Sanctuary Housing Association (202217940)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217940

Sanctuary Housing Association

24 May 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 handling of:
1. a leak under the resident’s kitchen sink and reports of subsequent damp and mould.
2. repairs to the resident’s gate.
3. the associated complaint.

Background

The residents have a joint assured tenancy with the landlord that began on 26 May 2008. The property is a 2-bedroom bungalow. The residents are a married couple. For this report, when we refer to “the resident”, we are referring to the joint residents. As the husband made most of the contact to the landlord and this service, we will use male pronouns. The landlord said it has no vulnerabilities recorded for the residents. However, the resident said he and his wife are elderly, vulnerable, and his wife has a vision impairment.
In April 2022, the resident reported that the garden gate was damaged and difficult to open. On 20 June 2022, the landlord raised a repair for the resident’s garden gate. The landlord’s notes stated the gate posts were rotten, damaged at the base and required replacement.
On 27 September 2022, the resident reported a leak under his kitchen sink. An operative attended the property on 28 September 2022. The operative noted that the leak was behind the kitchen units and the units needed to be removed to access the leaking pipe. The operative reported that the leak had damaged the kitchen cupboards and they also needed to be replaced with new after removal.
On 5 November 2022, the resident raised a complaint to the landlord. In the resident’s complaint he said:
1. the landlord had not repaired the leak under the kitchen sink and the leak was ongoing.
2. he and his wife were having to mop the floor each day and night due to the volume of water in the property. The resident explained that he and his wife were elderly and his wife had impaired vision.
3. there were outstanding works to the garden gate.
4. he wanted the landlord to repair the leak and replace the surrounding rotten kitchen panels. The resident also said that he wanted compensation for the time taken to resolve the leak and a letter of apology.
On 7 November 2022, the resident’s local MP contacted the landlord and asked it for a response to the resident’s complaint.
On 27 November 2022, the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint as the landlord had not provided its stage 1 response. In addition, the resident said:
1. the leak was still ongoing and there was damp and mould in the property.
2. he and his wife were vulnerable.
3. the issue had caused him and his wife significant distress and inconvenience.
On 9 December 2022, the landlord responded to the resident’s local MP and explained:
1. an operative would attend the property on 12 December 2022 to remove the damaged cupboards, repair the leak and replace the kitchen units.
2. It had closed the repair to the resident’s garden gate in error. The landlord said its contractor would contact the resident to arrange a date to install a new gate.
The landlord agreed to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 of its complaint procedure. On 14 March 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 response in which it explained:
1. it was sorry for the inconvenience the matter had caused the resident.
2. there had been delays in repairing the leak due to difficulties contacting the contractor and delays from receiving extra works. The landlord said it should have managed the repairs better with its contractor.
3. its communication with the resident could have been better.
4. it had rectified the leak at the beginning of February 2023.
5. it had raised the issues with the relevant teams to improve levels of service in the future.
6. it had offered £825 compensation, broken down as follows:
  1. £50 for the delay in sending a complaint acknowledgement.
  2. £150 for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint.
  3. £150 for the handling of the resident’s complaint at stage 1.
  4. £75 for the need for the resident to raise a complaint in order for the issues to be addressed.
  5. £400 for time and trouble caused.
  6. the landlord said it would withdraw the offer of compensation after 3 months.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of a leak under the resident’s kitchen sink and reports of subsequent damp and mould

The landlord’s repair procedure states it will respond to emergency repair requests within 24 hours. The landlord said it aims to complete all appointed repairs within 28 days and routine repairs within 20 working days. The landlord also said it will ensure that its repairs service is flexible towards the needs of vulnerable service users.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is a risk‑based evaluation tool to help local authorities identify and protect against potential risks and hazards to health and safety from any deficiencies identified in dwellings. A landlord is obliged, in accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, to ensure that a property is fit for human habitation and free from category 1 hazards.
There were delays in the landlord repairing the leak under the resident’s kitchen sink. The resident reported the leak on 27 September 2022. The Ombudsman understands that the landlord repaired the leak at some time in February 2023. The exact date of the repair is not clear from the landlord’s repair records.
On 14 February 2023, the resident confirmed the landlord had repaired the leak. Assuming therefore, that the landlord repaired the leak on or around 14 February 2023, there was a delay of 97 working days. This was not appropriate. In addition, this is evidence of poor record keeping.
The resident informed the landlord that the leak had a significant and detrimental impact on his ability to enjoy his home and he spent a considerable time chasing the landlord for responses and updates on repair works. The resident explained that he could not use his washing machine because of the leak, he had to wake in the middle of the night to mop the floors and the issue impacted the hygiene and welfare of the household.
The impact of the landlord’s delayed response to the leak was inappropriate. Given the landlord’s repairs policy said it would be flexible to meet the needs of its vulnerable service users, the Ombudsman considers the landlord’s service provision fell significantly below its expected standards. As a result, the landlord failed to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities, and this exacerbated the impact on the resident over an extended period. This was a severe failure by the landlord.
Internal emails also show other departments in the organisation chasing for updates on repairs. However, the team responsible for repairs were unclear on the works required on the resident’s property. While the Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord attempted to chase its contractors for updates on repairs, the landlord should keep up-to-date repair records which are easily accessible to all staff. The landlord failed to keep its repair records up to date which resulted in poor departmental communication and unnecessary delays. The landlord’s poor record keeping was a failure that worsened the situation for the resident.
It is best practice for landlords to appropriately record information including any reports of repairs, agreed actions or further issues raised by the resident. The failure to create and record information accurately can result in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress.
The resident said there was damp and mould in the property as a result of the leak. The evidence shows that the resident raised concerns about damp and mould in the property on at least 5 occasions between 27 November 2022 and 22 October 2023.
The evidence shows that although the resident was repeatedly reporting his concerns, the landlord failed to assess whether a mould wash was required in the property. There are no records of any mould washes taking place at the property. The Ombudsman considers it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered a mould wash as soon as it was on notice of mould in the property. Therefore, the landlord failed to demonstrate it responded appropriately to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
It would have been reasonable for the landlord to assess whether temporary measures were required, such as dehumidifiers or the use of temporary accommodation. In addition, it failed to monitor the property to assess the severity of the leak and the subsequent damp and mould. As the landlord failed to do this the resident was caused avoidable distress and inconvenience.
The landlord did not consider how it could mitigate the impact of the housing conditions on the resident. The landlord should have taken appropriate steps to avoid or minimise damp and mould which are potential health hazards in line with the HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS and are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.
Section 5.3.2 and 5.3.3 of the landlord’s compensation guidance states where a property is found to be uninhabitable, staff will arrange for a decant to be undertaken. Where a property is found to be habitable, but the resident is concerned that their individual situation or vulnerabilities mean that the property is not habitable or safe for them, housing officers will be asked to assess the household needs and the works required to make a final decision as to whether a decant should be arranged. The landlord failed to follow its own guidance in assessing the resident’s property to determine if a decant was required.
The Ombudsman has been unable to confirm with the resident whether the landlord has resolved the issues with the damp and mould. However, it is reasonable to conclude that the damp and mould remaining unresolved would have continued to cause significant distress and inconvenience to the resident, particularly due to the vulnerabilities present in this case.
The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response that it should have been more proactive in repairing the leak. It offered compensation to the resident for the “time and trouble” caused. Specifically, the landlord offered £475 compensation:
1. £75 for the need for the resident to raise a complaint in order for the issues to be addressed.
2. £400 for time and trouble caused.

The remaining offer of compensation was for the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

While the offer of redress made by the landlord shows good practice in trying to resolve complaints and learn from outcomes, the compensation was not proportionate to the severe failures identified in this report and their impact on the resident. This was because:
1. the landlord’s failure to follow the timeframes in its repairs policy for both the leak and the subsequent damp and mould which resulted in an avoidable and unreasonable delay for the resident.
2. the landlord’s failure to communicate effectively internally when monitoring the repairs.
3. the landlord’s failure to maintain adequate records to enable it to progress and monitor the repairs.
4. the landlord’s failure to demonstrate it had resolved the damp and mould in the property.
5. the landlord’s failure to demonstrate it had considered the resident’s vulnerabilities during the course of the repair.
6. the landlord’s failure to consider interim solutions to mitigate the impact of the housing conditions on the resident.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s gate

In April 2022, the resident reported that the garden gate was damaged and difficult to open. On 20 June 2022, the landlord said the resident’s gate posts were rotten and damaged at the base. The landlord recommended that the gate needed to be removed and replaced with new timber posts and a new gate.
The resident referred to issues with the gate in his complaint to the landlord on 5 November 2022. The Ombudsman has been unable to confirm with the resident if (or when) the landlord repaired the gate. On 2 March 2023, the landlord asked its contractor for an update on works to the gate. The contractor said it would complete the works by 10 March 2023. The Ombudsman has been unable to determine if the repairs to the gate had been completed due to the lack of adequate records available and this is a failure.
Drawing on the evidence available, there was a delay between the resident reporting the issue with the gate and when the landlord said it would complete the repair, 230 working days had elapsed. This was an inappropriate delay that was inconsistent with the timeframes in its repairs policy.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”) states landlords must respond at stage 1 within 10 working days of the complaint and at stage 2 within 20 working days of a request for escalation. The landlord’s complaint procedure aligns with the Code.
The landlord failed to send a stage 1 response to the resident. This inappropriate because it did not comply with its complaints policy or the Code. As a result, the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 2. The landlord’s failure meant it missed an opportunity to address his concerns sooner and left the resident waiting for a resolution to his concerns. The Ombudsman expects landlords to have issued its responses in a conducted a timely manner to try to resolve to the resident’s concerns.
On 23 January 2023, the landlord suggested that it would respond to the resident’s complaint at stage 2 within 7 days of repairing the leak. However, the landlord did not say when it would repair the leak, therefore leaving the repair and the complaint open-ended. This was not appropriate. The Code states a complaint response must be provided to the resident when the answer to the complaint is known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue are completed. This is because outstanding actions must still be tracked and actioned promptly with appropriate updates provided to the resident.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 14 March 2023. This was 53 working days outside of the landlord’s complaints policy which was an unreasonable delay and a failure to follow the timeframes in the Code and its complaints policy.
The landlord should have conducted a timely and appropriate investigation and response to the resident’s concerns. The delay in responding to the resident’s complaint would have delayed the resident in progressing the complaint through the landlord’s process. It would have also made him feel frustrated and that he was not being taken seriously and would have prevented him from exhausting the landlord’s internal complaints procedure so that he could bring the matter to the Ombudsman for an independent investigation.
The landlord failed to respond appropriately to all elements of the resident’s complaint. For example, the landlord failed to address the issues with the garden gate in its stage 2 response. It did not provide any explanation for the delays or any compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. This was a complaint handling failure in accordance with paragraph 6.7 of the Code. Landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.
The lack of clarity and lack of information made the resident feel frustrated and that his concerns were not being listened to. The resident said he felt he had no choice but to take legal action on the issue. The Ombudsman expects landlords to ensure they can identify complex cases at an early stage and have a strategy for keeping residents informed and effective resolution. This is to prevent and mitigate the need for residents to resort to legal processes unnecessarily, which results in protracted and costly litigation for both parties.
The landlord acknowledged its complaint handling failures in its stage 2 complaint response and had attempted to put this right through an offer of compensation of £350 (£50 for the delay in sending a complaint acknowledgement, £150 for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint, £150 for the handling of the resident’s complaint at stage 1).
This offer of compensation showed the landlord had acknowledged the financial impact on the resident of having to wait an excessive amount of time for it to resolve his complaint. The landlord also said it would take learning from the resident’s complaint and would discuss the issues with the relevant teams to improve future service. Therefore, it is the opinion of this service that the £350 offered here was reasonable redress by the landlord.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a leak under the resident’s kitchen sink and reports of subsequent damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s gate.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to, within 28 calendar days of the date of this determination:
1. provide a full apology for the errors identified in this report. The apology must come from the Chief Executive and must be made in person.
2. pay compensation to the resident of £1,800, in addition to the £475 offered in the complaint procedure (£2,275 total) broken down as follows:
  1. £1,500 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused, as well as the loss of enjoyment of the resident’s home in handling the reports of a leak and subsequent damp and mould in the property.
  2. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the gate.

The landlord should pay the compensation directly to the resident. The total compensation can be reduced by any of the £475 already paid to the resident.

arrange an inspection of the property. Once the inspection is completed, the surveyor must produce a written report within 10 working days of the inspection, which must:
1. set out any outstanding repairs.
2. include photographs of the areas specified.
3. comment on any damp and mould in the property and the cause.
4. set out a schedule of works, together with indicative timescales to complete the repairs.

The surveyor’s report must be provided to the Ombudsman and the landlord within 10 working days of the inspection.
The landlord must then use its best endeavours to ensure the works are completed within 28 days of the date of the inspection report, or such other later time specific in the report. The landlord must retain records of its actions to confirm it has employed its best endeavours.

Recommendations

Within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. Pay the £350 compensation it offered to the resident for the failures in its complaint handling, if it has not already done so.
2. Consider re-training its staff on complaint handling, having regard to the Code.