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

Sanctuary Housing Association (202217882)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217882

Sanctuary Housing Association

17 December 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 floods in the property.
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association, since 2013. The property is a 2 bedroom, ground floor flat and the resident lives there with her child.
  2. On at least 5 occasions between 13 and 17 May 2022, the resident reported her property was flooded due to water back surging from the bath and toilet. The landlord noted it attended on multiple occasions to clear blockages in the stack pipe, aqua vac the property and carry out 2 environmental cleans. The resident was decanted from the property between 16 and 25 May 2022. During this time, the landlord noted it completed a CCTV survey of the stack pipe, and further works to clear the pipe and drains.
  3. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 6 June 2022. She said there was sewage underneath the flooring and mould on the walls. The landlord had not told her what was happening or visited the property. No updates were provided, unless she made contact first. Two days later, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. This said the complaint was not upheld as it had provided support and advice regarding the floods.
  4. On 12 July 2022, the landlord inspected the property and drew up a schedule of works required. This was submitted to its insurer and works were completed on 8 September 2022. On this date, the resident signed a ‘completion of works’ document which said she was satisfied with the works completed.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint, via this Service, on 19 December 2022, as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the situation. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 27 January 2023. It recognised there had been failures in its communication and offered £500 compensation in recognition of this. It said it would arrange for a surveyor to attend the property to review any outstanding issues. It acknowledged her frustration that flooring had been removed, but it was her responsibility to claim for replacement flooring via her contents insurance.
  6. In November 2023, the resident asked this Service to investigate her complaint. She said the landlord had lied to her, treated her unfairly and failed in its communication. She asked for compensation for the impact this situation had on her mental health.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The landlord’s handling of damage caused by the floods continued after it provided its stage 2 complaint response in January 2023. This resulted in further works being identified and carried out in April 2023, as well as a second insurance claim being pursued and flooring repairs and replacement carried out in November 2023. The Ombudsman is unable to formally investigate matters which have not been assessed and responded to via the landlord’s internal complaints procedure (reflected at paragraph 42.a of the Scheme). Therefore, the landlord’s handling of this matter after 27 January 2023, falls outside the scope of this investigation. The resident can raise these issues with the landlord as a new formal complaint if she wishes and this can be escalated to the Ombudsman, on completion of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.   
  2. The resident has told this Service that these matters have negatively affected her mental health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments; however, it is beyond the remit of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s ill-health. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord (reflected at paragraph 42.f of the Scheme). While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience the resident experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord.
  3. Works completed in September 2022 were carried out as part of an insurance claim. Paragraph 41.b of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which concern matters which do not relate to the actions or omissions of a member of the Scheme. As the landlord’s insurer is not a member of the Scheme, any dispute about its decisions or failures in its handling of these works falls the scope of this investigation, and would be for the resident to raise directly with them or via a legal claim. What we have considered is how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns and whether this was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

Handling of floods in the property

  1. The landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property, in accordance with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. This would include repairs to the stack pipe and damage caused to walls, floors and skirting boards, including damp and mould. However, landlord’s are not generally responsible for repairs to or replacement of floor coverings, such as carpet or laminate.
  2. When the resident reported the floods to the property in May 2022, the landlord treated these as emergency repairs. This was reasonable considering the nature of the issue and that raw sewage was present in the property. The landlord’s repairs procedure at the time said it would respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours. In this case, the landlord noted that it attended within this timescale for all of the resident’s reports and for the majority of the reports, it attended the same day. This was sensible considering the urgent nature of the issue and showed that it took the matter seriously.
  3. When the floods occurred in May 2022, the landlord also raised emergency works orders to aqua vac and clean the property. This was sensible as there would have been excess water and raw sewage in the property. The evidence shows the landlord attended for these jobs within the 24 hour target timescale, in accordance with its repairs policy at the time.
  4. After the resident had reported at least 5 back surges of water in to the property over a 5 day period between 13 and 17 May 2022, the landlord took steps to further investigate this issue by carrying out a CCTV survey on 18 May 2022. This was sensible to enable it to identify any underlying causes of this issue, so it could address and resolve these in the long term. The landlord noted that further works were carried out the same day and subsequently, no further floods were reported.
  5. The landlord confirmed in the stage 2 response that the floods were caused by items being disposed of incorrectly in the drains, which resulted in sewage back surges into the resident’s property. The Ombudsman acknowledges how upsetting this was for the resident; however, it was not the fault of the landlord and the evidence provided shows that it took reasonable and timely action to investigate and resolve these issues.
  6. While reasonable action was taken in response to the floods, the landlord could have done more to address the cause of the floods. As it had identified that these were caused by items being incorrectly disposed of in the drains, the landlord should have considered writing to all households in the building with advice on this issue in order to try and prevent further blockages and back surges.
  7. The resident has told this Service that there was a further back surge of water and foam in to her property in June 2024 and this highlights the need for the landlord to be more proactive in addressing this issue. An order has been made below for the landlord to write to all households in the block with advice on what items should not be disposed of down the drains and the possible consequences of doing so.
  8. After the first flood, the landlord noted it spoke to the resident about a decant, which she declined. It was appropriate that the landlord offered this as there was raw sewage in the property, which was a potential health hazard. This was in accordance with its decants policy at the time, which said a key factor when deciding whether a decant was required was whether there were any health and safety risks.
  9. After further floods, the landlord reoffered a decant, which was sensible as the health hazard was still present. This resulted in the resident being decanted for 10 days. From the evidence provided, it is not clear why the decant only lasted for this timeframe, as when the resident returned to the property there was still significant damage, including raw sewage that had soaked in to the flooring.
  10. The landlord carried out works to the property as part of an insurance claim, which it was entitled to do. It told the resident on 14 July 2022 that it did not have a timescale for how long this work would take, which was understandable as it was being progressed via its insurer. As the works were being completed as part of an insurance claim, the Ombudsman is unable to make an assessment in respect of the timescale these were completed in.
  11. The works were completed on 8 September 2022, which was 15 weeks after the resident’s decant had ended and she had moved back in to the property. This meant her and her child were left living in a property that was a potential health hazard for this extended period. This was understandably distressing for her.
  12. During this 15 week period, the resident contacted the landlord on at least 6 occasions, including raising a formal complaint. She told it on multiple occasions that there was sewage in the flooring and mould on the walls. In at least 2 of these contacts, the resident told the landlord that her child had asthma which was being negatively affected by the mould. Considering the concerns raised by the resident and that the timescale of the works was unknown and outside of the landlord’s control; it should have considered whether there was any immediate action it could take to improve the condition of the property. This could have included a mould wash or removal of the sewage soaked flooring. However, there is no evidence that it did.
  13. Alternatively, if the landlord was unable to carry out any works due to the matter going via its insurers, then it should have reconsidered whether a further decant was required. This would have been in accordance with its decants policy at the time, which said it should consider any household circumstances which may impact on their ability to remain in the home. Again, there is no evidence that it did and this meant the resident and her child were left living in a property that was hazardous to health for an extended period. This resulted in the resident feeling let down and that the landlord did not care about her or her child. This amounts to maladministration.
  14. When the landlord told the resident in July 2022 that it did not have a timescale in which the works would be completed, it committed to chase this up weekly. This was sensible to ensure that progress was made as swiftly as possible and so that it could provide regular updates to the resident. Despite making this commitment, there is no evidence that the landlord kept to this and the Ombudsman has only seen evidence of 1 chasing email sent in the 8 week period until the works were completed on 8 September 2022.
  15. Similarly, there is no evidence of regular updates being provided to the resident and when updates were provided, this was done in response to her chasing an update. This was unfair and placed unnecessary burden on the resident to chase for updates when these should have been provided proactively by the landlord. This left the resident feeling forgotten and amounts to maladministration.
  16. On completion of the works in September 2022, the resident signed a ‘completion of works’ document which said she was satisfied with the works carried out. On this basis, it was reasonable that the landlord considered the matter resolved and took no further action. The resident has subsequently said she was made to sign this document but, in the absence of any supporting evidence, the Ombudsman cannot make any comment in relation to this concern.
  17. The resident has said that after the works were completed in September 2022, she called the landlord on 2 occasions, on 8 and 9 September 2022, to ask it to inspect her property, but received no reply. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments, however, we have seen no evidence of these calls and so cannot make any further comment regarding this.
  18. The resident sent emails to the landlord on 10 November 2023 and 10 December 2023, which included concerns about the condition of the property. While reasonable that it considered the matter resolved after she had signed the completion of works document; when she raised further concerns this should have prompted action or investigation by the landlord. From the evidence provided, no action was taken until February 2023. This was almost 3 months after the resident first raised her concerns and was only as a result of the complaint escalation and final response being provided. This amounts to maladministration and left the resident feeling ignored and like her concerns did not matter to the landlord.
  19. The resident raised concerns that she had been treated unfairly by the landlord. She said some of her neighbours, who had experienced similar floods, were decanted for longer and had additional works completed. The landlord replied that it could not discuss other resident’s circumstances, which was reasonable. Similarly, the Ombudsman is not in a position to comment on other resident’s situations or draw any comparisons.
  20. While reasonable that the landlord could not give any information about the neighbour’s situations, it should have reviewed the resident’s concerns to ensure there was consistency in its approach and identify whether any further actions were required. It should also have provided some form of response to the resident’s concern to reassure her that she was not being treated unfairly. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord did this, or that it gave any additional response to the resident to reassure her that she was being treated fairly. This left her with an understandable belief that she was being treated unfairly.
  21. As part of the works completed in September 2022, the landlord’s insurer declined to replace the damaged floor coverings. This decision falls outside the scope of this investigation for reasons set out in paragraph 11 above. When the resident asked the landlord to replace the flooring, it told her this was her responsibility to claim on her contents insurance. While frustrating for the resident, this was reasonable as the landlord is not responsible for repairing or replacing floor coverings in accordance with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
  22. It is noted that subsequently, the landlord agreed to replace some of the flooring as a gesture of goodwill, however, this decision and follow on actions fall outside the scope of this investigation, for reasons set out in paragraph 9 above.
  23. The landlord identified failure in its handling of this matter and offered £500 compensation. While positive that it did this, it failed to offer an apology for these failures. This was disappointing for the resident and suggests that the landlord was not prepared to take full accountability for the failings. Considering the full circumstances of the case and in consultation with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the redress offered by the landlord is insufficient. Therefore, a finding of reasonable redress cannot be made and a finding of maladministration is appropriate.
  24. Orders have been made below for the landlord to apologise to the resident for its handling of floods in the property and pay her £600 compensation, which is inclusive of the £500 already offered. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
  25. It is noted that further works were completed in the property in April and November 2023. However, in contact with this Service in June 2024, the resident reported further, ongoing issues that remained unresolved. Therefore, an order has been made below for the landlord to inspect the property to identify any outstanding issues. A written update to be provided to the resident confirming the outcome and what, if any works it will carry out, with a timescale for these to be completed. If the landlord declines to carry out works requested by the resident, it must provide a written explanation with its reasons for doing so.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 8 June 2022, which was 2 working days after the complaint was raised on 6 June 2022. This was in accordance with the committed response time of 6 working days, set out in its complaints policy at the time.
  2. The resident first expressed continued dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of this matter on 24 June 2022. This should have prompted the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2; however, it did not do this. The resident made contact with the landlord on at least 4 more occasions between May and December 2022, asking for her complaint to be progressed, but this still did not happen. It was only after intervention from this Service on 19 December 2022, that the complaint was escalated. This amounts to maladministration and left the resident feeling ignored.
  3. The stage 2 response was provided on 27 January 2023, which was 151 working days after the first expression of continued dissatisfaction was made, on 24 June 2022. This was significantly over the committed response time of 15 working days set out in the landlord’s complaints policy at the time and amounts to maladministration.
  4. The landlord has subsequently told this Service that when it received the resident’s contact on 24 June 2022, it decided to try and facilitate between the relevant departments and the resident to get updates. As there were delays to the works, this meant there was a delay in progressing the complaint and a stage 2 response being provided. While positive the landlord wanted to progress the matter, it should have also escalated the complaint, as per the resident’s request.
  5. The landlord has confirmed all staff have since received training and are aware they must not delay progressing a complaint if a resident expresses dissatisfaction after the stage 1 response has been issued. It is positive that the landlord has taken learning from this matter and in light of this, no orders have been made for additional learning to be completed.
  6. Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord did not acknowledge its failings or offer redress to the resident as part of its stage 2 response, which was disappointing for her. Orders have been made below for the landlord to apologise to the resident for its complaint handling and pay her £300 compensation, which is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Floods in the property.
    2. The formal complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 6 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Write to all households in the block with advice on what items should not be disposed of down the drains and the possible consequences of doing so.
    2. Apologise to the resident for its handling of floods in the property and the formal complaint.
    3. Pay the resident £900 compensation, made up of £600 for its handling of floods in the property (inclusive of the £500 already offered, if not done so already) and £300 for its complaint handling.
    4. Inspect the property to identify any outstanding issues. A written update to be provided to the resident confirming the outcome and what, if any works it will carry out, with a timescale for these to be completed. If the landlord declines to carry out works requested by the resident, it must provide a written explanation with its reasons for doing so.
  2. The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service, within 6 weeks.