Sanctuary Housing Association (202229492)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229492

Sanctuary Housing Association

29 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’s handling of:
1. internal repairs to the property including damp and mould.
2. the resident’s reports of a leak.
3. the associated complaint.

Background

The resident lives in a 2-bedroom flat under an assured tenancy agreement. The landlord said it did not have a copy of the resident’s original tenancy agreement but that the tenancy commenced on 22 September 2003. The resident’s property has a communal roof. The landlord said it did not have any vulnerabilities listed on its systems for the resident.
In January 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that:
1. there was damp and mould in her property.
2. the extractor fans were not working.
3. her bathroom floor was sinking, and the bath panel was rotten.
The landlord inspected the property in February 2022 and identified various works were required including:
1. damp and mould treatments.
2. replastering and redecoration.
3. the installation of vents.
4. repairs to the bathroom plumbing and floor.
In April 2022, the resident reported her living room window would not open. In November 2022, she reported a leak from the roof of the property.
The landlord said it resolved the leak on 1 November 2023, by repairing the roof and clearing the gutters. However, the resident said the roof repair did not resolve the leak. The landlord said it then completed the remaining internal works by 14 February 2024.
On 25 January 2023, the resident raised a complaint to the landlord in which she said:
1. the landlord had delayed completing the repairs. She also expressed disappointment at the landlord’s communication when she tried to chase the repairs.
2. the condition of the property had impacted her health.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 14 March 2023. It upheld the resident’s complaint, apologised for its repair delay and poor communications, and offered the resident £400 compensation for this. It said it had escalated the repairs to a separate team and would monitor the roof repair and follow up on the remaining repairs afterwards.
The resident escalated her complaint on 14 April 2023. She said she remained dissatisfied with:
1. the delays.
2. the communication from the landlord during the complaint.
3. the compensation offered.
On 22 May 2023, the landlord upheld the resident’s complaint in its final response. It said this was because of the repair delays and its communication. It said it would monitor the repairs and offer redress after they had all been completed. This was so that it could consider the full impact of the time taken.
On 14 April 2024, the landlord made a revised offer of compensation totalling £5,558 for its failings including the delays for the repairs and complaint handling as well as its poor communications.
The resident told the Ombudsman that she is seeking a resolution that resolves all repairs as well as appropriate compensation.

Assessment and findings

The internal repairs to the property including damp and mould

The resident reported damp and mould in her property on 6 January 2022. The landlord inspected the property on 4 February 2022. The landlord identified that the mould was “severe” and likely caused by a historic leak.
Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on landlords to repair the structure and exterior of properties and keep them in good repair. Landlords are responsible for making repairs that are lasting and effective in all cases. The repairs should be completed promptly to avoid impacting the resident’s enjoyment and use of their property.
The Fitness for Human Habitation Act 2018 is an extension of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. This requires properties to be free from hazards including damp and mould, and as such do not cause significant harm. Landlords are also bound by the ‘Decent Homes Standard’ which states that social housing must be in a reasonable state of repair and provide a reasonable degree of thermal comfort.
The landlord’s repair policy states:
1. it will attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours.
2. it will attend to responsive repairs within 28 calendar days.
3. it will attend to planned repairs as part of a program of work. This may take longer than 28 days where there is no health and safety risk, and the required work does not disrupt the quality of life of residents.
The landlord identified the following repairs at its inspection:
1. lounge/diner:
  1. resolving the mould on the wall and ceilings and redecoration.
2. bedroom 1:
  1. resolving the mould on the walls and ceilings.
3. bedroom 2:
  1. resolving condensation on the window wall.
  2. remove air vents, block the vent holes, and make good the brickwork externally.
  3. replaster.
  4. install 2 vents.
  5. resolve the mould on the walls and ceilings and decorate.
4. bathroom:
  1. check and repair the plumbing and drainage pipes under the bath.
  2. fit a UPVC bath panel.
  3. lift the vinyl flooring, repair the timber below, and refit and relay existing flooring.
  4. remove the ducting below the bathroom sink and check and repair leaks on the waste pipes and plumbing.
  5. install a new extractor fan.
It therefore had to ensure the property was fit for human habitation and had a reasonable time to complete the repairs. The landlord said it completed all the repairs on 14 February 2024. The question is whether 2 years to complete this work was a reasonable time or whether there were unavoidable delays.
The evidence shows the landlord delayed completing the above repairs because:
1. the resident had reported a leak in November 2022 and a repair to the roof needed to be completed first, so the internal repairs were effective.
2. a separate team to the complaints team was monitoring the repairs and it was understaffed to deal with the required repair escalations.
3. its external contractor had let it down and the landlord’s repairs team had to carry out the work.
The evidence also indicates that between 4 February 2022 and 14 February 2024:
1. the landlord communicated conflicting messages to the resident and the contractor about whether the roof repair had been completed. This caused uncertainty about when the internal works were due to commence and further time and trouble to the resident.
2. it failed to raise repairs and approve quotes for the works promptly which caused consistent delays to the works being carried out.
3. the landlord chased the internal repairs with its contractor during a time when it was aware the leak in the roof was unresolved. This was inappropriate because it resulted in the contractor making further unnecessary contact with the resident which caused further distress, inconvenience, and confusion.
4. it failed to consider alternative arrangements to carry out the works at an earlier stage after it was apparent its contractor had consistently failed to carry out the works.
5. when it agreed to carry out the works internally, the resident raised discrepancies between the previous scope of works and the scope of works the landlord was going to undertake. The landlord said it would carry out the work it had previously agreed to. This was an appropriate response because it addressed the resident’s concerns. However, there is no evidence the landlord followed through with this when it sought to complete the repairs. This caused distress and inconvenience for the resident.
Between February 2022 and February 2024, the resident repeatedly chased the repairs. There is no evidence the landlord provided clear timescales for when it intended to carry out the repairs. There is also no evidence the landlord completed the repairs until 769 calendar days after the resident’s initial report. Whilst it may have been appropriate to wait for the roof repair to be completed, the leak was not reported until 10 months after the resident reported damp and mould. In addition, when the landlord said the leak was resolved it took a further 105 calendar days to complete the repairs.
The Ombudsman considers the landlord unreasonably delayed in carrying out the repairs because it failed to follow its repairs policy timeframes. This caused distress and inconvenience to the resident over an extended period because she was in a property with “severe” damp and mould that affected all the habitable rooms. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould states that landlords should take a zero-tolerance approach.
In addition, the resident told the Ombudsman that some of the repairs were outstanding because:
1. the living room window remained broken.
2. the bathroom floor remained unlevel.
3. the landlord did not prepare and treat the walls for mould before it redecorated.
4. the bathroom pipework was improperly replaced.
The repair records were inadequate, so the Ombudsman was unable to conclude the landlord completed all the repairs. This was a significant failure. The landlord was invited to comment on this and said that it had attended the property on 12 April 2024, and it identified it needed to assess the dip in the bathroom floor and repair the window. This was an appropriate response, however it is noted that this further supports the repairs were not all completed.
The resident also explained that she had concerns with the workmanship of the decorative works on the property. The landlord was invited to comment on this and said that it had completed an assessment of the works on 12 April 2024 and found that it had not completed the redecoration of the lounge and bedroom to a good standard. It said it intended to complete this with other works it identified as outstanding between 13 and 15 May 2024. It said it would also complete a post-inspection of these works to ensure they were of a good standard and the resident was satisfied. The Ombudsman considers this was an appropriate action to take. However, for the purpose of this report, it identifies that the standard of works being of a poor standard is not in dispute.
The failings identified by the Ombudsman are:
1. the landlord failed to adhere to the timeframes in its repairs policy when completing the works.
2. the landlord failed to demonstrate all the repairs were completed.
3. the landlord failed to complete all the repairs to a good standard.
4. the landlord failed to monitor the repairs effectively and escalate them to mitigate the delays the resident was experiencing.
5. the landlord consistently failed to be clear about the progress of the repairs, the delays it was experiencing, or to provide revised timescales to the resident.
6. the landlord failed to demonstrate it addressed the full scope of the works when it said it would carry out the works internally, after it said it would do so when it finalised the repairs in February 2024.

The resident’s reports of a leak

On 17 November 2022, the resident reported that there was a leak in the communal roof, and this was causing water ingress to her loft area. The resident said this was causing significant damp and mould across the majority of the property. The landlord attended on three occasions to repair the roof between May and November 2023, but this was ineffective because the resident continued to report a leak in her property.
The landlord’s repair records show this repair was completed 349 calendar days after the initial report. However, the resident told the Ombudsman the roof had not been repaired because she was still experiencing water ingress at the time of writing this report.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to complete repairs within a reasonable time. What is reasonable will depend on the circumstances and the nature of the repair. Where there is a delay in completing repairs, the Ombudsman expects landlords to be proactive in:
1. communicating the cause of delays to residents.
2. explaining to residents what it intends to do about the delays.
3. identifying what it can do to mitigate the impact of delays on residents.
The Ombudsman considers the landlord failed to follow its repair policy timeframes because there was a significant and unreasonable delay in completing the repairs to the roof. This caused the resident distress and inconvenience because she was living in a property with water ingress and “severe” damp and mould for an extended period.
There is no evidence the landlord tried to mitigate the impact on the resident, whilst it sought to repair the roof. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have considered the use of additional support, such as temporary accommodation or short-term solutions such as a dehumidifier or mould washes, given the damp and mould were considered to be severe. This was a failure.
In addition, the evidence shows the landlord intended to monitor the roof repair through a different team to the complaint handling team. However, as the roof was communal and other residents were reporting leaks to their properties there were several works’ orders raised on the roof. The landlord said it was unclear which roof repair was related to the resident’s report.
The Ombudsman considers that although the landlord intended to monitor the progress of the roof repair, this was ineffective. It is also concerning to note the landlord was unclear on which roof order related to the resident. This indicates poor record-keeping which prevented it from expediting the repair, despite the complaint handling team’s frequent requests for this to happen. This is likely to have caused the delay and the distress of the resident.
The evidence indicates the resident chased the roof repair on multiple occasions between November 2022 and November 2023, and that she was given conflicting information about whether repairs had been raised, who was responsible for carrying out the repairs, and when they would be completed. This was a failure by the landlord because it was unclear to the resident what the landlord intended to do and when.
Although there is evidence of the resident telling the landlord the roof was no longer causing any issues in November 2023, there is also evidence of the resident re-raising a leak in January 2024. The landlord was asked to comment on this and said that the resident did not raise a further issue with the leak until April 2024 and that it had not been aware of the issue until this point. The landlord’s communication records do not support this statement.
The landlord said it would be assessing the roof on 15 May 2024 to see if the leak is new or a reoccurrence of the previous leak and it would raise the necessary works once agreed with the resident. Although this was an appropriate response to a leak being re-reported, the landlord unreasonably delayed in assessing the leak because it had been notified in January 2024 that there was a leak present. This was maladministration because the landlord failed to demonstrate that it made an effective and lasting repair in accordance with its statutory obligations.
The failures identified by the Ombudsman are:
1. the landlord failed to follow its repairs policy when attempting to complete the roof repair resulting in an unreasonable delay that left the resident in a property with “severe” damp and mould.
2. the landlord unreasonably delayed in assessing the roof after being put on notice by the resident in January 2024 that her property was leaking.
3. the landlord failed to demonstrate it tried to mitigate the impact on the resident whilst the repairs were delayed.
4. the landlord failed to monitor or escalate the repairs given it was aware of its delay and the resident’s consistent chasing.
5. the landlord’s poor record-keeping prevented it from identifying and escalating the roof repair at an earlier stage.
6. the landlord failed to manage communications with the resident about the progress and timescales associated with the repair. This caused uncertainty and contributed to the breakdown of the landlord’s relationship with the resident.

Redress offered by the landlord

The landlord has awarded the resident compensation of £5,558 for these errors. While this may be an appropriate level of compensation, it does not factor in that works are outstanding. That means this does not resolve the complaint entirely. The Ombudsman also notes, that there is no evidence of the landlord considering learning from this complaint.

Complaint handling

This service’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) states:
1. stage 1 responses must be responded to within 10 working days of the complaint.
2. stage 2 responses must be responded to within 20 working days of the resident’s request to escalate.
3. outstanding actions must still be tracked and actioned expeditiously with regular updates provided to the resident.
4. complaint handlers should have the authority and autonomy to act to resolve disputes quickly and fairly.
The landlord’s complaint policy mirrors the timeframes set out in the Code.
The resident raised her complaint on 25 January 2023. The provided its stage 1 complaint response on 14 March 2023, which was 34 working days later. This was not appropriate, as it was not consistent with the landlord’s policy or the Code.
When the resident escalated her complaint, the landlord did not respond. After attempts to contact the landlord, it became apparent the resident’s complaint had been closed due to “no contact.” It is unclear why the landlord closed the resident’s complaint when she was regularly trying to contact it to express her dissatisfaction. The Ombudsman considers this to be maladministration because the landlord acted unfairly and incompetently and this further fractured the landlord and tenant relationship.
The Ombudsman had to intervene to ask the landlord to respond at the final stage of its complaint process. This should not have been necessary. The Ombudsman expects landlords to be able to manage complaints without the involvement of this service. This was a failure by the landlord.
The resident escalated her complaint on 14 April 2023. The landlord issued its final response on 22 May 2023, which was 25 working days later. This was not appropriate, as it was not consistent with the landlord’s policy or the Code.
The evidence shows the resident made numerous requests for contact, however many of these were not responded to by the landlord. This was a failure to follow the requirements of the Code because the landlord should have been proactively contacting the resident about the outstanding actions and responding to her queries in a timely manner.
The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have provided regular updates to the resident even where there was no substantive information to provide.
In its final response, the landlord recognised there were delays with its repairs and a breakdown of communication. It said it would make a final offer of compensation when the repairs were completed to ensure it considered the full impact and duration for the resident. The landlord made an offer of compensation on 14 April 2024, once it believed the repairs were completed.
The Ombudsman considers that whilst it was appropriate for the landlord to assess the resident’s position again at the time the repairs were completed, it could have addressed the failures it had found to date and offered the resident suitable compensation at the time of its stage 2 response. Due to further delays, the landlord took a further 10 months to offer compensation to the resident. This was inappropriate because the landlord delayed in trying to put things right for the resident.
Overall, there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling because:
1. the landlord did not adhere to the timeframes in its policy or the Code when it responded to the resident’s complaint.
2. the landlord acted incompetently when it closed the resident’s complaint despite having frequent contact with her.
3. the landlord failed to manage its communications with the resident in a timely and efficient manner.
4. the landlord delayed in trying to put things right by compensating the resident at an earlier stage.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of:
1. the internal repairs to the property including damp and mould.
2. the resident’s reports of a leak.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 days of the determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. apologise for the failures found in this report. It must provide its apology in writing.
2. pay the resident compensation as detailed in paragraph 54 under the ‘compensation order.’
3. conduct the repairs as detailed in paragraph 55 under the ‘repairs order.’
Within 56 days the landlord must conduct a senior management review of the case in accordance with paragraph 54(f) of the Scheme to identify:
1. why it consistently delayed in approving the repairs it had raised and how it proposes to prevent this from happening in the future.
2. why it was ineffective when it tried to escalate the repairs and how it proposes to improve this in the future to ensure priority repairs are responded to appropriately.
3. why it failed to provide timely updates to the resident about the progress of the repairs.
4. how the complaints process can ensure it retains autonomy to escalate and expedite repairs in cases of delay where this is being carried out by a different arm of the organisation.

The landlord must produce a report, and this must be presented to the senior leadership team. It must also provide a copy to the resident and the Ombudsman.

The compensation order

The landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £7,350, comprising of:
  1. £6,450 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the repairs and having to reside in a property with severe damp. This replaces the £5,558 offered by the landlord.
  2. £750 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience of the repairs and works which were completed to a poor standard and which remain outstanding.
  3. £150 for the frustration and upset caused by the poor complaint handling.
2. following the completion of the repairs order, the landlord must review any further compensation due to the resident relating to delays, and distress and inconvenience for any additional time the identified repairs remain outstanding.
3. the landlord is entitled to offset the total compensation associated with this order from the sums already paid to the resident during the complaint process.

The survey order

The landlord is ordered to:
1. contact the resident to arrange a further inspection (survey) of the property. The inspection must be arranged at a mutually convenient time for the parties but within 28 days of the date of this determination.
2. within 14 days of the inspection, the surveyor must provide a written report, with date stamped pictures (with the resident’s consent) detailing the condition of the property. The survey report must identify any outstanding repairs or actions the landlord must take to ensure the property is fit for human habitation and safe for the resident. It must also include a schedule of repairs and works to be completed to address any outstanding leak at the property.

The repairs order

The landlord is ordered to:
1. use its best endeavours to start any recommended works within 7 days of the date of the survey and complete these within a period not exceeding 12 weeks. If it cannot start or conclude the works within this time, it must explain the reasons to the resident and the Ombudsman when this will be done.
2. once the works are completed the landlord must arrange for an independent assessment of the completed works to be conducted and share this with the resident.
3. provide evidence of compliance with this order no later than 12 weeks from the date of this determination.

Recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends it arranges refresher training for its complaint handlers.