landlord to offer the resident compensation, this was not sufficient to reflect the impact on him over the 2.5 year period. Furthermore, it did not go far enough to provide him with a resolution. It had initially said that it was going to repair the kitchen worktop and windows, then advised him it would form part of a programme of works. This was unfair to the resident.
  17. While the landlord’s policy says some planned repairs will be carried out as a programme of works, it also says that it may bring works forward. If a repair is not urgent, it may ask residents to wait until the programmed works take place, as long as it is not causing them any serious inconvenience. There is no evidence that the resident was asked if he could wait for the programmed works to start, and it was clear that the situation was causing him serious inconvenience. Therefore, the landlord’s course of action was not appropriate and contrary to its policy.
  18. Overall, the landlord was not proactive in completing the window and kitchen worktop repairs. The resident made the landlord aware of the draughty windows in 2021, and although the landlord attended to this promptly without access being provided, it did not evidence that any further attempts were made until the resident made further reports, including the kitchen worktop disrepair in 2023. Its contractor noted in August 2023 that the windows were draughty having been “neglected for so long”. This made it particularly important to carry out any necessary repair in order to meet its obligation under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act. It was not reasonable to expect the resident to wait for the programme of works before any repair was started. It had been evidenced that he had already been waiting 2.5 years for any works to be carried out.
  19. It is clear that the landlord faced difficulties in both gaining access to the property and obtaining updates from its contractor. Nevertheless, this did not negate its repair obligations. The landlord had ultimate responsibility to ensure any necessary repairs were carried out. Furthermore, it should have recognised the resident’s need for support and taken action sooner to support him or ensured he was being supported. Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of disrepair to the windows and kitchen worktop. A finding of severe maladministration has been prevented by the positive action taken by the landlord at various points, together with the mitigating circumstances in the case.
  20. The landlord’s compensation policy says payments of up to £400 may be made in recognition of inconvenience of a service failure where there has been a high effort and high impact on a resident. However, this is not considered sufficient to reflect the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident over a prolonged period of time. Therefore, given the above, the Ombudsman has awarded compensation to put things right for the resident based on the information seen. Our order includes a rent related element with an approximate calculation based on 10% for the period from June 2021 to May 2023, and 15% for the period from May 2023 to December 2023. This reflects the fact that there were 2 repair issues from May 2023, and from around that point, the landlord was also aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities. The rent figures have been used as a guideline only and are not intended to amount to an exact refund. As a result, a total of £1,400 has been awarded to reflect the impact on the resident.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2–stage complaint process. Its complaints policy allows 10 working days for a stage 1 complaint response, and 20 working days for a stage 2 response.
  2. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 29 August 2023. The landlord responded on 12 October 2023, which was not appropriate. This was 32 working days later and 22 working days outside of its policy timescale.
  3. The resident requested to escalate his complaint to stage 2 on 12 October 2023. The landlord responded on 8 November 2023, which was appropriate and in line with its policy timescale. It outlined a timeline of events and headed each complaint response. This made the response clear and easy to follow. The landlord then sent a further response on 7 December 2023 offering the resident £150 for its delayed response at stage 2. This was confusing as the stage 2 response appeared to have been sent within its policy timescale. The offer of £150 was sufficient to put things right in relation to the delayed stage 1 response, although this failure was not specifically acknowledged.
  4. The landlord sent a third response on 13 December 2023, increasing its offer of compensation by £150 for its poor communication at stage 2 and bringing the total to £300. This exceeded the maximum amount of £250 for poor complaint handling set out in the landlord’s compensation policy. While this was an appropriate use of discretion to reflect the communication failures in the case, it was not appropriate for the landlord to send a further 2 responses after its stage 2 reply. This was contrary to its policy, which provides for a 2–stage process. It also demonstrated that the landlord did not initially fully investigate the matter, which was evidently frustrating for the resident.
  5. In summary, the landlord did not adhere to its complaints policy timescale at stage 2. It sent further responses after stage 2 on 7 and 13 December 2023, indicating that more than 2 complaint responses were provided, contrary to the published policy. Its offers of compensation were sent after its initial stage 2 response of 8 November 2023. While the offer of compensation was a positive step to put things right, it cannot be considered reasonable redress. This is because the offers were made after the resident had exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. For the reasons set out above, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. The compensation offer of £300 was, however, reasonable, and this Service has not made a further order for compensation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of disrepair to the windows and kitchen worktop.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to take the following action and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report, in line with this Service’s apologies guidance.
    2. Pay directly to the resident compensation totalling £1,700, made up of:
      1. £1,400 for his loss of enjoyment of the property and the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble he experienced in relation to the disrepair to the windows and kitchen worktop.
      2. £300 already offered to him for its delays and poor communication in relation to complaint handling.
      3. This can be reduced by any amount already paid.
    3. Contact the resident to ascertain if there are any other disrepair issues within the property. It should then address any outstanding repairs in line with its policy.
  2. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord familiarises itself with this Service’s spotlight reports on complaints about repairs and knowledge and information management (KIM). It should consider self-assessing against these reports, if it has not done so recently, and any training needs of its staff in these areas.