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

Sanctuary Housing Association (202301777)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301777

Sanctuary Housing Association

18 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:
    1. Concerns about asbestos in the property.
    2. Repairs to the bathroom.
    3. The resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has lived in the property as a secure tenant since 2013. The property is a 3-bedroom house.
  2. On 4 April 2022, the resident told the landlord its operatives had damaged her bathroom floor. She said it had removed tiles and exposed a rotten floor, and this was not safe for her children.
  3. The landlord raised a job on 29 June 2022, to install a ceiling mounted extractor fan. On 19 February 2023, a contractor asked the landlord for an asbestos report before they did work to fit the extractor fan. An asbestos survey took place on 22 March 2023.
  4. The resident complained on 22 March 2023, that the landlord had ripped up her bathroom floor and left damaged asbestos tiles. She said her health had declined because of this, and her children were getting splinters in their feet and were breathing in asbestos. She said she wanted the asbestos record for her house.
  5. The landlord responded on 27 March 2023. It said its records showed it did work on the bathroom floor in July 2021, and under its complaints policy it would not investigate issues more than 6 months old. It said it had asked its repairs team to assess the bathroom floor for asbestos.
  6. On 3 April 2023, the resident told the landlord it had taken photos of the floor in June 2022. She said the landlord knew the floor tiles contained asbestos. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 5 April 2023. On the same day, the resident said she wanted her complaint escalated to stage 2.
  7. In its complaint response on 14 April 2023, the landlord apologised that it had previously given the resident incorrect information about asbestos. It acknowledged that she wanted to escalate the complaint to stage 2 but said it had raised the matter with its repairs team, who would contact her to book an appointment. It apologised for inconvenience caused and offered a goodwill payment of £200 for delays.
  8. The resident escalated her complaint on 9 May 2023 as she was not satisfied with the response. She said she had not received the asbestos report for her property and there was asbestos in a cupboard, which the landlord had not mentioned in its response.
  9. On 23 June 2023, the landlord received a disrepair claim on behalf of the resident from her solicitors. This related to repairs in the bathroom, extractor fans, and asbestos.
  10. Following contact from the Ombudsman, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 25 July 2023. In its final response on 17 August 2023, the landlord apologised for “poor complaint handling”. On the repairs, it said it was sorry for the delays. It said following the disrepair claim it did an inspection, had agreed a schedule of works, and was in contact with her solicitor. It said an asbestos test showed the bathroom tiles were not asbestos. In addition to the £200 offered at stage 1, it offered compensation of £350.
  11. On 18 August 2023, the resident told the landlord she was refusing its offer because it had left her for 5 months with no response or help, which she said affected her mental health.
  12. The landlord told the resident on 25 August 2023, that it had reviewed the time, trouble, and inconvenience it had caused her since she made the complaint. It said it had also considered the future impact of the disrepair case up to the end of November 2023. Because of this, it increased the offer of compensation to £1,150. This included the £200 goodwill payment offered at stage one, £250 for poor complaint handling, £400 for time, trouble, and inconvenience caused, and £300 for future impact of disrepair works.
  13. The resident remained dissatisfied with the response and escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman. She said she wanted the property inspected, repairs done to the bathroom, asbestos investigated thoroughly, extractor fans installed, and increased compensation.
  14. On 19 March 2024, in response to the resident’s disrepair claim, the landlord offered £593.83 in damages and agreed to do repairs within 6 calendar months. In December 2024, the resident told the Ombudsman that the landlord had only done work to fit an extractor fan.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of concerns about asbestos

  1. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide whether asbestos in the property should be removed. It is the Ombudsman’s role to decide whether the landlord followed its policy and acted reasonably in the circumstances. For example, did the landlord assess the asbestos and take appropriate action.
  2. The landlord’s repairs handbook says asbestos is only harmful if it is damaged or disturbed, so in most cases asbestos is not a danger to health. It says it understands it can be worrying when a resident discovers asbestos in their home. It asks residents to contact it if there are materials that may contain asbestos, and if they are damaged or in a poor condition.
  3. On its website, the landlord says when it conducts an asbestos survey, it will confirm whether materials contain asbestos and their condition. It says it keeps this information on a register, which helps it manage asbestos safely. The landlord says it undertakes surveys when there is an identified need. This includes when a resident has told it about concerns or when one of its operatives finds there may be asbestos present when they visit to do a repair. It says where necessary, it will remove any damaged or fragile material. It says it is not necessary to remove asbestos that is in a good condition.
  4. Records provided by the landlord show that on 4 February 2022, the resident told the landlord that its operatives had damaged her bathroom flooring. Based on the records the Ombudsman has seen, it is unclear when the reported damage was caused or what action the landlord took in response to the resident’s report. Because of this, the Ombudsman cannot determine whether the landlord acted reasonably at the time. However, the Ombudsman has noted that on 3 April 2023, the resident told the landlord that it had taken photos of the bathroom in June 2022. In its responses, the landlord did not dispute this. Because of this, it is reasonable to assume there was damage to the flooring in June 2022.
  5. On 19 February 2023, contractors asked the landlord for an asbestos report before doing work to fit an extractor fan. This was a reasonable step to take and was in line with the landlord’s approach when there was a concern about potential asbestos.
  6. An asbestos survey on 22 March 2023 found textured coated ceilings in the property, which did not need any action, unless the landlord planned to do work that would disturb the ceilings. It also found the bathroom floor tiles were vinyl and did not contain asbestos.
  7. The resident complained on 27 March 2023, that the landlord’s operative had damaged her bathroom floor tiles. She said the operative told her the tiles were not asbestos, but this was a lie. She said she wanted the asbestos certificate for the property.
  8. In its complaint response on 14 April 2023, the landlord said it had looked at the notes on its system and apologised that it gave the resident incorrect information about asbestos when it did work on the bathroom floor. The Ombudsman has found that this was an unclear response, as it did not make it clear whether there was asbestos or not. It also did not respond to the resident’s request for information about asbestos in the property. This was a failure by the landlord to clearly respond to the resident’s complaint.
  9. When the resident escalated her complaint on 9 May 2023, she said the landlord had not given her information about asbestos in her home. She also referred to asbestos in an upstairs cupboard, which the landlord had not mentioned in its complaint response. The Ombudsman has not seen the cupboard mentioned in correspondence from the resident before this point.
  10. Records show the landlord raised a repair to deal with asbestos on 14 June 2023. However, on 23 June 2023 a solicitor made a disrepair claim on behalf of the resident, which included asbestos works. Because of this, the landlord put work on hold and dealt with it as part of the disrepair claim. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to deal with any unsafe or emergency situations while it was considering a disrepair claim. However, based on the records provided there is no evidence there was an immediate risk from the asbestos. Because of this, it was reasonable for the landlord to deal with any asbestos as part of the wider disrepair claim.
  11. In its final response on 17 August 2023, the landlord confirmed that an asbestos test had found no asbestos in the bathroom tiles. It said upon further inspection, the only asbestos noted in the property was in the first-floor cupboard. It said it would cut out and repair this as part of the disrepair works. It acknowledged the first complaint response did not provide clear information about asbestos and offered £100 compensation because of this.
  12. The Ombudsman appreciates that the resident was concerned about the potential health effect of any asbestos in the damaged floor tiles. The landlord could have made it clear there was no asbestos in the floor tiles when it first responded to the complaint on 14 April 2023. Instead, it did not let the resident know there was no asbestos in the tiles until it sent its final response on 17 August 2023. This delay caused unnecessary distress to the resident, who was concerned about the potential health effect on her and her children.
  13. The landlord accepted it had failed to communicate clearly and said it would remove asbestos in the cupboard. It offered £100 for the failure to communicate clearly. It is the Ombudsman’s view that this was a minor failure by the landlord and the compensation of £100 was reasonable redress in the circumstances.
  14. The Ombudsman understands that the resident has not accepted compensation previously offered. The Ombudsman recommends this compensation is reoffered.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the bathroom

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy says appointed repairs are all non-emergency repairs. It says it will agree an appointment with the resident during the first point of contact, wherever possible. It says it aims to complete all appointed repairs within 28 days. The tenancy handbook makes it clear that the landlord will undertake any necessary repairs within the timescales it promises.
  2. On 4 February 2022, the resident contacted the landlord about damage to her bathroom floor. It is unclear from the information provided how the landlord responded to this report. On 29 June 2022, the landlord’s records refer to mould in the bathroom and the need for an extractor fan. There are no records relating to this until contractors asked for an asbestos report in February 2023.
  3. The resident complained on 27 March 2023 about the condition of the bathroom floor. In its complaint response on 14 April 2023, the landlord said it had asked its repairs team to contact the resident to make an appointment. Although the Ombudsman cannot comment on how the landlord responded to the reports made in 2022 because of a lack of information, the Ombudsman has found the landlord did not follow its repairs policy in March 2023. This is because the resident complained about the condition of her floor on 27 March 2023, but it did not ask the repairs team to contact her until 14 April 2023. This was 13 working days after the resident reported the problem.
  4. The Ombudsman has not seen details of when the landlord inspected the floor, but on 27 April 2023, its records say it was waiting for a quote to remove a section of ceiling in the bathroom. It said when this was complete, it would arrange for an electrician to install an extractor fan. On 16 June 2023, the landlord asked contractors to agree a date with the resident to remove the section of ceiling and fit the fan. This was a year after the landlord’s records referred to mould in the bathroom and the need for an extractor fan. This was a significant and unreasonable delay.
  5. On 26 June 2023, the landlord received a disrepair claim from a solicitor on behalf of the resident. The claim included mould on bathroom tiles, damp bathroom walls and ceiling, peeling paint, tiles coming away from the flooring, a loose bath panel, a damp skirting board, a gap between the skirting and floor, a hole in the bathroom wall, and no extractor fans.
  6. Contractors told the landlord on 27 June 2023 that the resident was refusing an appointment as she was in dispute with the landlord. The landlord’s records on the same day noted it had a disrepair claim and because of this it would agree all related repairs with the resident’s solicitor. It said the disrepair claim included installation of the extractor fans, and because of this it had cancelled the repair order. The Ombudsman has found that this was a reasonable position as the resident had engaged a solicitor to take forward her disrepair claim.
  7. Records show the landlord did an inspection survey on 13 July 2023 as part of the work on the disrepair claim. This found damp was “most likely due to condensation”, the only disturbed asbestos noted was in the first-floor cupboard, and extractor fans were needed in the bathroom and kitchen.
  8. The landlord sent the solicitor a copy of the 13 July 2023 inspection report on 1 August 2023. It said the defects within the resident’s claim, “were admitted as far as outlined in the report” and it intended to do the repairs.
  9. On 14 August 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident and said following a telephone call it had with her on 11 August 2023, it had contacted the disrepair team to chase a start date for the repairs. It said the works were at quotation stage and it expected quotes back by 8 September 2023.
  10. In its final response on 17 August 2023, the landlord said it was sorry for the delays the resident had experienced and that it had not provided a start date. It said the agreed works in the bathroom included raking out and regrouting tiles, preparing and painting walls and ceilings, hacking off vinyl floor tiles and making good, and installing a fan. It said it would monitor the work until completion. It initially reoffered the £200 goodwill gesture for inconvenience caused. Following further contact from the resident, when she referred to being left for 5 months with no response or help, it offered an additional £400 for time, trouble, and inconvenience, and £300 for future impact of the repairs to the end of November 2023.
  11. The Ombudsman has found that this was reasonable redress in the circumstances. This is because there was a service failure and the level of compensation for inconvenience, time, and trouble was in line with the amount the Ombudsman would award in these circumstances. The compensation also included a reasonable amount for future inconvenience.
  12. In December 2024, the resident told the Ombudsman that the only repair completed was the installation of an extractor fan. She said the landlord had not done other agreed repairs and the condition of her property was getting worse, and mould was spreading. She said the mould had damaged clothing.
  13. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the landlord completed the repairs but has noted communications from the landlord about outstanding work between October 2023 and November 2024. These communications show attempts by the landlord to arrange the agreed work but on several occasions the resident appears to have refused the work or the work was cancelled. In December 2024, the resident expressed her desire to get the outstanding work completed. Because of this, the Ombudsman recommends the landlord and resident work together to agree a schedule to complete outstanding repairs.
  14. The Ombudsman has noted that the landlord had not completed repairs by November 2023, which was the point the landlord compensated the resident until. Some of the delays appear to be related to the resident refusing access. The Ombudsman has also noted the landlord offered damages in March 2024. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord considers whether it should pay additional compensation to the resident from November 2023 until the time all previously agreed works are completed.
  15. The Ombudsman understands that the resident has not accepted compensation previously offered. The Ombudsman recommends this compensation is reoffered.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. It makes it clear that residents have the right to ask to escalate their complaint to stage 2 if they are unhappy with the response at stage 1. The landlord says it aims to respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the resident escalating the complaint. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code.
  2. The complaints policy also says there are some circumstances when the landlord will not investigate a complaint because there is another process better suited to resolving the problem. It says it will not deal with issues under its complaints policy that occurred more than 6 months before, unless there was evidence the resident had raised it and no action had been taken.
  3. The resident complained on 22 March 2023 about the condition of her bathroom. On 27 March 2023, which was 2 working days later, the landlord told her it had reviewed records and found the resident last raised the issue in July 2021. It said because of this, it could not investigate the matter under its complaints policy. It explained this was because more than 6 months had passed. Instead, it said it had asked the repairs team to make an appointment. The Ombudsman has found that this was a reasonable position for the landlord to take at this time.
  4. A week later, on 3 April 2023, the resident told the landlord it had visited her property in June 2022 to look at the bathroom. The Ombudsman has not seen a record of this appointment but has noted the landlord raised a work order to install an extractor fan in June 2022. The landlord responded on 5 April 2023, and based on this new information, acknowledged a complaint made on 3 April 2023. It said it would respond by 21 April 2023. The resident responded and said she complained on 22 March 2023, not 3 April 2023. She said because of this she wanted her complaint escalated to stage 2.
  5. The Ombudsman has found that the landlord’s handling of the start of the complaints process was, in large parts, reasonable. It was reasonable to say it could not investigate matters that were over 6 months old. However, when the resident said it had not acted after a visit in June 2022, it then opened a complaint. It was reasonable to use the date it became aware of new information as the start of the complaints process. However, it is unclear why the landlord was not aware of the visit in June 2022, and this appears to be a failure to adequately check its records before responding on 27 March 2023.
  6. In its complaint response on 14 April 2023, the landlord acknowledged the resident had asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 but said it had arranged an appointment instead. The Ombudsman has found that it was reasonable for the landlord to deal with the complaint at stage 1, as the purpose of the complaints process is to resolve complaints by finding out what, if anything, went wrong and taking any action needed to put things right. In this instance, it is the Ombudsman’s view that escalating the complaint at this stage would not have resolved the complaint and it was necessary to arrange an appointment to be clear about what repairs were needed.
  7. On 9 May 2023, the resident told the landlord that she wanted to escalate her complaint as she was not satisfied with its response. The landlord eventually acknowledged the escalation request on 25 July 2023, over 2 months later, and after the Ombudsman had contacted it about the resident’s complaint. This was a significant failure by the landlord as it did not escalate the complaint in line with its complaints policy.
  8. In its final response on 18 August 2023, the landlord apologised for the failure to escalate the complaint and said it was not the level of customer service it expected to see. It said it took this failure seriously and the staff member concerned had received training. It apologised for the delays, errors, and the lack of information in the first response. It acknowledged it only escalated the complaint after contact from the Ombudsman on 24 July 2023. Because of the failings in its complaint handling, it offered the resident £250 compensation.
  9. The Ombudsman has found that the apology, learning from poor complaint handling, and offer of £250 compensation was reasonable redress in the circumstances. This is because the landlord recognised the inconvenience the resident experienced from the way it dealt with her complaint.
  10. The Ombudsman understands that the resident has not accepted compensation previously offered. The Ombudsman recommends this compensation is reoffered.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of its handling of:
    1. Concerns about asbestos in the property.
    2. Repairs to the bathroom.
    3. The resident’s complaint.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord and resident work together to agree a schedule to complete outstanding repairs.
  2. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord reoffers the £1,150 compensation previously offered.
  3. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord considers whether additional compensation should be paid to the resident from November 2023 until the time all previously agreed works are completed.