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

Sanctuary Housing Association (202304669)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304669

Sanctuary Housing Association

18 July 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Squirrels in the loft of the property and repairs to associated damage.
    2. His complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. His tenancy began on 24 August 2022. The property is a 1 bedroom first floor flat in a block of 4 flats. The loft space of the block is accessible through a hatch inside the property.
  2. On 31 August 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that the electricity in the property kept tripping. The landlord sent an electrician, who attributed this to a faulty extension cable. On 16 September 2022, the resident reported hearing noises in the loft. He said he had opened the hatch and seen animal droppings and chewed electric cables. The landlord raised an order to its pest control contractor.
  3. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 27 December 2022. He said its pest control contractor had attended 5 times but failed to catch anything and the situation was getting worse. He asked the landlord to:
    1. Identify how the pests were entering the building and carry out repairs to prevent this.
    2. Replace the loft insulation which was contaminated and damaged.
    3. Replace the damaged electrical cables which were causing his power to trip daily and represented a fire hazard.
    4. Remove ivy and other vegetation growing on the side of the block, which its pest control contractor had identified as possibly aiding pests in reaching the roof.
  4. The landlord provided an ‘interim’ stage 1 complaint response on 17 January 2023. It said that its pest control contractor now believed the infestation to be squirrels and would be placing larger traps. It said it had also raised orders to inspect for the electrics and insulation in the loft and the vegetation on the side of the building.
  5. The landlord sent a ‘stage 1 update’ on 3 May 2023. It said that it had carried out “further works” including removing the vegetation but was aware the resident was still hearing noises from the loft. It told the resident it had instructed its pest control contractor to reattend “to establish if the issue is still an infestation and if there are still entry points that need to be resolved or if the noise you are hearing is what remains and need to be removed”.
  6. At the resident’s request, the landlord escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 25 May 2023. It provided a stage 2 complaint response on 22 June 2023 which said that it:
    1. Had arranged for its surveyor, estates surveyor, housing officer and tree contractor to undertake a “full comprehensive inspection” of the block on 26 June 2023 and agree what action was required.
    2. Upheld the resident’s complaint due to its “consistent failure to take positive and timely action following the recommendations made by the pest control contractor”.
    3. Identified “failure of service” in its handling of the electrical safety and that communication between its internal departments had been “lacking in efficiency”.
    4. Had not provided a “full and final” stage 1 response and had failed to escalate the resident’s complaint when he had requested this on 3 occasions.
    5. Had raised and provided a stage 1 response to a duplicate complaint after the resident had contacted it on 9 March 2023. It had then cancelled this complaint without informing him.
    6. Did not feel it was appropriate to offer compensation at this stage and would do so once it had fully resolved the complaint.
  7. The landlord sent a further stage 2 response on 20 July 2023. It said that:
    1. Following the inspection of 26 June 2023, its contractor would be completing further works to the roof on 25 July 2023. It would arrange further pest control treatments once the works were finished.
    2. Its electrician had attended on 10 July 2023 and found that due to the damage caused by the squirrels it was not safe for the resident to remain in the property. The resident had “opted to stay with family/friends” and returned to the property on 18 July 2023, after a contractor had completed a rewire.
    3. It wished to offer the resident a total of £1,997.32 compensation composed of:
      1. £400 for time trouble and inconvenience.
      2. £400 for its failure to insist on an electrical check which led to it having to decant the resident.
      3. £847.32 for loss of enjoyment of the property – representing 20% of the resident’s rent between 18 September 2022 and 4 August 2023.
      4. £350 for its poor complaint handling.
      5. £75 reimbursement for food lost due to it turning off the power in the property.
  8. On 21 July 2023, the resident asked the landlord to increase the loss of enjoyment payment to 35% of rent. On 31 July 2023, the landlord agreed to this. This increased that element of compensation to £1,483.04 and brought the total offer to £2,633.04.

Events since the landlord’s final complaint response

  1. On 31 July 2023, the resident asked this Service to investigate his complaint. He said that “the repairs and maintenance required before [the landlord] can begin treating the actual infestation are still not done”.
  2. The resident made a further complaint to the landlord on 22 August 2023. He expressed dissatisfaction with the roof works carried out by the landlord’s contractor on 25 July 2023 and said that squirrels were still accessing the loft.
  3. On 10 March 2024, the landlord offered the resident a further £1,000 compensation composed of:
    1. £50 for its handling of the complaint.
    2. £550 for loss of enjoyment of the property between 4 August 2023 and 30 November 2023 – when it fully resolved the squirrel issue. This represented 35% of rent over that period.
    3. £400 for time, trouble and inconvenience during the same period.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The complaint which the resident brought to the Ombudsman completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure on 20 July 2023. Whilst the resident’s complaint of 22 August 2023 was closely related, he made it after this Service had accepted the original complaint for investigation. Therefore, this investigation will not assess that complaint and it is referred to above for context only.

Squirrels and repairs

  1. The landlord raised an order to its pest control contractor as soon as the resident reported hearing noises in the loft. After its third visit, on 1 November 2022, the contractor told the landlord that damaged cabling in the loft needed repairing. It also recommended that the landlord cut back trees and vegetation around the block which squirrels could be using to jump onto the roof. The landlord failed to act upon these recommendations.
  2. After a fifth visit, on 28 November 2022, the contractor said it believed it was squirrels which were accessing the loft. It provided the landlord with a quote for ‘squirrel trapping’ and it would attend again once this had been accepted. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to this quote until after the resident made his complaint on 27 December 2022.
  3. On 10 January 2023, the landlord told the resident that it was arranging for the pest control contractor to begin squirrel trapping. It said it had also raised orders to check the electrics and insulation in the loft and to inspect the vegetation on the exterior of the block. On 11 January 2023 it raised a further order for a contractor to assess the loft space and fill any holes.
  4. The landlord called the resident on 11 January 2023 to arrange the electrical check. The landlord’s records state that it did not proceed with this as the resident wanted the squirrels removed before the landlord addressed any damage they had caused. However, the purpose of the electrical check was to ensure the damaged cabling was safe rather than to repair it. The landlord failed to explain this to the resident, or to appropriately insist that the check was necessary and urgent.
  5. On 13 February 2023, the pest control contractor began a 5 day ‘squirrel trapping’ programme. During this it captured and removed 1 squirrel. The resident contacted the landlord on 17 February 2023 (at the end of the trapping programme) to chase up works to fill holes in the roof.
  6. The landlord’s records show that its contractor needed access to the garden of a privately owned property next to the block to erect scaffolding. The landlord experienced difficulties in engaging the private owners to give their consent for this. It wrote to them on 23 February 2023 and again on 1 March 2023. The private owners eventually gave consent on or around 9 March 2023.
  7. The landlord’s contractor also required the landlord to remove vegetation on the side of the block before it could access the roof. The landlord’s records indicate that it had this removed on or around 24 March 2023.
  8. The contractor provided the landlord with a quote for works on 29 March 2023. However, this was only for renewal of the soffits and fascias on the roof. The contractor completed this work on 24 April 2023. 2 days later, the resident contacted the landlord, expressing his dissatisfaction with the works its contractor had undertaken. He said that squirrels were still accessing the loft. Whilst it is apparent that the works did not fully resolve the issue, the landlord was entitled to rely on the opinion of its qualified contractor which had assessed the roof.
  9. On 9 May 2023, the landlord sent a surveyor to inspect the inside of the loft space. The surveyor requested an inspection of the damaged electrical cabling. The landlord contacted the resident on 22 May 2023 to arrange this. However, it again failed to do so, recording on its systems that the “tenant declined due to still having works done in loft to squirrels”.
  10. On 20 June 2023, the landlord finally sent an electrician to inspect the cabling in the loft. However, it failed to inform them that access to the loft space was via the top floor properties. The electrician was unable to identify how to access the loft and did not complete the inspection.
  11. The landlord rebooked the electrical inspection after its pest control contractor raised concerns about the cabling again on 22 June 2023. By this point, the cabling was so badly damaged that the pest control contractor said it would not go into the loft again until it was repaired.
  12. The landlord did not have an electrician available until 7 July 2023. Despite an internal landlord email suggesting that “you may be best off seeing if a contractor can get there sooner” the landlord failed to explore this possibility. The cabling had been in a state of disrepair since at least September 2022, when the resident first reported visible damage to it. This presented an unknown risk to both the resident and wider block which the landlord’s response failed to appropriately reflect the urgency of.
  13. The landlord’s electrician inspected the cables in the loft space on 7 July 2023 and found “severe damage”. On 10 July 2023, the landlord assessed that the property was not safe and it would need to decant the resident. This Service cannot determine whether inspecting the cabling in September 2022 would have avoided the need for a decant. However, it is evident that the resident had been living with hazardous electrics prior to the decant and that a more timely inspection may could have been avoided or at the least significantly reduced the period he was exposed to this hazard.
  14. The landlord had its contractor complete a full rewire of the property by 18 July 2023. The resident stayed with family or friends during this period. The landlord’s records indicate that it made payment of decant allowances to the resident in keeping with its policy. The landlord also reasonably agreed to reimburse the resident for food which he lost due to the decant.
  15. Following the site visit on 26 June 2023, the landlord’s contractor provided a quote for further works to the roof to prevent the squirrels gaining access to the loft. The contractor completed the works on 25 July 2023. It is apparent that once again these works were not sufficient to solve the issue, and further works were required later in the year.
  16. The landlord also arranged for a contactor to cut back the trees around the block to prevent squirrels continuing to jump onto the roof. The contractor completed this work on or around 10 July 2023.
  17. In summary, the landlord failed to follow the recommendations made by its pest control contractor. After the resident brought this to its attention via his complaint, it still delayed unreasonably. Whilst there were also lengthy delays in completing repairs to the roof, these were partly attributable to access issues with the neighbouring private owner and an insufficient schedule of works compiled by the landlord’s contractor, on which it should reasonably expect to be able to rely.
  18. The landlord offered £2,633.04 compensation to the resident. This included a loss of enjoyment payment equivalent to 35% of rent for the time the matter had been ongoing, £400 for time trouble and inconvenience, and £400 for its handling of the electrical check.
  19. This figure is in keeping with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for incidents of severe maladministration. This is described as where “a series of significant failures which have had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident”. It is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord’s offer was reasonable and reflected the multiple opportunities it missed to resolve the complaint far earlier, and the distress and inconvenience this caused to the resident by this.
  20. However, on 3 June 2024, the resident told this Service that the landlord had still not replaced the contaminated insulation in the loft space. This had formed part of his original complaint. He had also repeatedly expressed concern that it was making the property difficult to heat and was a health hazard. Due to this, the Ombudsman makes a finding of service failure.

Complaint handling

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says that landlords must respond to a complaint within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. It allows that “exceptionally” landlords may extend the time limit by up to 10 working days at each stage. The landlord must explain any such extension to the resident.
  2. The resident made his complaint to the landlord on 27 December 2022. The landlord provided a response on 17 January 2023. This was 13 working days later and there is no evidence the landlord discussed any extension with the resident.
  3. This landlord labelled this as an ‘interim response’. However, there is no provision for such a response within the Code, nor in the landlord’s complaints policy (which states it may use interim responses at stage 2 if appropriate but makes no mention of this at stage 1). Confusingly, the response gave the resident the option to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of its complaint process – despite stage 1 appearing not to have been completed.
  4. On 9 March 2023, the resident made a further complaint to the landlord. This complaint was disputing his upcoming rent and service charge increases due to its failure to address the squirrel infestation. The landlord logged this as a new complaint and provided both ‘interim’ and final stage 1 responses to it on 12 April 2023 and 17 April 2023, respectively. These responses addressed only the infestation itself, with the landlord opting to address the rent increase as a general query outside of the complaints process.
  5. This represented a duplication of the resident’s already ongoing complaint and added further confusion to what was already becoming an unreasonably prolonged complaints process. Following its stage 1 response to this second complaint, the landlord identified the duplication and cancelled the second complaint. However, it failed to inform the resident that it had done this, or of the reasons why.
  6. The landlord then provided a ‘stage 1 update’ to the original complaint, on 3 May 2023. This appears to have been the conclusion of its stage 1 complaint investigation. However, the use of the term ‘update’ made this unclear.
  7. The resident asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process on 3 occasions before the landlord finally acknowledged this on 25 May 2023.
  8. The landlord then provided its stage 2 response on 22 June 2023. In this response, it acknowledged that it had “failed to handle your complaints in-line with our Complaints Policy and Procedure”. The landlord appropriately identified failings in the length of time the complaint had been open, the confusion caused by the duplicate complaint, its stage 1 response and its failure to escalate the resident’s complaint when he requested.
  9. The landlord’s decision to delay making an offer of redress until it had fully resolved the complaint and assessed the entirety of its failings was reasonable. There is no evidence the resident disagreed with this approach.
  10. The landlord’s final offer of compensation included £350 for its poor complaint handling. This was significantly higher than the maximum of £150 which its compensation guidance allows for. This was appropriate considering the extent of the failings in both complaint processes. This figure is also in keeping with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for maladministration and it is the Ombudsman’s view that it represents reasonable redress.
  11. It is vital that a landlord’s complaints process is robust, accessible and understandable to residents. This was not the case in this instance and raises concerns about the landlord’s wider complaint handling practices. A recommendation is made below to address this.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of squirrels in the loft of the property and repairs to associated damage.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress for its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders & recommendations

Order

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to arrange an inspection of the insulation in the loft space above the resident’s property. The landlord should write to the resident outlining the findings of this inspection and any necessary remedial works identified.
  2. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with this order to this Service.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord arranges refresher training for its complaint handling staff to ensure they are operating in accordance with the Code and are not unduly prolonging or overcomplicating residents’ complaint journeys.
  2. The Ombudsman also recommends the landlord to carry out a full case review of this complaint to highlight the missed opportunities to resolve/progress the works required and how it will avoid recurrences in future cases.