From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

Salvation Army Housing Association (SAHA) (202234032)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202234032

Salvation Army Housing Association (SAHA)

7 August 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 issues with his bathroom following refurbishment work.
    2. the resident’s reports of roof leaks.
    3. the resident’s request for a copy of a tenancy agreement in his name.
  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 is a 1-bedroom flat and he has lived there since March 2021. The landlord has told us it does not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
  2. The resident reported problems with the bathroom to the landlord on 29 September 2022. He chased this up on 7 November as work had not been completed.
  3. On 8 February 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to chase up a complaint he said he had raised in September 2022. The landlord did not have a record of this complaint and a complaint was raised on 14 February 2023.
  4. The resident contacted us on 17 April 2023 as he had not received a response from the landlord. He also chased this up with the landlord directly on 22 May. We contacted the landlord on 16 June and asked it to respond to the complaint, and sent a final notice to the landlord on 1 September.
  5. The landlord sent a stage 2 response on 9 October 2023, in which it said:
    1. the contractor who installed the new bathroom went into receivership shortly after the installation and the landlord had staffing issues – this caused it to not communicate effectively with him
    2. work was completed in the bathroom to make it safe, however a decision was made to repair the existing toilet rather than replace it
    3. it confirmed the resident’s tenancy is a lifetime assured tenancy – it agreed to send him 2 copies of the correct tenancy – 1 for him to keep and 1 to sign and return – to give him peace of mind
    4. it offered him £200 compensation to recognise delays in responding to his complaint
  6. The resident contacted us on 15 October 2023 to ask us to investigate the complaint. He told us that work was still outstanding and he did not feel the compensation was reasonable, as he had taken several days off work and contractors had not turned up.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. Since the landlord sent its stage 2 response on 9 October 2023, the resident has told us he is experiencing further issues with the sealant in the bathroom. This issue has occurred after remedial work was completed and the landlord’s internal complaints process concluded. The resident would need to raise any new repairs issues with the landlord directly so that it can investigate these. This investigation will only consider the repairs issues raised as part of the original complaint.
  2. The resident has raised concerns about his health and the impact on this by the issues raised. 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. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspect of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident may have experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.

Bathroom

  1. The landlord’s website sets out the following repairs categories and timescales:
    1. emergencies – attended to and made safe within 24 hours
    2. follow-on work from emergencies – completed within 24 hours
    3. urgent repairs – completed within 7 calendar days
    4. routine repairs – completed within 28 calendar days
  2. Following an upgrade of the bathroom the resident contacted the landlord on 29 September 2022 to let it know there were some problems. He said there was water going down the side of the bath as the sealant had shrunk and was coming away from the wall. He also said there were sharp metal edges on the bath.
  3. On 7 November 2022 he called the landlord to say a contractor had attended to look, but had been unable to carry out any work at that time. He had not received a further call to book another appointment. The landlord did not take any further action at that time, which was not appropriate. A work order was raised on 30 January 2023, which was completed on 6 February, more than 4 months after the issue was reported. This was not in line with the landlord’s repairs timescales and represented an unreasonable delay.
  4. When speaking to the landlord about his complaint on 14 February 2023, the resident said the new bathroom had health and safety issues. On 21 February he told them the fitting and quality of the new bathroom was poor, with rough edges on the finish. On 10 March he emailed the landlord to say the bathroom issues were still outstanding. The landlord responded on 13 March and apologised that the repairs were not yet resolved. It did not provide any way forward or expected timescales, which was not appropriate.
  5. The resident emailed the landlord again on 16 June 2023 to say that the repairs were still outstanding. The landlord responded the same day, saying it had forwarded the issues to a contractor who would be in touch within 10 working days. The landlord’s internal records of 10 July state that a contractor attended the previous week and would reattend that week to carry out work. There is no evidence a contractor reattended at that time.
  6. On 10 August 2023 the resident called the landlord and said a contractor had attended but did not complete all work. They had damaged paintwork and did not resolve an issue with the toilet cistern lid. The landlord responded on 11 August saying that decoration would be made good and the toilet cistern would be replaced. It was looking to complete this on 18 August. Its records do not make it clear if repairs were completed on that date.
  7. On 19 September 2023 the landlord told us it had completed works to the shower that month and the resident was happy with these. In a further email of 24 September it told us there was still an outstanding issue with the toilet.
  8. In its stage 2 response of 9 October 2023 the landlord said that the contractor it had used to install the bathroom had gone into receivership shortly after the work was completed. It said it had also had staff vacancies which had affected its ability to communicate with him effectively. It said that all remedial work had now been completed. While it had acknowledged delays, it did not offer any compensation to recognise the impact on the resident, despite its compensation policy having a provision for it to provide compensation for delayed repairs.
  9. The landlord explained that the decision had been made to repair the existing toilet rather than replace it. No evidence has been provided that this repair was ineffective and it was reasonable for the landlord to choose how to carry out the repair. In an email to us on 26 October 2023 the resident confirmed that all bathroom works were complete.
  10. The Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of issues with his bathroom following refurbishment work. The landlord failed to carry out repairs in line with its policy timescale. It took more than a year to complete remedial work to the bathroom, which was an unreasonable length of time. It also did not keep the resident updated and he regularly had to chase it up in order for work to be carried out. While it did recognise some of its failings in its complaint response, it did not offer any compensation in line with its compensation policy. Its actions did not go far enough to recognise the impact on the resident.
  11. The resident told us he had to take several days off work unnecessarily. In line with our remedies guidance we do not generally consider compensation for loss of earnings. However, we have considered the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s actions, including the inconvenience of him having to take time off work.
  12. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £400 to recognise this distress and inconvenience, caused by the delayed repairs. This award has been made with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance in mind.

Roof

  1. The resident reported leaks into the property from the roof on 7 November 2022 and the landlord raised a work order that day. This work order was subsequently cancelled on 7 May 2023, however the records do not show why.
  2. On 14 February 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to raise a complaint. He said there were still leaks in his bedroom ceiling. He said contractors were due to attend 2 weeks ago but had cancelled without notice. The landlord told him the contractor said it had called him, but he said he had not received a call or voicemail. No evidence has been provided that a call took place. It was not reasonable for the landlord’s contractor to cancel an appointment without providing the resident with notice.
  3. On 22 February 2023 the landlord told the resident it had asked its Repairs team to organise repair work. On 10 March the resident chased this up with the landlord as no work had taken place. On 17 April he told us that the leaks were not resolved and mould was starting to form. He told us that he is asthmatic and was having to use his inhalers more. We have not seen any evidence the landlord was made aware of his asthma.
  4. On 16 June 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to chase the roof repairs. It said its contractor would be in contact within 10 working days. On 10 July the landlord’s records state that it would be meeting a contractor on site that week to discuss the roof work. No evidence has been provided to show this meeting went ahead, which was not appropriate.
  5. On 10 August 2023 the resident contacted the landlord as the roof work had not been completed. The landlord responded on 11 August, saying it would inspect the roof externally that day and programme in the remedial work. On 19 September the landlord told us that recent poor weather had hampered its ability to complete work to the roof, but said it would be completed in the next week. On 24 September it told us work had not yet been completed.
  6. The landlord’s stage 2 response of 9 October 2023 did not address the issue with the roof. The landlord sent a follow-up letter on 13 October acknowledging that this issue had not been addressed. It said a contractor had attended on 12 October and completed all external work, but had been unable to gain access for internal work. It said the contractor had left the resident a voicemail asking him to arrange a return appointment.
  7. A work order was raised on 19 October 2023 to complete internal work and this was completed on 24 October. Further work to a velux window was completed on 16 November.
  8. The resident contacted us on 29 November 2023 and said there was still outstanding decoration work in the bedroom. It had failed to attend on 22 November and had not notified him it was cancelling the appointment. He said the landlord told him it had left a voicemail however he had received no missed calls or messages. He said he had missed a day of work for the appointment. The landlord has not provided evidence that the resident was notified of the cancellation, which again was not appropriate.
  9. The landlord recently told us that decoration work was completed on 6 December 2023, however the work order it has provided does not show what work was completed. On 15 December the resident emailed the landlord to say that there was still outstanding work, and that his furniture was damaged by the leak. No evidence has been provided that the landlord carried out any further inspections or work to rectify the outstanding issues, which was not reasonable.
  10. The Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of roof leaks. The landlord did not demonstrate a commitment to uphold its repairs timescales and repeatedly failed to keep to deadlines it set, which was not reasonable. It took the landlord 11 months to complete the external roof work, which was not in line with its policy. And, 18 months after the external work was completed, it has not completed all internal repairs.
  11. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £600 to recognise this distress and inconvenience, caused by the delayed and outstanding repairs. This award has been made with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance in mind.
  12. An order has also been made for the landlord to carry out an inspection to identify outstanding work and provide the resident and us with a schedule of works.

Tenancy agreement

  1. The resident moved into the property on 29 March 2021 following a mutual exchange. On that day the landlord sent the resident a copy of the previous tenant’s original tenancy agreement and the licence to assign via email. This is standard industry practice and these 2 documents together form the resident’s new tenancy agreement.
  2. On 30 January 2023 the resident called the landlord and said he had not yet received a paper copy of a tenancy agreement in his name. On 15 February he again asked for a copy of this and raised his dissatisfaction that he had not received this.
  3. In its stage 2 response of 9 October 2023 the landlord explained that the paperwork he had received upon moving in was correct. It confirmed that he had a lifetime assured tenancy and was advised of this when he moved in. However, it agreed to send him 2 copies of the correct tenancy, 1 for him to keep and 1 to sign and return, in order to give him peace of mind. While the landlord was not required to do this, it was a reasonable offer for it to make. However, the resident has told us that to date he has not received this tenancy agreement.
  4. The Ombudsman considers there to be service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for a copy of a tenancy agreement in his name. The landlord’s actions in relation to the provision of the previous tenant’s tenancy agreement and a licence to assign were reasonable. However, the landlord made a commitment in its stage 2 response which it has failed to keep. It acknowledged that the resident was looking for peace of mind and it has failed to provide this.
  5. When a mutual exchange is completed by assignment, there is no requirement for the landlord to issue new tenancy agreements. We appreciate that an assignment of the existing two tenancies has taken place and providing a new tenancy may lead to administrative or legal complications. As such, we have decided not to require the landlord to provide a new tenancy agreement. The landlord has failed to recognise that this is a problem of its own making. That is, the landlord specifically offered this to the resident and has not taken the opportunity in the 21 months since to acknowledge its error and clearly explain this to the resident.
  6. The resident is entitled to be concerned about his tenancy status. The tenancy agreement that has been assigned to the resident is, in writing at least, a starter tenancy. The landlord’s stage 2 response dated 9 October 2023 indicates that the previous tenant of the property was issued a starter tenancy in January 2020. The landlord states that this was automatically converted to an assured tenancy on 16 January 2021, but no assured tenancy agreement was issued. Again, there is no requirement for the landlord to do this (as the other tenancy was not flexible or fixed term, s.158 of the Localism Act 2011 is not applicable). The mutual exchange was then completed in March 2021.
  7. The landlord should still take steps to ease the resident’s understandable concerns about his tenancy status. Particularly as the landlord has previously committed to doing just that. Given the considerable difference in tenancy rights between assured and starter tenancies, the landlord is ordered to write to the resident to confirm their tenancy rights.
  8. A further order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £100 to recognise the distress caused by its failure to provide the promised documentation. This award has been made with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance in mind.

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.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge a complaint verbally within 1 working day and in writing within 5 working days. It will send its stage 1 response within 10 working days. At stage 2 the landlord says it will acknowledge the escalation request verbally within 2 working days and in writing within 5 working days. It will send its response within 20 working days.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 8 February 2023 chasing a response to a complaint he said he had raised in September 2022. The landlord’s call notes from a call with him on 29 September 2022 do not state that he wanted to raise a complaint. The follow-up email sent by the resident containing photos of the bathroom also did not ask to raise a complaint. So, there is no evidence the resident asked to raise a complaint at that time.
  4. The landlord did not raise a complaint on 8 February 2023. The resident called again on 14 February and the landlord agreed to raise a complaint during this call. The landlord did not follow this up with a written acknowledgement, and did not send a stage 1 response within 10 working days. So, it failed to respond to the complaint in line with its policy.
  5. On 13 March 2023 the landlord emailed the resident and said it had moved his complaint to stage 2, despite not having sent a stage 1 response, which was not appropriate. On 6 April he emailed the landlord to say he had still not had a response. On 17 April he contacted us and said that he had not been able to get a response from the landlord.
  6. We contacted the landlord on 16 June 2023 and asked it to response to the resident’s complaint by 21 July. When the resident let us know he had still received no response we wrote to the landlord again on 1 September giving it a final notice. When it failed to respond to the complaint we issued a Complaint Handling Failure Order (CHFO) on 14 September 2023. The need for us to intervene and issue a CHFO demonstrates a failure by the landlord to respond reasonably to the complaint.
  7. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 9 October 2023, 10 months after the complaint was raised, which represented an unreasonable delay. In its response it offered £200 compensation to recognise delays in responding to the resident’s ‘queries and questions’. This appears to be in relation to the complaint handling delay, however the landlord did not make this completely clear.
  8. The landlord wrote to the resident on 20 November 2024, explaining that this Service had not yet issued a determination on the complaint. It offered him additional compensation of £50 in recognition of the further time taken to resolve matters.
  9. The Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the residents complaint. While it was appropriate for the landlord to offer the resident compensation for the delays, it is unclear how it reached its figure. It has not provided a breakdown of its redress so it unclear what factors it took into consideration when making this order.
  10. Given our remedies guidance, the sum which was offered was not proportionate in the circumstances. This is because the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s complaint until we intervened, and after we had issued a CHFO. It did not respond to the complaint in line with its policy and took too long to respond, without providing any reason for the delay.
  11. 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 delay and him having to chase a response. This brings the total compensation for this issue to £400.
  12. An order has also been made for the landlord to carry out staff training in relation to its complaint handling. While its policy is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, it has not demonstrated an ability to investigate complaints in line with this policy.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was:
    1. maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of issues with his bathroom following refurbishment work.
    2. maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of roof leaks.
    3. service failure by the landlord in its handling of the residents request for a copy of a tenancy agreement in his name.
    4. maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

 

Orders

  1. The landlord to pay the resident total compensation of £1,500, less any amount already paid during its internal complaints process, broken down as follows:
    1. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by delays to bathroom repairs.
    2. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by delays to roof repairs.
    3. £100 for the distress caused in relation to the tenancy agreement.
    4. £400 in relation to complaint handling.
  2. Write to the resident on landlord headed paper to confirm the resident’s assured tenancy rights at his current property.
  3. A senior manager at the landlord to provide the resident with a written apology for the failings identified within this report.
  4. The landlord to provide this Service with evidence of compliance with the above orders within 28 days of this report.
  5. Within 8 weeks of this report the landlord to:
    1. Carry out an inspection of the internal damage. It should provide the resident and this Service with a copy of a schedule of works, including timescales to complete the work.
    2. Provide this Service with a schedule of training to ensure its staff are able to handle complaints in line with its complaints policy.

 Recommendations

  1. The landlord to contact the resident to discuss any current repairs issues in the bathroom.
  2. The landlord to provide the resident with its insurer’s details in order for him to make a claim for his damaged furniture, should he wish to.