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

Sanctuary Housing Association (202309564)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202309564

Sanctuary Housing Association

15 November 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:

a.     The landlord’s handling of repairs to the front door.

b.     The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about damp and mould in the property.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant. The property is a 1-bedroom house, which is designated as supported housing. The property is accessed via a porch, which has an external street door and an internal door to the main property. For clarity, any reference in this report to the “front door”, relates to the external street door to the porch, which is understood to be fire rated.
  2. The resident told the Ombudsman that he has severe mental health conditions, including anxiety, depression, and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). The resident also has diagnosed learning disabilities. The landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities at the time of the complaint.
  3. The landlord has a repairs contractor who delivers its day-to-day repairs service.
  4. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 23 November 2022, concerning damp and mould. The landlord sent an acknowledgment the following day. It is unclear if the landlord issued a stage 1 response.
  5. The resident asked the landlord on 19 January 2023, to escalate his complaint about damp and mould to stage 2 of the landlord’s internal complaint procedure. The resident said the landlord was taking too long to resolve this issue. The landlord contacted the resident the next day about his complaint. The landlord committed to arranging an inspection of the property with its own surveyor. Satisfied with the landlord’s proposed course of action, the resident said he no longer wished to progress the complaint to stage 2.
  6. The resident raised a new stage 1 complaint on 11 April 2023, about the front door. The resident explained that the landlord had fitted a new front door, but the letter box was not fit for purpose and was letting in the rain. The resident said that he had raised the issues with the door to the landlord’s repairs contractor but the issues remained unresolved. The resident emphasised that these issues needed to be resolved to avoid making ongoing issues with damp and mould in the property worse.
  7. The landlord issued the stage 1 response on 24 April 2023, concerning the front door. It said that it had tried to discuss the complaint with the resident but had been unable to make contact. It said it was sorry to hear that there had been issues with the door after it was installed on 15 March 2023. It noted that the resident had reported rain coming through the letterbox on 11 April 2023. It said it had made arrangements to inspect the door on 27 April 2023. It committed to contacting the resident following its inspection, to check that he was happy with the repairs carried out.
  8. The resident phoned the landlord on 9 May 2023, asking the landlord to escalate his complaint about the door to stage 2. The resident listed a number of defects with the door and suggested that the landlord should either repair the door properly or replace it. The landlord sent the stage 2 acknowledgement on 11 May 2023.
  9. The landlord phoned the resident on 5 June 2023, to discuss the complaint about the front door. The resident suggested that the door did not sit flush within the frame, the letterbox was letting in rain, the door was of poor quality, and it was difficult to push any post through it. During this conversation, the resident raised several other issues with the property, including a build-up of mould around windowsills and vents not working in the property.
  10. The landlord issued the stage 2 response on 13 June 2023. The landlord explained the action that it had taken in response to the resident’s reports about the front door. The landlord said it did not uphold the complaint because it had acted within its agreed timescales and had “made best efforts” to repair and replace the door. It set out the action that it proposed to take in relation to the other concerns raised by the resident on 5 June 2023, about mould and other repairs. The landlord said that it would continue to support the resident until he was “completely satisfied” with repairs to the front door and the other repairs he had raised.
  11. The resident brought the complaint to the Ombudsman because he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of repairs to the front door. He said he was also unhappy with the landlord’s proposals for resolving condensation in the property. The resident told the Ombudsman on 13 November 2024, that there was still a gap around the front door and condensation in the property. He said that the landlord should replace the front door, replace his windows, and / or move him.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. At the time of the complaint, paragraph 42.c of the Scheme stated that “the Ombudsman may not consider complaints, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising”.
  2. Therefore, this investigation will assess the landlord’s actions between 11 October 2022 and 13 June 2024. This being 6 months prior to the formal complaint being made, through to when the landlord’s complaint process was exhausted. However, this report may reference events beyond this timeframe, where relevant to the resolution of the substantive complaint, given the commitments made by the landlord in the stage 2 response.
  3. At the time of the complaint, paragraph 42.a of the Scheme stated that “the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaint procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure”.
  4. It is noted that the resident’s initial complaint about damp and mould raised in November 2022, did not complete the landlord’s internal complaint process. The substantive matter of complaint that was raised by the resident in January 2023 and which later escalated to stage 2 in May 2023, related to repairs to the front door.
  5. The landlord updated the resident on 13 June 2023, within the stage 2 response, about its proposed approach for tackling damp and mould in the property. But it did not assess its own handling of the resident’s reports about ongoing issues with damp and mould, as a substantive matter of complaint.
  6. Accordingly, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould in the property, would fall outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. But the Ombudsman will consider the general reasonableness of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about damp and mould in the property, as referenced in the stage 2 response.
  7. For clarity, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. But this investigation may consider the likely distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the situation.

The landlord’s obligations, policies, and procedures

  1. The landlord had a contractual and statutory obligation under the tenancy agreement and Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair.
  2. In accordance with the landlord’s maintenance repairs policy, the landlord will complete emergency repairs in 24 hours, standard repairs within 15 working days, and planned works within 45 working days.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the front door

  1. The front door was replaced by the landlord on 15 March 2023, after the resident expressed “difficulty getting the door to seal fully”, which the resident suggested was aggravating “ongoing problems / coldness around the door area”. The resident signed a completion document on the same day, confirming that the door had been installed and he was satisfied with the job. This suggests that the door was fully operational at the time it was installed.
  2. The resident told the landlord on 16 March 2023, during a routine welfare call, that he was having trouble receiving packages because of the size of the new letterbox. The resident said that he had told the landlord’s repairs contractor about this, but the member of staff who knew about the door was on annual leave. The landlord said that it would follow this up with its contractor once the member of staff had returned from annual leave. As this was not an urgent matter, the landlord’s proposed course of action was fair.
  3. The landlord has not evidenced that it discussed the matter with its contractor as it had committed. But the landlord’s repairs records indicate that the landlord’s contractor attended the property on 20 March 2023 and 4 April 2023, concerning the front door. The Ombudsman has been unable to verify the outcome of either attendance from the evidence seen, which is troubling. When considered together, this may suggest there was an issue with the landlord’s record keeping or information management.
  4. The resident phoned the landlord on 11 April 2023, expressing concern that there was rain coming through the letterbox of the new front door. The resident said he had already reported his concerns about the letterbox to its contractor, who had agreed to inspect. But the resident felt the inspection needed to happen in a timelier manner. It is unclear from the available evidence, if the resident had expressly asked the landlord’s repairs contractor to arrange a timelier appointment before he contacted the landlord.
  5. The landlord acted fairly, by offering to put the resident’s call directly through to its repair’s contractor, so an earlier appointment could be arranged. The resident terminated the phone call prematurely, after the landlord’s call handler suggested that he tape the letterbox closed until the door was inspected. The Ombudsman considers the call handler’s suggestion was well intended, as a short-term measure, given the resident’s evident concern about water ingress. It was positive that the landlord’s call handler recognised the resident’s dissatisfaction and logged a stage 1 complaint.
  6. The landlord endeavoured to phone the resident on 20 April 2023, as a matter of “courtesy”. The landlord left a voice mail asking the resident to call back if needs be. This was positive.
  7. The landlord’s stage 1 response did not specify whether or not the landlord upheld the resident’s complaint about the front door. This ought to have been clear from the landlord’s response. However, the landlord did confirm that it had raised a works order on 11 April 2023, after the resident reported rain coming through the letterbox. It clarified that an appointment had been scheduled for 27 April 2023, to inspect this. It also committed to contacting the resident after this date, to check that he was satisfied with the repairs carried out. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord’s proposed course of action was reasonable and appropriate.
  8. It is understood that the landlord’s contractor attended the property as planned on 27 April 2023, which was encouraging. In internal communications, the landlord’s contractor said it had replaced the letterbox gasket and had stuck the draught seal back down, which had slid up.
  9. The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 9 May 2023, after having more issues with the front door. The resident said that he had emailed pictures of the front door to the landlord’s repairs contractor, but it had not got back to him. The Ombudsman has not been able to verify this from the evidence seen. The resident said the letterbox was faulty, he could see daylight through the draft excluder, there were dents in the door, something plastic had fallen off, and there was an issue with the lock. The resident said the door felt unsafe and the landlord should repair the door properly or replace it.
  10. The landlord acted promptly by raising an enquiry with its repair’s contractor on 10 May 2023. The landlord’s contractor expressed concern about the new list of defects raised by the resident, given that it had only recently attended. The landlord’s contractor offered to inspect the door again if the landlord requested. But it expressed a view that “none of the issues raised have been to do with either the door-set or the installation”.
  11. The landlord told the resident on 11 May 2023, that its contractor would inspect the door on 15 May 2023. The Ombudsman was encouraged by the landlord’s insistence that the door be reinspected. This demonstrates the landlord’s commitment to finding a resolution for the resident.
  12. The landlord’s contractor attended as planned on 15 May 2023, and adjusted the door. However, the resident later reported that there was still a gap. The resident added on 1 June 2023, that the “threshold” had now fallen off and there were nails sticking up. The landlord appropriately raised these issues with its contractor the following day.
  13. The landlord’s contractor told the landlord that it had attended on 15 May 2023 as planned, leaving the door “sitting square in the frame”. It confirmed that no further repairs were required at that time and provided the landlord with photographs of the door as evidence. It said it had tried unsuccessfully to contact the resident about his ongoing concerns. It suggested that the landlord ought to inspect the door itself if the resident continued to have concerns about the door, or it would be happy to attend a joint inspection. The Ombudsman considers this was a reasonable suggestion in the circumstances.
  14. The landlord’s housing support officer contacted the resident on 5 June 2023, making an appointment to attend the property on 8 June 2023. The Ombudsman has been unable to verify from the available evidence if this was a routine welfare call, or if the landlord was acting on its contractor’s recommendation. During the conversation, the landlord said its repairs contractor would be contacting the resident directly about fixing the threshold.
  15. The landlord explained in the stage 2 response, that its supported housing officer had attended the property on 8 June 2023. It suggested that upon inspection, the door was found “fitting comfortably” within the frame and there was “no light coming through the door”. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord was entitled to rely on the observations of its housing support officer in this matter. But it may have offered the resident greater reassurance had it arranged for its own surveyor to inspect the door.
  16. The landlord decided not to uphold the stage 2 complaint, because it had acted within its agreed timescales and had made best efforts to repair and replace the front door. But reassured the resident that it would continue to support him until such time as he was “completely happy with the front door”. While admirable, the Ombudsman questions the deliverability of the landlord’s open-ended commitment, to support the resident until he was completely happy with the front door. It is possible that the resident may never be “completely happy” with the front door or perceive it to be fit for purpose. The Ombudsman suggests that the landlord may wish to reflect on this.

Events following the stage 2 response

  1. The resident raised new concerns about the door following the landlord’s stage 2 response.
  2. The resident reported on 16 June 2023, that the spy hole in the door had come loose. The landlord made arrangements to address the spy hole and the repair the threshold on 29 June 2023. It is noted that this was 32 working days after the resident reported issue with the threshold, which was more than double the expected timescale for completing standard repairs. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord ought to have addressed the threshold strip in a timelier manner, given that the resident had reported protruding nails. While this delay was likely to have caused the resident some inconvenience, it was unlikely to have caused the resident significant detriment.
  3. The landlord’s repairs contractor attended on 29 June 2023, as planned. Internal communications indicate that the spy hole was tightened, although this was “not really loose”. Its contractor suspected that the threshold had been dislodged by a shoe. It is understood that upon finding no defects, the threshold was reattached. While the resident may have expected the threshold to be replaced, the landlord was under no obligation to replace this if it was undamaged and could be reattached.
  4. It is noted that the resident also suggested that the letterbox was too small and complained that this was causing his post to be damaged. The landlord acted fairly by investigating if the letter box could be changed. However, the landlord’s contractor confirmed that it could not, as the door had been fitted with a fire rated letterbox. The landlord was entitled to rely on the expertise of its contractor in this matter. The Ombudsman was encouraged that the landlord’s supported housing manager committed to meeting the resident on 5 July 2023, to explain this.
  5. The landlord’s supported housing manager met with the resident on 5 July 2023, as planned. After discussing the resident’s concerns about the letter box further, the landlord committed to exploring alternative solutions, such as providing an external post box. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord went beyond what would be reasonably expected, to find a resolution. It is understood that an external post box was later fitted on 11 September 2023, in consultation with the resident.
  6. The resident told the Ombudsman on 13 November 2024, that he did not like composite doors and would rather the door be replaced with a different kind of door. He mentioned that there was still a gap between the door and the frame, which was making the porch cold. The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s preference for a new door. But suggests that the landlord is under no obligation to replace the door if it can be repaired or adjusted. However, the landlord must ensure that the door (particularly any door that may be fire rated), is installed correctly and is kept in repair.
  7. While the Ombudsman identified a minor failing in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the front door, this was unlikely to have caused significant detriment to the resident. Therefore, on balance, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the front door. But in view of the resident’s continued concerns about gaps around the door, the Ombudsman makes several recommendations later for the landlord’s consideration.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about damp and mould in the property

  1. As previously referenced, the landlord contacted the resident on 5 June 2023, to discuss the stage 2 complaint about the front door. During the conversation, the resident expressed concern about a build-up of mould around windowsills and vents not working in the property. The landlord did not investigate the resident’s concerns about damp and mould as a substantive matter of complaint. But it did set out its proposed approach for tackling this, in the stage 2 response. The landlord could have avoided later confusion concerning the scope of its complaint investigation, had it provided the resident with its update under separate cover. The resident could then have raised a new stage 1 complaint if he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response.
  2. In response to the resident’s concerns about a build-up of mould around windowsills, the landlord explained that it was intending to install some additional vents in the kitchen and a cooker extractor fan. It explained that this would help with condensation levels in the property. The Ombudsman considers this to be a reasonable course of action. But suggests that the landlord’s response might have been better, had it given the resident greater clarity when these works might begin.
  3. The landlord said it would arrange for its repairs contractor to contact him, as he mentioned some of the existing vents were not working. The Ombudsman does not find fault in the landlord’s response. But it may have afforded better customer service, had the landlord proactively arranged a date for its contractor to address this.

Events following the stage 2 response

  1. The landlord commented that there had been no visible signs of mould throughout the property on 2 June 2023, when its enhanced supported housing officer last attended. The landlord encouraged the resident to report any future issues with damp and mould promptly but said it had also put the property on its damp and mould tracker so the property could be monitored closely. This was good practice.
  2. The landlord told the Ombudsman in September 2024, that there was no evidence of mould in the property in February 2024, when it last inspected. While this was encouraging, the resident told the Ombudsman on 13 November 2024, that he was still experiencing issues with condensation.
  3. The landlord has explained that the resident has denied access to the landlord, for installing mechanical ventilation in the property. The resident told the Ombudsman that he did not want a fan installed in the kitchen window, as this would prevent him from installing blinds and would trigger his OCD. The resident believes that the condensation issue would be resolved if the landlord changed the windows, which the landlord had not committed to. It is troubling that the parties have not been able to agree a way to bring the matter to a satisfactory conclusion.
  4. While the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about damp and mould in the property, several recommendations are made later for the landlord’s consideration.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in:

a.     The landlord’s handling of repairs to the front door.

b.     The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about damp and mould in the property.

Recommendations

  1. In relation to the front door, the landlord should:

a.     Arrange for one of its own technical staff to inspect the door and satisfy itself that the door has been installed correctly, has no defects, and remains fit for purpose.

b.     The landlord may find it helpful to commit to a short period of proactive inspections of the door, particularly if the door is adjusted and is not replaced. This may help the landlord establish the reason the door requires adjusting so regularly, which could then be addressed.

c.      If the landlord decides that the door should be replaced, it should involve the resident in any decisions concerning its replacement, as far as is reasonably practical.

  1. In relation to condensation in the property:

a.     The landlord should arrange another damp and mould survey of the property. Thereafter, the landlord should explain its findings to the resident, agree an action plan (including timescales for action), and then act accordingly. The landlord should reflect on whether there is any additional support or assistance that it may be able to offer the resident, that it has not already offered, and include this in the action plan.

b.     If the landlord remains of the view that mechanical ventilation ought to be installed, the landlord should take the resident’s vulnerabilities into consideration in any final solution, as far as it is reasonably practical.

c.      The landlord should consider the merits of appointing a third-party advocacy service, to support the parties with these discussions.