Sanctuary Housing Association (202214078)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214078

Sanctuary Housing Association

6 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 the resident’s reports of:
1. Shed repairs.
2. Front porch repairs.
3. Tree and grass cutting.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has occupied the property, a 2 bedroom semi-detached house, with her mother since 2003 on an assured non-shorthold tenancy. The landlord is a housing association.
The resident has brought other complaints to this Service which have been investigated separately. Some of the other issues overlap with this complaint, so are referred to for context, but this investigation is limited to the issues detailed above.

Summary of events

The resident emailed the landlord on 19 May 2022 and, amongst other things, explained that the shed roof was rotting due to being covered in bird droppings, and the grass at the front of the property was overgrown. She emailed again on 24 May 2022 saying the shed roof had been reported on 7 May 2022 and she had been told on 11 May 2022 that someone would contact her, but they had not. She also mentioned a tree at the front of the property needed cutting back.
The landlord responded the following day and explained that a job had been raised to address the shed roof, with a target date of 11 June 2022. In terms of the grass and tree, this was typically the resident’s responsibility to deal with, but it would check the position with a housing officer.
The resident responded that day and explained that she did not accept responsibility for mowing the grass or pruning the tree which did not form part of her property. She also reported that a repair to the porch roof was needed as it was covered in moss and rotting in parts.
Having not had the work scheduled, the resident chased the landlord for an update on 7 June 2022. This was followed by the resident complaining to the landlord on 10 June 2022. She reiterated her concerns about the shed and porch roofs, and grass and tree cutting, and added that the tree was near her mother’s window and making the bedroom damp.
The landlord responded to the complaint on 13 June 2022. It said it had chased the roofing company about the shed, with a deadline of 3 August 2022, and the grass/tree cutting and porch roof repair had been outsourced to a company and they would be in touch.
The resident explained on 14 and 20 June 2022 that she was unhappy at the time things were taking and asked for the complaint to be addressed at stage 2. The landlord replied on 21 June 2022 acknowledging the complaint and saying the issues would initially be considered at stage 1, and a response would be sent within 10 working days.
The resident chased for a response on 27 June, 5 July and 6 July 2022. The landlord issued an interim response on 7 July 2022 which said that it:
1. Was responsible for a shed if attached to a property (i.e. brick). If a shed was wooden and gifted to a resident, or the shed was erected by a resident, the responsibility for repairs sat with the resident. Therefore, it was not responsible for the damage.
2. Was checking with the housing team about the responsibility for grass cutting. A report had also been done to assess the tree for cutting and it had sent that report to a contractor.
3. Was arranging an inspection to assess the porch and damp reported.
4. Apologised for the delay in responding and acknowledged there had been delays. It would provide a response to the complaint by 21 July 2023 and address these points further.
The resident again chased the landlord for a response on 21, 27 and 30 July and 4 August 2022. In the meantime, a housing officer advised the resident on 29 July 2022 that the grass and shed were her responsibility and the tree was not near the property so did not need cutting. The landlord explained on 5 August 2022 that it would escalate the complaint to stage 2 as requested and investigate the resident’s concern that she had not received a formal stage 1 response.
On 2 September 2022, the landlord said it needed an additional 10 working days to provide its stage 2 response. It ultimately issued its stage 2 response on 16 September 2022, as follows:
1. The shed was gifted to the resident by the previous tenant, so it was not responsible for repairing it.
2. The tree was inspected on 22 June 2022 and a job was raised to cut it back on 10 August 2022. The contractor would now schedule a date to complete the works and the landlord would monitor it as a priority. It apologised for the delay.
3. It was the resident’s responsibility to cut the grass.
4. A contractor had inspected the porch on 22 June 2022 and the only fault found was a small gap between the ridge tile and the lead flashing. The gap was sealed on attendance and the leak rectified. There was no sign of rotten timber.
5. It was sorry the resident had had to chase on a number of occasions and there was a delay in dealing with the complaint. It acknowledged that dates for some maintenance works remained outstanding. It was escalating the work orders and offered £275 compensation (£75 for the delay in complaint handling and £200 for time, trouble and inconvenience for lack of communication for cutting the tree as well as another matter – not investigated here).
The resident contacted the landlord again on 16 September 2022 and said the porch roof was rotten and needed addressing. She rejected the offer of £275 compensation and explained the original shed left by the former tenant had been replaced by the landlord. She was unhappy with the delay pruning the tree, and said she was not responsible for cutting the grass in the communal area. She accepted a leak in the porch had been repaired on 22 June 2022, but said the roof was still rotten.
On 21 September 2022, the landlord said in light of the resident’s comments about the shed and grass, it had referred the matter back to the housing team to consider. It apologised for the delay in cutting the tree and said it would ask the contractor to prioritise this. In terms of the porch, the contractor that attended on 22 June 2022 did not find it was rotten; but it had asked a maintenance surveyor to attend to offer a second opinion. The resident repeated her concerns the same day, and on 23 September 2022. She had also reported the matter to her MP.
The landlord advised the resident on 26 September 2022, that it was following up the matter of the shed and grass with the housing team, and the request to cut the tree was with the maintenance team. It also updated the MP’s office, which then also updated the resident, but said the complaint about the grass cutting and shed had not been upheld as they were the resident’s responsibility. An inspection of the tree had taken place and it was waiting for another appointment to be made to attend.
The landlord contacted the resident on 10 October 2022 and apologised for the delay. It said a surveyor visited on 5 October 2022 and found there to be a rotten section of timber to the storm-porch fascia. It had requested a quote to carry out the repair. It increased its offer of compensation by £200, to £475.
The resident rejected this offer, and on 13 October 2022, the landlord said it had done what it could in terms of the complaint, but kept the offer of compensation open. It also offered to have the shed removed, but not to replace it; which the resident did not want, as it would leave her nowhere to store materials.
The landlord’s records show a rotten section of timber to the storm-porch fascia was repaired on 21 October 2022.
The landlord says a contractor did provide a quote to cut back the tree the resident was concerned about; but having had it inspected, decided it did not need cutting back.
The resident still wants the landlord to trim the tree at the front of the property and replace or repair the shed.

Assessment and findings

The landlord is responsible for maintaining the exterior and structure of the property. As well as that, the Tenancy Agreement says the landlord will keep in repair, communal areas but that it is the tenant’s responsibility to keep any garden at the property well maintained.
The Repairs and Maintenance policy says it will attend and make safe emergency repairs within 24 hours. It aims to complete appointed repairs within 28 days and routine repairs within 20 working days.

Landlord’s handling of shed repairs

The landlord said the shed was gifted to the resident by the previous tenant. The resident agrees one was left by the previous tenant but says it was replaced by the landlord later. The landlord has no record of that.
The resident was made aware she was responsible for maintaining the garden; but it is not clear that she understood who was responsible for maintaining the shed, or whether there were any conditions associated with having the shed, when she moved in to the property. The Tenancy Agreement makes no specific mention of it. However, at paragraph 2.4 it does say the landlord is responsible for the structure and exterior of the building, including integral stores. The shed at the property is freestanding; therefore, as it is not integral to the property, it is reasonable to conclude it does not fall within the landlord’s responsibility to maintain.
The landlord has explained its position to the resident throughout but did offer to remove the shed at no cost to the resident; although, this was not something she wanted, as she wanted somewhere to store items. The landlord has recently written to the resident to again offer to remove the shed, but there is actually no obligation on it to do that, and nothing in the Tenancy Agreement to say it would need to replace it.
It would have been helpful if the Tenancy Agreement made it clear who was responsible for the shed left at the property. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman is satisfied that, in accordance with the Tenancy Agreement, the shed is not the landlord’s responsibility to maintain. It therefore follows that there has been no maladministration in its handling of this matter.

Landlord’s handling of front porch repairs

The landlord sent a contractor to assess the porch 20 working days after it was first reported. It noted there was a gap that needed to be sealed and that work was done the same day, and the leak was rectified. It therefore complied with its obligations under its Repairs and Maintenance policy.
The resident did then tell the landlord on 16 September 2022 that she believed the porch roof was rotten and needed addressing; so, it sent a contractor out again on 5 October 2022 who noted a minor repair was needed, and immediately asked for a quote for the work to be done. The landlord acted promptly, and in line with the timescales in its policy. Once it received the quote, the work was arranged and completed on 21 October 2022. The evidence shows there were no unreasonable delays in the landlord’s handling of the porch repairs, and a finding of no maladministration is therefore made.
The resident has recently told this Service there are issues with the guttering near the porch. This is a separate issue to the general roof issues previously reported and investigated. Therefore, this would need to be reported separately, so the landlord can investigate matters internally before the Ombudsman could comment further.

Landlord’s handling of tree and grass cutting

On 30 May 2022, the resident explained to the landlord that the grass she wanted cutting was “near the Close’s parking area, we are the only ones that do not own a car, this is therefore a communal area”. Having looked at photographs of the property the only grass that can be seen, is the front garden of the property, which is directly outside its front door and has a pathway from the front door to the pavement running through it.
The Tenancy Agreement makes it clear it is the tenant’s responsibility to maintain the garden; which would include cutting the grass on the property. While the resident has referred to the grass being a communal area, no evidence has been provided to support that position. The landlord has said the service charge payable includes grounds maintenance work near the property, and it seems the team doing that work may have cut the grass outside the property on occasion. The resident may have benefited from the maintenance team doing so in the past but, in accordance with the Tenancy Agreement, there is no obligation on the landlord to continue to provide this service. Therefore, the landlord has complied with its obligations and there was no maladministration in that regard.
In terms of trimming the tree at the front of the property, the resident has referred to the Tenancy Agreement and said trees should be cut back every 3 months. However, the Tenancy Agreement makes no mention of that.
The landlord carries out regular grounds maintenance and took the resident’s concerns about the tree seriously by arranging for it to be inspected. A report was produced and this was referred to a contractor, but they ultimately concluded that the tree did not need cutting. This was explained to the resident at the time. It is evident the resident continued to ask for it to be cut, so a job was created for that to be done and the resident was informed someone would be attending.
In line with its Repairs and Maintenance policy, a contractor did then attend and quoted to work on the tree, but it was determined the tree did not actually need cutting back. The landlord could have been clearer in its communication with the resident (that no agreement had actually been reached to cut the tree at any point) and it could have managed her expectations more effectively in that regard. However, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord appropriately considered the request and was ultimately entitled to reach the conclusion that no works were required, based on the advice of its contractors.

Landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord’s “Complaints – Housing and Support Procedure” says a complaint should be acknowledged within 5 working days and its stage 1 response issued within 10 working days. If a complaint is escalated to stage 2, a written response should be issued within 20 working days.
The landlord did not follow its complaints procedure and this caused confusion which could have been avoided. Having complained on 10 June 2022, although the landlord responded on 13 June 2022, it then acknowledged the complaint 7 working days later on 21 June 2022 when the resident was told to expect a response within 10 working days.
When it contacted the resident on 13 June 2022, this was evidently not a stage 1 response. This meant the landlord failed to acknowledge the complaint promptly and provide a comprehensive response at stage 1 within 10 days as it should have. This was compounded by the resident then having to chase the landlord several times and she was eventually sent an “interim response” on 7 July 2022; 19 working days after the complaint was made.
The landlord’s complaints procedure makes no mention of issuing an interim response. It therefore deviated from its process and this clearly confused the resident, as she flagged this anomaly to the landlord. Having had it highlighted that a final stage 1 response had not been sent, instead of then issuing one, the landlord decided to escalate the complaint to stage 2.
While the landlord was unable to meet the 20 working day deadline to respond under stage 2, it did notify the resident of this in time, which was appropriate, and confirmed its response would be issued by 16 September 2022, which it then was.
Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling at stage 1 fell short because it did not adhere to its complaints procedure, as it issued an initial response, then an interim response and failed to issue a final stage 1 response, before escalating the complaint. This does amount to a service failure, but while it caused the resident some inconvenience having to seek clarity from the landlord about the complaint, any disruption was minimal. In addition, it is of note that the landlord did still address the issues raised in the responses it sent.
For poor complaint handling, the landlord’s Compensation Policy says compensation of up to £150 may be paid, depending on the number of issues and impact. In this case, at stage 2 it offered £75 compensation which is in line with not only its Compensation Policy but also this Service’s Remedies Guidance. The landlord did offer to pay the resident more compensation in relation to other issues which have either not formed part of this investigation, or have not been upheld. Therefore, it is at the landlord’s discretion to decide whether to still offer the resident the additional compensation.
The poor service identified in relation to the complaint handling, had minimal impact; therefore, the £75 already offered by the landlord at stage 2, provides a reasonable remedy to this part of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. Shed repairs.
2. Front porch repairs.
3. Tree and grass cutting.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendation

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should pay the resident £75 compensation (if it has not done so already) for the delays in its handling of her complaint.