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

Sage Rented Limited (SRL) (202311732)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311732

Sage Rental Limited

28 April 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 the impacts on the resident of leaks at the property.
  2. The Ombudsman will also investigate the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident lives in the property, owned by the landlord, under an assured tenancy. The property has 2 bedrooms and the resident lives there with her 2 children. At the time of the events complained about the landlord employed the services of a managing agent to manage the property.
  2. On 7 January 2023, the resident reported an uncontainable leak at the property. The landlord authorised a decant the same day and she was decanted on 8 January. A decant is where a landlord temporarily moves a resident from their home to alternative accommodation while undertaking work at the property.
  3. On 9 January, the resident raised a complaint, saying the leak had caused damage to her furniture and flooring. There was a further leak on 14 January 2023 and the resident was decanted again.
  4. The managing agent sent a stage 1 complaint response on 10 May 2023. It apologised and offered £200 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused. The landlord sent its own stage 1 response on 12 May, in which it said:
    1. it had received a list of the resident’s damaged items on 30 January and sought legal advice before contacting its insurer in March to start the claims process
    2. it had awarded her a £60 grocery voucher to recognise the financial impact of the decant
    3. it had paused action in relation to rent arrears until the insurer completed the claim – it understood she had now accepted an amount to settle the claim, covering personal items and utility bills for drying out the home
    4. it acknowledged she had to contact the landlord repeatedly for updates, it did not escalate outstanding repairs in a timely manner and delayed the start of the claims process
    5. it offered compensation of £450, broken down as follows:
      1. £50 for its delayed complaint response
      2. £200 for the delay in raising an insurance claim
      3. £150 for distress and inconvenience
      4. £50 for the time and trouble in relation to her having to chase for updates
  5. On 22 May 2023, the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated. She was unhappy that she had to continue paying rent while decanted as she said her rent was for the specific property and not for a hotel.
  6. On 20 June 2023, the managing agent offered to increase its compensation offer to £500. The resident asked for it to be increased to £700, which it accepted.
  7. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 30 June 2023. It explained that the insurance claim was separate from its compensation offer and related to damaged items, not rent. It acknowledged it had previously said it would consider a rent reduction and failed to do so. It explained that during a decant residents are still expected to pay rent. It could not agree a reduction in rent as that was not in line with its policy. However, it offered additional compensation of £100 to recognise its failure to explain this in a timely manner.
  8. The managing agent sent its stage 2 response on 4 July 2023, in which it confirmed that it had already agreed compensation of £700 with the resident to recognise its failings.
  9. On 26 July 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm its position across both complaints. It confirmed that the managing agent had offered compensation of £700. It said it had increased its offer to £750, bringing the total compensation of £1,450, broken down as follows:
    1. £700 for the managing agent’s failings
    2. £50 for its delayed complaint response
    3. £200 for the delay in raising an insurance claim
    4. £350 for distress and inconvenience
    5. £50 for the time and trouble in relation to her having to chase for updates
    6. £100 for its failure to address the rent reduction request in a timely manner
  10. The resident contacted us on 27 September 2023 and asked us to investigate the complaint. She said it was unreasonable for the landlord to expect her to pay rent for a property that was uninhabitable.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident has told us that she incurred additional costs, such as increased water and electricity bills, because of the leaks. The landlord’s records show these matters were considered by its insurer as part of an insurance claim, which it settled. Insurance companies do not come under the jurisdiction of this Service, and as such, this investigation has not considered the actions of the insurer or the outcome of the claim.

Leaks

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy says it aims to attend and make safe emergency repairs, such as flooding, within 24 hours of them being reported. It aims to deal with routine repairs within 20 business days of them being reported.
  2. The landlord’s emergency accommodation and decant policy says:
    1. a decant will not affect other outstanding tenancy issues such as arrears
    2. the landlord will pay the cost of the decant
    3. it will arrange hotel or B&B arrangements for the resident
    4. the policy does not say that residents are not required to pay rent while decanted
  3. The policy is silent in relation to rent being payable during a decant. We have therefore assessed the landlord’s actions on the basis of reasonableness, and whether it acted in a manner that was fair in all circumstances. The Ombudsman’s guidance on landlord’s expectations for decants says that residents must be informed about the costs for which they are responsible, including rent for their main residence or temporary accommodation.
  4. The resident reported an uncontainable leak to the landlord on 7 January 2023. She said she had attempted to isolate it using the stopcock but this had not worked. The landlord attended within 24 hours in line with its policy and authorised a decant the same day, which was reasonable. The landlord was unable to make direct contact with the resident that day. It left a voicemail and she was decanted the following day.
  5. The resident moved back into the property on 10 January 2023, however there was a further leak on 14 January and she was decanted again. She told the managing agent she was unhappy with the hotel provided, however it explained that it was close by and housed pets. It is not clear from the records at that time whether the resident had explained why she was unhappy with the hotel. On 16 January, the resident said she had been told she needed to be out by 11am and had nowhere to go. The managing agent extended the booking and on 19 January she was moved to an apartment.
  6. On 23 January 2023, the resident was told she would need to move from this apartment because it did not accept dogs, despite the managing agent being aware she had a dog. It was not appropriate that it had not ensured the property was suitable for the resident. On 25 January she was moved to a dog friendly apartment. She remained in this property until 16 February, when she was able to return home.
  7. The resident works from home and told the landlord that this was made difficult by the uncertainty of the decant, sometimes having to work from her car. She told us that she repeatedly came back to the decant property to find her belongings in bags at the reception as the managing agent had failed to extend the booking. It is clear from the managing agent’s records, detailed above, that the decant was not handled appropriately, causing additional distress and inconvenience for the resident.
  8. The resident provided the landlord with a list of her damaged items on 30 January 2023. On 16 February she contacted the landlord following receipt of a letter about possession action. The landlord told her she should continue to pay rent while the complaint was ongoing, as court action may be taken. She said she did not feel this was reasonable as her rent was for a home not a ‘dirty hotel.’ She provided photos at this time to demonstrate the dirty conditions she referred to. As she had already moved back to her main residence, there was little the landlord could do about the hotel conditions at this time.
  9. The landlord’s internal records show that although it did not intend to make a credit to the resident’s rent account, it put arrears action on hold while the complaint was going. This was a reasonable step for it to take. It referred her to its Financial Wellbeing team on 17 March 2023. This team offered to support her in applying for charitable grants to replace her white goods, which she declined. On 11 April it provided a £60 supermarket voucher. These were reasonable actions for the landlord to take, however it could have offered this support sooner.
  10. On 20 March 2023, the resident contacted the landlord asking for an update. She said that some repairs to the kitchen remained outstanding. On 27 March she told the landlord she had been over the damaged items list with it on many occasions. On 31 March, the landlord confirmed it had now submitted the claim to its insurers. This was 2 months after she had provided the list, which was an unreasonable delay.
  11. On 10 May 2023, the managing agent sent its stage 1 response in which it acknowledged it had mistakenly booked her into an apartment which did not allowed dogs, and it apologised for this. It also apologised for the cleanliness issues she had faced with the hotel. It offered £200 compensation for any distress and inconvenience caused.
  12. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 12 May 2023 in which it acknowledged that the resident had to repeatedly chase it for updates and it had delayed the start of the claims process. It said that the outstanding kitchen repairs had been completed on 29 March and the resident had now accepted a claim settlement amount from its insurer. It offered £450 compensation to recognise its delayed complaint response, delay to the claims process and for distress, inconvenience, and her time.
  13. On 20 June 2023, the managing agent offered to increase its compensation to £500. The resident was unhappy with this, but said she would accept £700. The managing agent agreed to make this payment.
  14. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 30 June 2023. It explained that residents are expected to continue to pay rent during a decant as they are obliged to pay rent under the tenancy agreement. It said it could not agree a reduction as it was not line with its policy. It offered additional compensation of £100 to recognise its failure to address this issue in a timely manner. As it had clearly explained to her on 16 February that rent would remain due, this offer of compensation for this issue was reasonable.
  15. On 4 July 2023, the managing agent sent its stage 2 response, in which it acknowledged she had a poor experience. It confirmed it had already agreed compensation of £700 with her.
  16. The landlord wrote to the resident on 26 July 2023 to confirm its position across both complaints. It explained that because the property was still in its defect period it had to contact the developer and had faced some difficulties which had delayed repairs. It said that she had been decanted for a total of 31 days. It acknowledged she had faced some difficulties with the decant but said the managing agent had offered £700 compensation to recognise these issues.
  17. The landlord offered an additional £200 compensation to recognise breakdowns in its communication, bringing the total compensation across the two complaints to £1,450. It also said it had learnt lessons from its investigations.
  18. There were failings by the landlord, including delays, communication issues, and problems with the decant. However, the landlord and managing agent did acknowledge this in the complaint responses. The Ombudsman is of the view that the total compensation and apologies offered by the landlord and managing agent during the internal complaints process was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused, and in line with this Service’s remedies guidance and was therefore reasonable.
  19. While we appreciate the resident feels that she should not have to pay rent for the period she was decanted, the landlord did provide alternative accommodation, at its cost. It has provided fair compensation for the shortcomings of the decant hotel and its handling of the decant process. The landlord set a clear expectation with the resident that rent for her main residence remained payable throughout the decant. This was in line with our guidance, therefore the Ombudsman cannot say that the resident should not have had to pay rent for the period she was decanted.
  20. Taking all matters into account the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of leaks at the property.

Complaint handling

  1. 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. The landlord’s complaints policy says that when a resident raises a complaint it will aim to resolve the issues immediately or contact them with a resolution within 48 hours.
  2. If the resident remains dissatisfied the landlord will raise a formal complaint. It will acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days and send its stage 1 response within 10 working days of its acknowledgement. It can agree an extension of up to 10 working days with the resident, if it has a legitimate reason.
  3. At stage 2 the landlord says it will acknowledge the escalation request within 5 working days and send its response within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. It can agree an extension of up to 10 working days with the resident.
  4. The resident first asked to raise a complaint on 9 January 2023. The landlord’s records show that it closed the complaint the following day in line with its informal stage. However, it reopened the complaint on 15 January and then closed it again the next day. This was not in line with its policy as it should have raised a formal stage 1 complaint if the resident remained unhappy at the informal stage.
  5. On 16 February 2023, the landlord wrote to the landlord to say it was seeking possession due to her rent arrears. The resident told it she was unhappy with this, however it told her that she should still pay rent while her complaint was ongoing. It said any potential compensation would not affect her rent.
  6. On 20 February 2023, the resident emailed the landlord for an update on her request for compensation. On 31 March she asked again for an update and the landlord said that it would initiate a stage 1 complaint. It was not appropriate that it had not already done so, as on 16 February it said a complaint was already in progress.
  7. On 24 April 2023, the managing agent logged a separate stage 1 complaint. As the managing agent was acting on behalf of the landlord, the landlord was responsible for its actions. So, it would have been more appropriate for the landlord to deal with all issues under the same complaint.
  8. The managing agent sent its stage 1 response on 10 May 2023, and the landlord sent its stage 1 response on 12 May. Both responses were 4 months after the complaint was raised. This was not in line with the landlord’s policy and represented an unreasonable delay. The landlord offered £50 compensation for the delay in its stage 1 response. This offer was not proportionate given the length of the delay.
  9. On 22 May 2023, the resident asked for her complaints to be escalated. The managing agent emailed her on 20 June to increase its compensation offer and agreed an increased offer with her on 21 June. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 30 May and the managing agent sent its stage 2 on 4 July. Both responses were outside of the landlord’s complaint policy timescale, which was not reasonable.
  10. The landlord wrote to the resident on 26 July 2023 summarising its final position across the 2 complaints, which was useful for clarify for the resident. However, if the landlord had dealt with it as one complaint, as it should have, this letter would not have been necessary. It also provided an improved offer of compensation, which it should have done within its 2 stage complaints process.
  11. The Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint. It over-complicated the process by failing to consider all issues under one complaint. Neither complaint was responded to within the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord also did not do enough to recognise its failings during the complaints process.
  12. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident additional compensation of £150 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the complaint handling failures. This award has been made with the landlord’s remedies policy in mind and brings the total compensation for this issue to £200.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of leaks at the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord to pay the resident compensation of £200, less any amount already paid during its internal complaints process, to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures. The compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not used to offset any rent arrears.
  2. The landlord to provide the resident with a written apology for the complaint handling failures identified in this report.
  3. The landlord to provide us with evidence of compliance with the above orders within 28 days of this report.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord to review its decant policy and consider including information about rent payable during decants.