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

Sanctuary Housing Association (202226029)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202226029

Sanctuary Housing Association

28 October 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 the resident’s reports about works agreed when she signed up for the tenancy of the property and after the tenancy started.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured non-shorthold tenancy of a 3-bedroom semi-detached house, which started on 3 February 2022. The landlord is a housing association. The resident advised that her child has vulnerabilities.
  2. The landlord and the resident agreed works to be carried out in the property when she signed the tenancy. The resident also reported various repairs to the landlord, around 8 February 2022, after the tenancy had started. The landlord inspected the property around 11 February 2022 and agreed additional works which included a new flooring in the wet room, stair handrail, remove garden shed, trim hedges, and clear the front garden. The landlord communicated internally that the property should have had a full redecoration.
  3. The resident chased the landlord for an update between 17 and 28 February 2022. She said she had not been able to move into the property due to the problems with the heating and the outstanding works. She said she had been trying to get an update for weeks. The landlord said in an internal email the same day, that all internal works would be completed, during the week, except for the wet room flooring.
  4. The resident raised a formal complaint regarding the matter on 22 March 2022. She complained that several works agreed with the landlord had not yet been completed. This included the garden shed removal, rubbish left by workmen and drainage issues with the wet room. The landlord visited the property around 5 April 2022 and arranged for the works to be carried out. It advised the resident in an email dated 30 March 2022 that her complaint about heating was being dealt with as a separate complaint. The resident raised further concerns about the condition of the back garden. She said the concrete pathway was cracked and a trip hazard. She also requested repairs to the fence.
  5. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 17 May 2022. It apologised for the delay in completing the works and acknowledged that they should have been completed before she moved in. It said the outstanding works had been scheduled for 21 May 2022, and other repairs which were not part of the original complaint were being dealt with separately by the relevant teams. It offered £350 for the poor communication, delay in completing the repairs and time and trouble and inconvenience.
  6. The resident requested the escalation of her complaint to stage 2 on 7 June 2022. She said the landlord had not completed the garden works or cleared rubbish left by the previous tenant as promised. The landlord responded on 20 July 2022. It said works agreed at sign up had all been completed and additional works to the back garden had been delayed (garden fence and concrete path) due to essential training for its staff. It concluded that the resident had been inconvenienced due to the delay in completing works and it increased the compensation by £150 (£500 total).
  7. The resident raised 2 further complaints regarding the garden works between 3 November 2022 and 5 January 2023. She said the boundary fence had not been repaired and rubbish left by the previous tenant had not been cleared. She also said the concrete path was becoming dangerous and had not been repaired. The landlord responded on 20 April 2023 and apologised for the poor communication. It said it was pleased to hear that the works had been arranged. It offered an additional compensation in the amount of £775 (£200 for the complaint handling). The landlord increased the compensation to £1872 on 18 July 2023 due to further delays and loss of enjoyment of the garden.
  8. The resident referred the matter to this Service. She said the repairs remained unresolved even after both complaints had exhausted the landlord’s complaints process.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Ombudsman notes that the resident complained she was unable to move into the property due to the outstanding works, specifically, due to heating problems. This aspect of her complaint was dealt with separately by the landlord. It informed this Service that the complaint had been satisfactorily resolved at stage 1 of its complaints process. Paragraph 42.a. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale. Therefore, the resident’s complaint about the delay in moving into the property will not form part of this investigation. This is in accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the scheme. This is because the complaint did not exhaust the landlord’s internal complaints process. The resident has also been advised that complaints raised after April 2023 will not be included in this investigation.
  2. This Service notes the resident’s reports to the landlord regarding her health and injury sustained by her child during her complaints. This Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causations of, or liability for, impact on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim. We have seen that the landlord dealt with this matter separately. The landlord’s records indicate that it has public liability insurance. The resident is advised to pursue this matter with the landlord if it remains unresolved or seek independent legal advice on any personal injury claims.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about works agreed when she signed up for the tenancy of the property and after the tenancy started.

  1. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
    1.        Be fair
    2.        Put things right
    3.         Learn from outcomes
  2. This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.
  3. The landlord’s void policy states that its objectives are to:
    1.        Enable customers to move into their new homes with minimum delay and keep them fully informed of progress.
    2.        Minimise the cost of void repairs and ensure the property meets the appropriate standard for lettings.
  4. The evidence shows that the property was handed by back the landlord’s voids team before 3 February 2022. The Ombudsman notes that the resident was concerned about the state of the property at the sign-up appointment. The landlord shared this concern, as noted in its internal correspondence dated 7 February 2022. It said the condition of the property was not to the expected standards, including the cleaning, and that it gave the resident the option of refusing the tenancy. This means that the property was not ready for habitation when the resident signed the tenancy. This was not in adherence to its policy. This would have caused the resident some distress.
  5. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it would aim to complete all appointed repairs within 28 days and at the appointment time originally agreed with the resident. We have not been able to ascertain the agreement made with the resident in terms of the repairs and timescales for completion at sign up. It is also not clear why the repairs in the property were not completed to the expected standards before the tenancy commenced. However, it is clear that the resident accepted the property on the condition that the works would be completed. Therefore, the landlord should have endeavoured to complete the works within the timescales set out in its responsive repairs policy.
  6. The landlord informed us that most of the outstanding works were completed within a few days after the tenancy started, but the wet room flooring, and some external works remained outstanding. The resident said the landlord agreed to complete all outstanding repairs within 2 weeks of the date of sign up but failed to do so. We have seen from the landlord’s internal email on 28 February 2022 that the resident reported concerns about the lack of communication. It also noted in another email on 14 March 2022 that the resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the ongoing works. She said the delay and poor communication regarding the works was adversely affecting her health. She said she had post-natal depression.
  7. Communication between its departments concerning the repairs was also not clear and this would have contributed to the delay in completing the works. This is noted in the landlord’s internal email (with its trades team) on 28 March 2022 that it was not aware there were other works outstanding apart from the wet room flooring. The resident had advised that various repairs including the removal of the garden shed and the disposal of rubbish left by workmen had not been carried out. It did not closely monitor the progress of the repairs and was often reactive. The landlord subsequently visited the property on 5 April 2022 to go through the outstanding repairs with the resident. It said the wet room flooring had been ordered and scheduled for installation on 9 May 2022. It also noted that the garden shed, and rubbish would be cleared by the relevant teams.
  8. On 6 May 2022, the resident sent the landlord a long list of repairs that she said were first reported around February 2022. This included the garden shed which she said had started to collapse, uneven cracked concrete pathway, and a dangerous fence. The landlord said it was not aware of some of the repairs. However, it is clear from the evidence that the garden shed was part of the works initially raised by the resident in February 2022 which it said would be cleared when it visited in April 2022. This would have caused the resident further distress and frustration.
  9. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it aims to provide a repairs and maintenance service that meets the high standards expected by service users, tailoring the service appropriately to meet individual needs. It says it will carry out responsive repairs promptly and in one visit, where possible, regularly update customers on the progress of their repair through proactive communication. The landlord noted that the wet room flooring was fitted on 9 May 2022, and other works including the garden shed, rubbish left by workmen, and front garden were cleared on 16 May 2022. However, in its stage 1 response on 17 May 2022, it apologised that the garden shed, and rubbish clearance had not been fully completed. While the evidence shows the landlord was taking some steps to put things right, this did not go far enough.
  10. In its internal emails on 19 May 2022, the landlord said the resident was calling constantly for an update on the outstanding works to the garden. It remained undecided on who would be responsible for some of the works. This shows a lack of coordination and failure to manage the resident’s expectations. The resident requested a survey of the property on 8 February 2022. It is unclear if this was done as it would have assisted the landlord in coordinating the works better and in managing the resident’s expectations.
  11. The landlord apologised to the resident for its poor handling of the repairs in its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses. It acknowledged that the repairs raised by the resident should have been completed before she moved into the property. In its stage 2 response on 20 July 2022, the landlord said further repairs reported by the resident (which related to the back garden boundary fence and path) were delayed due to staff training. Its policy states that it is the resident’s responsibility to cut back hedges or trees, fencing and paving works.
  12. The landlord has since explained to this Service that it agreed to repair the fencing, even though it was a neighbouring property’s responsibility, because it was in poor condition. At the end of the complaints process the landlord offered a total of £500 to the resident for the inconvenience, time and trouble and for the poor communication. This offer is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance for maladministration and the landlord’s compensation policy. The landlord also arranged for its contractor to attend the property on 22 July 2022 to assess the garden works and provide a quote.
  13. After the complaints process had been exhausted, the contractor provided a quote to the landlord for the repairs to the concrete path and fencing on 22 July 2022. The resident chased up the repairs between 30 August 2022 and 18 October 2022. The Ombudsman notes that the works related to the garden remained outstanding up until November 2022 and the resident had to raise a further complaint to get them resolved. This is not appropriate nor in line with its repairs policy. The landlord advised that the garden works were completed on 3 February 2023. In a further stage 2 response provided by the landlord on 20 April 2023, it said:
    1.        It was sorry for the inconvenience and disruption caused to the resident and the difficulties she had experienced since the start of her tenancy.
    2.        The resident’s experience was exacerbated as it should have managed the repairs better with its contractors and repairs team.
    3.         Several visits, delays in approving additional repairs, and poor communication from its repairs team contributed to the resident’s experience. It did not provide the standard of service its residents would expect.
    4.        It had taken steps to address this with the relevant team managers to discuss in their performance review to ensure they were reminded of the importance of good communication with residents.
  14. The landlord offered an additional £775 (inclusive of £200 for the complaint handling) for the inconvenience to the resident for the extended delays in completing the works. Due to further concerns raised by the resident about the standard of works carried out to the garden, the landlord awarded an additional £897 (inclusive of £200 for time and trouble, £100 for complaint handling and loss of use of the garden) to the resident on 18 July 2023. It said £597 was for the loss of enjoyment of the garden from when the previous complaint was closed in 2022. This brings the total compensation to £1872. The Ombudsman welcomes the redress offered by the landlord, as it recognised the impact of the delays on the resident and her family.
  15. Overall, it is clear the landlord accepted that the property was not up the expected standards at sign up. It agreed to complete the repairs, but it failed to do so within a reasonable timeframe or in compliance with its repairs policy. The landlord admitted that it did not address the resident’s concerns in a proactive manner, manage her expectations or communicate effectively internally, and with her on the progress of the works. It completed the works, apologised to the resident, offered compensation, carried out repairs to the garden which it would not normally do as a gesture of good will.
  16. Due to the above, the landlord has offered reasonable redress in handling of the resident’s reports about works agreed when she signed up for the tenancy of the property and after the tenancy started.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it may consider offering compensation to a resident for delayed responses to complaints or an apology. The resident raised the stage 1 complaint on 22 March 2022, but the landlord did not respond until 17 May 2022. While this was outside the timescales set out in its complaints policy, it regularly updated the resident on what it was doing. An example is its holding response to the resident on 11 April 2022. It also liaised proactively with the repairs team and other departments and sought to understand what went wrong, and if the property was inspected after void works. This follows its commitment to put residents at the heart of the complaints process. This is noted from its email dated 30 March 2022 to the relevant staff. However, it took approximately 40 working days to respond to the complaint as opposed to the 10 working days set out in the complaint handling policy. The landlord did not acknowledge this delay or apologise for it in its response.
  2. While this may have been seen as an omission, the stage 2 response was also delayed. The resident requested the escalation of the complaint on 7 June 2022, but the response was sent on 20 July 2022. This was approximately 31 working days later. This is not appropriate nor is it in line with its policy which states that it will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. Although it kept in communication with the resident, and it requested an extension on 6 July 2022. It also gave her a revised date for the complaint response, but it did not acknowledge the delays or offer any compensation for the inconvenience this may have caused the resident.
  3. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it may not be appropriate for a complaint to be raised where it has already been investigated through its complaints policy, and a final response has been given. However, the landlord reopened another investigation of the actions agreed at the end of the stage 2 process on 20 July 2022. It should have followed up these actions and worked with the relevant teams to get it resolved. Although the landlord stated that the resident’s concerns about the garden were reported at a later stage, the evidence shows they were part of the issues raised in her stage 2 complaint. The resident had to raise another complaint approximately 4 months after the complaint was finalised for the landlord to follow up these actions. This is not appropriate.
  4. The Ombudsman has seen that the landlord offered the resident £300 for the failures identified in the complaints addressed between November 2022 and April 2023. The landlord also followed up actions from its earlier complaint responses to completion. This demonstrates some learning from its errors. The landlord also offered an additional £200 on 18 July 2023 for the overall time and trouble experienced by the resident. However, the landlord failed to acknowledge its earlier failures in the complaints handled between March and July 2022. Based on this, it is the Ombudsman’s view that there was evidence of service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident for the complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord should within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
    1.        Pay the resident £50 for the failure identified in its complaint handling.
  2. The landlord should within 8 weeks of the date of this report:
    1.        Review its handling of the resident’s complaint and determine what went wrong.
    2.        Offer training to the relevant staff and emphasise the importance of following up any actions agreed after its complaints process has been exhausted.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay the resident the £2172 previously offered to her if it has not yet been paid to her. This is broken down as:
    1.        £350 offered on 17 May 2022 in its stage 1 response.
    2.        £150 offered on 20 July 2022 in its stage 2 response.
    3.         £775 offered on 20 April 2023 in its stage 2 response.
    4.        £897 offered on 18 July 2023 in its revised response.