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

Sanctuary Housing Association (202306913)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202306913

Sanctuary Housing Association

13 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:
    1. Response to the resident’s concerns about scaffolding.
    2. Handling of kitchen replacement works.
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association, since 1998. The property is a 3 bedroom house.
  2. In early October 2022, the landlord put scaffolding up at the property to complete works as part of its window and roofline replacement programme. On 31 October 2022, the landlord started works to replace the kitchen, which were completed on 4 November 2022.
  3. On 21 November 2022, the resident made a complaint to the landlord. She said operatives had used the scaffolding without telling her and on 2 occasions walked past her and her daughter’s windows when they were getting dressed. She wanted the operatives to knock on her door and tell her when they would be using the scaffolding. She raised 11 concerns regarding the kitchen replacement works, including that it took 7 days instead of the 5 she was told, the quality of the works were poor and the contractor had damaged some of her appliances. She confirmed she had reported these issues to the landlord and it had attended and agreed to complete some additional works.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 7 December 2022. It said the kitchen replacement works were completed by its planned team and they were looking in to her concerns. It would come back to her within 10 working days. The following week, the landlord said it completed further works to the resident’s kitchen.
  5. On 9 January 2023, the resident asked to escalate her complaint due to a lack of communication and response to the issues raised. She also raised an additional concern about scaffolding which had been put up on 7 January 2023. She said she had been told it would be put up and works completed on 9 January 2023, but there had been no communication that the job had been completed. That morning the scaffolding had been taken down without her being told about this. 
  6. In early February 2023, the resident reported further concerns about the quality of the kitchen replacement works in relation to the cupboards. The landlord acknowledged these concerns and said it would raise them with its planned works team.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 27 February 2023. It apologised for the delay in responding and for the issues she had experienced. It offered £250 compensation made up of £150 for its handling of the kitchen replacement, £25 for scaffolding issues and £75 for complaint handling. The resident replied the same day and said she was disappointed with the response as it had failed to acknowledge all of her issues or the distress caused. The landlord responded a week later and agreed to review her concerns and respond within 10 working days.
  8. The landlord attended the property on 13 March 2023 and identified additional works required in the kitchen, which were completed 4 days later. On 5 May 2023, the landlord provided the outcome of its review of the complaint. It apologised for the delay in carrying out the review and for its handling of kitchen replacement works and scaffolding concerns. It offered an additional £350 compensation, made up of £250 for its handling of the kitchen works (as well as 2 other issues not considered as part of this investigation) and £100 for complaint handling.
  9. The resident escalated her complaint to this Service on 2 June 2023. She said that works had been done to a poor standard and this had resulted in further disrepair. She asked for an apology and compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has told this Service that she has had further problems with the kitchen, which are ongoing, and that this has been raised as another formal complaint with the landlord. The Ombudsman is unable to investigate issues that have not completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure (reflected at paragraph 42.a of the Scheme).
  2. In this case, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that these more recent issues have completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, or that there has been a complaint handling failure. Therefore, the landlord’s handling of issues in respect of the kitchen post its final response in May 2023 fall outside the scope of this investigation. Once the resident’s more recent complaint has completed the landlord’s internal procedure, she can escalate the complaint to this Service for investigation, if she remains dissatisfied.
  3. While no assessment of these more recent issues has been made, a recommendation has been made below for the landlord to inspect the kitchen, if it has not done so within the last 2 months. A written update to be provided to the resident confirming the outcome of the inspection and what if any works it will carry out, with a timescale for these to be completed. If the landlord declines to carry out any works, it should explain the reasons for this in writing.
  4. The resident has reported that 2 of her appliances were damaged by the landlord’s contractor during the completion of the kitchen replacement works. The Ombudsman is unable to make a finding in respect of liability, as this needs to be assessed via an insurance claim (reflected at paragraph 42.f of the Scheme). What we have considered is how the landlord responded to this issue and whether its response was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
  5. The resident has told this Service that these matters have negatively affected her mental health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments; however, it is beyond the remit of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s ill-health. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord (reflected at paragraph 42.f of the Scheme). While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord.

Response to the resident’s concerns about scaffolding

  1. The resident’s initial concerns about scaffolding raised in her complaint on 21 November 2022 were not addressed by the landlord in either the stage 1 or 2 complaint responses. It was only after the resident raised these concerns for a third time in reply to the stage 2 response, that the landlord addressed these issues in its complaint review outcome provided in May 2023. The landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s concerns for around 6 months left her feeling ignored and meant she had to incur time and trouble to raise these issues on at least 3 occasions. This amounts to maladministration.
  2. When the landlord did respond to these concerns, it said that it had spoken to its operatives about this, however, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence to support this. The landlord said the operatives had confirmed they had knocked on the resident’s door before accessing the scaffolding but she did not answer, which the resident disputed. Again, there is no evidence to support and as this information was provided 6 months after the resident raised her initial concerns, it did little to reassure her that it had properly addressed her concerns. This was particularly upsetting for her as she had told the landlord that operatives had walked past her and her daughter’s windows when they were getting changed and its lack of feedback made her feel that it did not take this concern seriously.
  3. The resident’s second concern about scaffolding was raised as part of the stage 2 escalation request, and related to the landlord’s failure to tell her it was removing scaffolding on 9 January 2023. The landlord explained that it had wanted to remove the scaffolding as quickly as possible due to previous concerns she had raised. This was sensible and showed it took the resident’s concerns seriously. However, it should have told her when the scaffolding was being removed and its failure to do so was inconsiderate.
  4. The landlord acknowledged its failure in respect of the resident’s second concern about scaffolding. It apologised and offered £25 compensation, which was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and if this was the only concern raised by the resident, then it would have offered reasonable redress.
  5. However, the landlord did not offer reasonable redress in relation to the resident’s initial concern about scaffolding. While it apologised, it did not consider any other form of redress, particularly in relation to the extended delay in it providing the response. Therefore, a finding of reasonable redress cannot be made and a finding of maladministration is appropriate. In consultation with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, an order has been made below for the landlord to pay the resident £150 compensation, which is inclusive of the £25 already offered, if not done so already.

Handling of kitchen replacement works

  1. The landlord is responsible for repairs to the kitchen in accordance with the resident’s tenancy agreement. This says it is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property, which would include the kitchen. In this case, the landlord replaced the kitchen as part of its planned maintenance programme and so it would be responsible for completing any repairs to the newly installed kitchen. 
  2. When the resident raised concerns about the quality of the kitchen replacement works in November 2022, she said that the landlord carried out an inspection. This was sensible to allow it to properly understand her concerns and agree solutions. As a result of the inspection, the landlord agreed to carry out further works to address the resident’s concerns. This showed that it took the matter seriously.
  3. The landlord has not provided evidence of when the inspection took place, however, it would have been on a date between 7 and 18 November 2022. The landlord said the additional works were completed on 12 December 2022, which was approximately 1 month after the inspection. This was in accordance with its committed timescale of 28 days for appointed repairs set out in its repairs policy and therefore reasonable.
  4. Similarly, when the resident reported further concerns about the kitchen cupboards on 9 February 2023, the landlord attended to inspect the following month, on 13 March 2023. As the concerns raised were not urgent, this timescale was reasonable. It then carried out works to address the concerns 4 days later, on 17 March 2023, which was within the committed 28 day timescale for appointed repairs.
  5. The landlord handled the resident’s concerns well by inspecting and carrying out additional works. However, it is a cause for concern that the resident had to raise these concerns so soon after the kitchen replacement works were carried out. From the evidence provided, there is no record that the landlord carried out a post inspection of the kitchen works, which would have been sensible and may have resulted in the landlord identifying some of these issues without the need for the resident to incur time and trouble in reporting these. A recommendation has been made below for the landlord to review its procedure for kitchen replacement works and ensure this includes a post inspection and the importance of keeping a record of this, if not already included.
  6. The resident raised 11 specific concerns in her original complaint about the kitchen replacement works; however, the landlord failed to address any of these within its stage 1 response. It explained the reason for this was that it was waiting on internal updates and committed to respond within a further 10 days. However, it failed to do this and the resident had to chase this up, which was frustrating for her.
  7. Despite chasing this up on 5 January 2023, the landlord did not reply and it was not until the stage 2 response provided nearly 6 weeks later that it gave any response to the resident’s specific concerns. Even when it did, it still failed to address all of the concerns raised until the complaint review outcome provided in May 2023. This was frustrating for the resident and meant she had to repeatedly chase the landlord over a 6 month period to get answers to her specific concerns.
  8. The resident was dissatisfied that the replacement works took 7 days when the landlord had told her these would be completed in 5 days. The landlord explained this was because the flooring was delivered late and was the wrong size. While the delay was inconvenient for the resident, this was unavoidable and not attributable to the landlord. The landlord took on board the resident’s feedback about this issue and updated its pre-works information letter with a warning that works could overrun due to issues beyond its control, which was sensible.
  9. The resident raised a concern that the asbestos survey was completed after the kitchen replacement works were completed, when it should have been done before. The landlord explained this was due to an oversight as it believed a previous survey included the kitchen but it did not. While frustrating for the resident, it is understandable that oversights can happen. When the landlord discovered this, it took steps to put things right and completed a separate survey, which was reasonable.
  10. When the resident told the landlord that 2 of her appliances had been damaged during the kitchen works, the landlord said it spoke to its contractor about this. While sensible to do this, it should also have given the resident information about submitting an insurance claim in respect of the damaged items.
  11. The landlord said the contractor was not aware of any damage caused; however, it is unlikely that the contractor would have admitted to causing damage, even if they were aware of it. This supports the importance of the landlord referring the resident to its insurance claims process for an independent assessment of this issue. A recommendation has been made below for the landlord to provide the resident with details about its insurance claims process, including how to submit a claim and what evidence is required.
  12. The resident queried why the landlord had not replaced the light in the kitchen as part of the works. The landlord explained this was because the existing light was working and fit for purpose, so a replacement was not required. This was a reasonable decision as the landlord has to be mindful of its budgets and not carry out works unnecessarily. While a reasonable decision, as set out above, the resident had to wait an extended time for this explanation and raised the query on multiple occasions before the answer was given. This was understandably frustrating for her.
  13. The landlord acknowledged there were failures in its handling of the kitchen replacement works. It apologised, offered compensation and identified learning, which was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. In total, the landlord offered £400 compensation for its handling of this and 2 other issues, which have not been considered as part of this investigation. However, it did not set out the individual amounts for each of the specific issues.
  14. Considering the full circumstances of this matter and in consultation with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, £300 compensation is reasonable for its handling of this issue. As this sum is covered by the total amount offered by the landlord, it has offered reasonable redress to the resident. A recommendation has been made below for the landlord to pay the resident the £300 already offered, if not done so already. The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid to the resident, as it recognised genuine elements of service failure by the landlord.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on 23 November 2022, which was 2 working days after the resident made the complaint on 21 November 2022. This was in line with the landlord’s committed response time of 3 working days, set out in its complaints policy at the time. The landlord provided the stage 1 response in 11 working days, which was 1 working day over the committed response time of 10 working days, set out in its complaints policy at the time and only a minor delay.
  2. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response lacked any detail or response to the issues raised. While positive that the landlord was committed to providing the response in a timely manner, the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says that a complaint response must be sent to the resident when the answer to the complaint is known.
  3. In this case, the landlord had no answer to any of the issues raised so it is unclear why it issued the stage 1 response at that time. Its complaints policy in place at the time said that it may extend the timeframe to respond to a complaint at stage 1 or stage 2 by 10 working days where it needed longer to provide a full response. In this case, it would have been sensible for the landlord to extend the timescale and inform the resident so that the response included some or all of the answers to the complaint.
  4. The resident expressly asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 14 January 2023, and the landlord acknowledged this request the next working day. However, the resident had expressed dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response 9 days earlier, on 5 January 2023, and this should have prompted the landlord to escalate the complaint. Its failure to do so meant the resident incurred time and trouble in having to make a second contact to the landlord about this issue.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 2 response 38 working days after the resident’s initial expression of dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response. This was over the committed response time of 20 working days, set out in its complaints policy at the time.
  6. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time said that if a resident remained dissatisfied following the stage 2 response, they were encouraged to share why and the landlord would review the complaint and provide a final response. The resident told the landlord she was dissatisfied with the stage 2 response the same day it was issued and in accordance with its policy, the landlord agreed to carry out a review. There was no committed timescale for the review to be completed set out in the landlord’s complaints policy at the time. In this case, the landlord provided the outcome of its review in 52 working days. This was too long and an unreasonable delay.
  7. During the period of delay, the landlord did provide updates, some of which were proactively provided, rather than waiting for the resident to chase. However, on at least 2 occasions in April 2023, the resident had to chase this up as no update had been provided.
  8. The landlord extended the deadline to provide the review outcome on at last 5 occasions over a 6 week period. On at least one of these occasions, it did not actually give a date by which it would respond, which left the resident uncertain on when she would receive the response. The final deadline given by the landlord to provide the response was 9 May 2025; however, it still failed to meet this and provided the response 6 day later on 15 May 2023. These repeated extensions and failure to meet the deadlines given meant the resident lost faith in the landlord and its complaint handling process.
  9. The landlord acknowledged there were failures in its complaint handling, apologised and offered a total of £175 compensation. Considering the full circumstances of the case and in consultation with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident for its complaint handling. The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid to the resident, as it recognised genuine elements of service failure by the landlord.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about scaffolding.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord has made offers of redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaints about its handling of:
    1. Kitchen replacement works.
    2. The formal complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 6 weeks, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £150 compensation for its response to her concerns about scaffolding, inclusive of the £25 already offered, if not done so already. Evidence of compliance to be provided to this Service, within 6 weeks.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Inspect the resident’s kitchen, if it has not done so within the last 2 months. A written update to be provided to the resident confirming the outcome of the inspection and what if any works it will carry out, with a timescale for these to be completed. If the landlord declines to carry out any works, it should explain the reasons for this in writing.
    2. Review its procedure for programmed kitchen replacement works and ensure this includes a post inspection and the importance of keeping a record of this, if not already included.
    3. Provide the resident with details about its insurance claims process, including how to submit a claim and what evidence is required.
    4. Pay the resident the £475 compensation already offered, made up of £300 for its handling of kitchen replacement works and £175 for its complaint handling, if not done so already. The reasonable redress findings are made on the basis of these sums being paid to the resident, as they recognised genuine elements of service failure by the landlord.
  2. The landlord to update this Service with its intentions regarding the above recommendations, within 6 weeks.