Sanctuary Housing Association (202305733)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305733

Sanctuary Housing Association

31 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:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of repairs to her windows and door.
2. Response to the resident’s reports of subsidence in the property.
3. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a pensioner who lives in a 2 bedroom house. She is vulnerable with several health conditions including type 2 diabetes and chronic back pain. She needs help with personal care. Her daughter acted as her representative in making the complaint to the landlord and to this Service. For the purposes of this report, references to “the resident” will include her representative.
The resident has been asking for the landlord to replace her windows since 2015. The landlord told her on several occasions since this date that it had passed her request to its planned works team who would contact her.
The landlord’s records show that it raised a job to measure the resident’s windows in September 2019. However, there is no entry showing the outcome of this job.
The resident complained to the landlord on 19 November 2021. She said that she had reported cracks in the kitchen ceiling, but the landlord had done nothing to repair them. During a storm, rainwater had entered the property through the cracks in the ceiling and had caused the electrics to blow. She also said that the landlord had not yet replaced the windows in the property. She was not able to close the windows fully and they were very draughty. Because of this she had high heating bills.
An operative attended to inspect the ceiling the same day but did not have the supplies to complete the repair. The landlord made several appointments to repair the ceiling between November 2021 and July 2022, but they did not go ahead. The resident had cancelled some of the appointments as she was unwell. The landlord had recorded other appointments as “no access.”
The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint on 21 January 2022. This was because she had not received a response to her stage 1 complaint. The landlord closed the complaint in error on 7 March 2022.
There was an appointment to measure the windows in March 2022, but was recorded as “no access”. A new appointment was scheduled which went ahead on 25 April 2022.
In August 2022, the resident reported a leak. When the landlord attended, it saw that there were structural cracks up to 1cm wide in the walls and ceilings of the kitchen and bathroom. It raised a claim with its insurers in September 2022.
The landlord chased its insurers several times in October 2022. It said that the works were urgent, and that a structural engineer needed to assess the problem as soon as possible. It said that the rear door in the property could no longer close properly, because of the subsidence, and the door was no longer secure. During this time, the resident reported that the electrics had tripped as rainwater had, again, entered the property through cracks in the structure.
The loss adjuster inspected the property on 2 November 2022. They provided a target date of March 2023 to complete the works. They agreed to arrange for temporary repairs to the property, to adjust the back door and to repair any large cracks.
The landlord made a wellbeing referral in November 2022 after the resident’s electrics tripped and she had no heating and hot water. The landlord provided her with a fan heater. It also arranged an emergency appointment for a gas engineer to fix the heating.
In January 2023, the landlord inspected the resident’s back door, but it said that it was beyond repair, and it would need to replace it. In the same month, the insurers arranged for site excavations and a drain survey of the property.
The resident complained on 16 May 2023 that there had been no progress with the window replacement or subsidence works. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 16 May 2023. It said that it would respond by 12 June 2023.
That month, the insurers obtained a report confirming that tree roots under the property foundations were causing subsidence. The report recommended that the landlord remove 3 trees in the garden.
The landlord’s surveyor attended the property again on 23 June 2023. They reported that there were large cracks in the walls of the property, particularly around the bathroom, toilet, and kitchen. They also said that the windows were inadequate, and it would need to replace them with double glazing. The landlord arranged a structural survey of the property in July 2023 which reached the same conclusions and recommended that it remove the trees and undertake other works including:
1. Underpinning the foundation in the extension.
2. Taking up the concrete floor in the kitchen, wet room and toilet and replacing with new.
The landlord raised works with contractors to undertake the recommended works. However, it cancelled the works in August 2023, when it became aware that the insurance claim was continuing.
This Service contacted the landlord on 29 August 2023 to follow up on the resident’s stage 1 complaint. On 3 September, the resident asked that the landlord escalate her complaint to stage 2.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 13 October 2023. It said there had been some miscommunication about who was doing the works. It clarified that the insurance company would be removing the trees and completing a drain survey, after which time it would arrange any further repairs. It stated that it would decant the resident while it undertook the works. It offered the resident £1900 in compensation.

Post complaint.

Between October 2023 and March 2024, the resident and landlord discussed a move to temporary decant accommodation. The landlord’s records show that the resident rejected an offer of accommodation as she said it was unsuitable.
In April 2024, the landlord’s internal correspondence shows that the repairs were still with its insurers who had undertaken several reports. The landlord had ordered replacement windows and doors, but it could not fit them until the insurers had completed the structural repairs.
The resident told this Service on 9 May 2024 that the landlord had not yet found a suitable decant property for her. She also said that she had not had an update in relation to repairs to the property, including the replacement of the window and doors.
The landlord has since informed this Service that the insurers had arranged to remove the trees on 15 and 16 May 2024. There would be a period of settlement after which time the insurers would decide what further works it would need to complete. This was likely to be around August 2024. It also said that the insurance company could complete the repairs without the resident having to move out of the property. However, it has since told this Service that it is still considering a decant.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles requires landlords to:
1. Be fair.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.

This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is proportionate for any maladministration or service failure found.

Scope of the investigation

The Ombudsman notes that the resident has raised several complaints with the landlord about the condition of her property. This investigation will focus on the complaints made by the resident on 19 November 2021 and 16 May 2023.
Although it is noted that there is a long history of disrepair reports by the resident, this investigation has primarily focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from 2021 onwards that were considered in the landlord’s recent complaint responses. This is because the Ombudsman expects residents to raise complaints with their landlords promptly so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.  
The landlord’s insurers have been co-ordinating the subsidence related repairs. Under paragraph 42(j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman is unable to investigate a complaint that falls properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body. In this case, complaints concerning insurers are within the Financial Ombudsman Service’s jurisdiction. This assessment will instead focus on the landlord’s response to the resident’s enquiries about the subsidence.

Repairs to the resident’s windows and doors

The Decent Homes Standard is the government standard for social housing. This requires that properties are free from hazards as defined by the Housing Act 2004 Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). It also says that social housing should be in a reasonable state of repair, have reasonably modern facilities and services, and provide a reasonable degree of thermal comfort (efficient heating and insulation). Hazards under the HHSRS include excess cold and risk of entry by intruders. A property could fail the Decent Homes Standard if its windows and doors were in disrepair. For example, if there were gaps around windows and frames, if they had inadequate locks, or did not provide sufficient insulation. The Decent Homes Standard also says that social landlords should replace windows every 30 to 40 years.
The resident has been asking the landlord to replace her windows since 2015. She has lived in the property for 35 years and she has said that the landlord had not replaced the windows in that time. While this Service has not seen any earlier surveyor’s reports, the structural and surveyors reports of 2022 and 2023 both say that the landlord needed to replace the windows urgently. The landlord’s complaint responses, while agreeing that this needed to happen, did not provide an estimated timescale of when it would do this. Neither did it give an explanation as to why it had not replaced the windows in the 8 years since the resident had first requested this. This was a significant failing on the landlord’s part.
The landlord’s records shows that it had decided not to replace the windows until the insurance company had finished the structural works. This was a reasonable conclusion for the landlord to reach. To avoid damage to newly installed windows and door, it would be a better use of the landlord’s resources to replace the door and windows once it had completed all other works.
However, it is not clear that the landlord had informed the resident of this. Neither has it provided the resident with an indication of when subsidence works will be completed and how soon the windows and door can be replaced once these works have been done. As recently as May 2024, the resident had said that she had not received an update about when the landlord would replace her windows and door. The landlord should provide regular updates to the resident. It should consider what it can do at each stage to minimise the distress and inconvenience caused to her by the delays in replacing her windows, particularly given her vulnerabilities. Having regular discussions with the resident or providing a single point of contact who she could direct any enquiries to, would have provided reassurance to her that matters were in hand.
There is also no evidence that the landlord had taken any steps to investigate the resident’s claims that the property was cold, such as undertaking a heat loss survey, or looking at temporary insulation for windows. Neither had it considered temporary measures to make the rear door more secure to reduce the risk of a break-in. Given her age and frailty, the resident would have been particularly vulnerable due to the security risk of an insecure back door. The resident has since said that her grandson has had to change the lock to the rear door, in order to secure it.
Overall, the landlord’s failure to resolve the issue with the resident’s windows and door was significant. The records provided show that the landlord raised a window renewal job in September 2019, but there is no evidence that this had been progressed up to the point when the resident raised a complaint. The windows and door replacement was then superseded by the subsidence works. In its response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord acknowledged that it needed to replace the windows and door, however, it did not offer a resolution as part of its response.
The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor. It did not provide regular updates about the works. It also did not look at any measures in the meantime to mitigate the impact of the draughty windows or insecure door. The impact of these service failures on the resident was particularly acute due to her vulnerabilities. The resident is an elderly woman who lives alone and has a care and support package to help her with her personal care. She has several long term health conditions. She also fractured her shoulder following a fall in early 2024 and had surgery on her spine in 2023. She has provided a copy of her gas bill which shows that her heating bills were very high during 2023. The landlord had not progressed the window replacement works for a number of years.
Taking this into account, the Ombudsman makes a finding of severe maladministration in relation to this aspect of the complaint.
The landlord has offered the resident compensation of £1750 (excluding its complaint handling compensation which is considered below). It has calculated this as:
1. £400 for the resident’s time, trouble and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s actions, inaction, and poor communication.
2. £250 for the delays to repairs.
3. £100 because of its poor communication
4. £1000 future impact up to 1 December 2024.
The Ombudsman does not consider compensation for future loss. The landlord has not shown how it has calculated its compensation in relation to each aspect of the complaint (other than its complaint handling). The Ombudsman therefore apportions £375 in compensation to this aspect of the complaint, this being half of the amount awarded less the compensation awarded for future impact and complaint handling.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance states that in cases of severe maladministration where there has been a serious impact on the resident, the level of redress should be more than £1000. The guidance also says that an uplift should be applied where there are aggravating factors which would mean the service failure had a greater impact on the resident. These aggravating factors include where a resident is in poor health or is elderly.
The Ombudsman considers that the amount of compensation awarded by the landlord is not proportionate to the detriment caused to the resident. The Ombudsman therefore orders the landlord to pay the resident an amount of £2000 in compensation. This includes an uplift due to aggravating factors, including the resident’s health and age. This replaces the landlord’s offer of £375. A recommendation has also been made that, in addition, the landlord pay the resident the amount of £1000 it had offered her as part of its complaint resolution for ‘future loss’ up to 1 December 2024.

Resident’s reports of subsidence in the property.

The Ombudsman has investigated this complaint based on the evidence provided. However, due to gaps in evidence, we have not been able to gain a full understanding of the history and handling of this case. Landlords should take steps to ensure that their record-keeping practices are robust, and that it provides all necessary documentation requested by the Ombudsman for its investigations. This Service has recently made wider orders under paragraph 54(f) of the Scheme in cases 202224898 and 202216547 about the landlord’s record keeping. The Ombudsman has not included any orders or recommendations in this report that would duplicate the wider orders.
Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 requires landlords to keep the structure and exterior of the property in good repair. Landlords must complete repairs within a reasonable time of receiving notice of them. The landlord’s repairs policy says that it will complete emergency repairs within 24 hours and routine repairs within 28 days. It aims to complete major works within 90 days. Complex works are likely to take longer, particularly when they are under an insurance claim.
It is unclear from the records provided when the resident had first reported that her kitchen ceiling was in disrepair. In her correspondence dated 19 November 2021 she said that she had reported it “some time ago”. The landlord followed its policy by raising an urgent repair and attending that day.
The landlord arranged follow on works to repair the ceiling, but the works did not go ahead due to access issues. While this Service does not question the resident’s reasons for not allowing access to the property, any delays relating to access are beyond the landlord’s control.
When the landlord did attend in August 2022, its surveyor concluded that it was potentially a subsidence issue and properly referred the matter to its insurers. The subsidence then became an insurance matter, and the landlord would monitor temporary repairs to the property’s structure, and to keep the resident informed of any progress. It was for the insurer to conduct the necessary investigations as to the cause of the subsidence and then to raise any major works to resolve this.
However, there were shortcomings in the landlord’s handling of the subsidence issue. There was poor communication between the landlord’s departments and its insurers. It is not clear that the landlord updated the insurers in December 2022 that there was water ingress to the property following heavy rain, which had affected the resident’s electrics. The landlord has not provided evidence to show that it informed the insurers that the rear door was not repairable. It was only in June 2023, after the resident had made a new complaint, that it followed this up.
Further, following the resident’s complaint of May 2023, the landlord began to arrange inspections, reports, and works that the insurance company had already started. This duplication of the works caused uncertainty and raised the resident’s expectations unreasonably. The landlord had a responsibility to the resident to check the repair, communicate any changes to its insurers and to keep the resident updated about the claim.
The landlord’s communication with the resident fell short of the standards the Ombudsman would expect. It did not clearly explain to the resident, that its insurers would complete the subsidence repairs, what its role would be and how it would keep the resident updated. In relation to the decant, the landlord has not shown that it had undertaken a risk assessment of the works and the reasons for the decant. The resident has expressed concerns about a temporary move, and she was not aware that the landlord would meet some of the costs of this. She was understandably anxious about a move from the home she has lived in for 35 years, particularly as she has health needs. A full discussion between the resident, the landlord, her daughter and her support providers about how it would manage this could have alleviated some of her concerns.
The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s overall handling of the issue and the involvement of the insurer. It has also considered the impact of the failures, and gaps in the evidence provided by the landlord. Leaving aside the delays to the repairs themselves, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord’s failure to liaise effectively with its insurers, its other departments, and its failure to communicate with the resident constitutes maladministration.
In assessing redress, the Ombudsman takes account of a range of factors including any distress and inconvenience caused by the failure, the amount of time and effort spent on pursuing the matter with the landlord, and the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s actions and inactions.
As the landlord had not provided a breakdown of the compensation awarded, the Ombudsman has apportioned £375 of its compensation to this aspect of the complaint, The landlord’s compensation was not proportionate to the failure by the landlord and the impact on the resident. The Ombudsman therefore orders the landlord to pay the resident an amount of £700 for her distress, inconvenience and for the time and effort in pursuing this with the landlord. This award includes an uplift due to aggravating factors as outlined above. This replaces the landlord’s award of £375.

Complaint handling

This Service has not seen the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint of November 2021. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint in January 2022, but the landlord did not do so, and then closed it in error. It is of concern to this Service that the resident’s complaint was not progressed at that time and that the landlord did not follow its complaints procedure.
When the resident made a new complaint in May 2023, while it had provided updates to her, the landlord did not provide a response until 3 September 2023, and only after the intervention of this Service. There was also a delay in it actioning the resident’s request to escalate her new complaint.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response within the target response times it had provided to the resident. The landlord has rightly apologised for the delay in its complaint responses, and it has offered compensation for this. However, it did not recognise or address any of the service failures above, even after the resident provided evidence of it closing her first complaint in error.
The Ombudsman therefore finds maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord has offered the resident £150 in compensation. Given the impact of the delays on the resident, and her vulnerabilities, the Ombudsman orders that landlord instead pay her £300 in compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance where there have been failures that have had a significant impact on a resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for her windows to be replaced.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of subsidence in her property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is to:
1. Arrange for its CEO to send a letter of apology to the resident for the service failings outlined in this report.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £3000 which includes:
  1. £2000 for distress and inconvenience, time, and trouble caused to the resident by the delays in it replacing the resident’s windows and door.
  2. £700 for the resident’s distress and inconvenience, time, and trouble in its response to her reports of subsidence.
  3. £300 for the resident’s time and effort because of the landlord’s complaint handling failings.
3. This replaces the landlord’s compensation offer of £900. If the landlord has already paid this amount to the resident, this amount should be deducted from the amount above, and the balance paid to the resident. Any compensation should be paid to the resident directly and not set off against any rent arrears or tenancy debt.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to provide a full update to the resident and this Service as to the progress of the insurance claim and an estimated timetable for the works, where this is possible. This should include the timetable for installing her new windows and door once the structural works are completed.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to meet with the resident, her daughter and, if possible, her support provider to discuss its decant policy and procedure with her and provide confirmation to this Service when this has been done.

Recommendation

If it has not done so already, the landlord should pay the amount of £1000 it had offered the resident as part of its complaint resolution for ‘future loss’ relating to delays to repairs up to 1 December 2024.