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

Sanctuary Housing Association (202311244)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311244

Sanctuary Housing Association

29 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 concerns the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about a leak and the related repairs.
  2. The landlord’s complaint handling has also been investigated.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The tenancy began in October 2017 following a mutual exchange with the previous tenant. The resident lives with her partner. There are no reported vulnerabilities.
  2. On 3 October 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that there was a leak from the kitchen radiator which was dripping under the laminate flooring. She said the boxing around the pipes and the skirting boards were rotten as a result of the leak. The landlord booked an appointment for the boxing and skirting board on the same day as the resident’s call. This was scheduled for 23 November 2022. On 7 October 2022.
  3. The landlord’s records say that on 3 October 2022 the reported radiator leak was “added to urgent queue.” On 7 October 2022 it booked an appointment for this on 3 November 2022.
  4. The landlord attended on 3 November 2022 but found that there was no leak. The landlord attended again on 23 November 2022 to repair the boxing and skirting board, but the resident declined the repair as she believed there was rising damp.
  5. The landlord’s surveyor attended on 9 January 2023 but found no evidence of rising or other dampness. Their report did not note any concerns related to the previously reported leak from the radiator.
  6. On 8 February 2023, the resident telephoned the landlord and said that the surveyor had told her the landlord would get back to her regarding repair of the boxing and replacement flooring. On 8 March 2023, the landlord raised a job on its repairs system to repair the boxing and replace the flooring. There was a note on the system that this was approved by the maintenance surveyor. An appointment was made for 9 March 2023. Later, on 8 March 2023, the landlord told the resident that the job had been raised in error due to a miscommunication, and cancelled the appointment.
  7. On 8 March 2023, the tenant raised a formal complaint about the cancellation of the appointment. The landlord’s stage 1 response, dated 22 March 2023, included the following:
    1. It noted the history of its inspections following her reports and confirmed that no leak was found.
    2. I noted that the resident had said she did not want any work done to the skirting board and boxing as she suspected there was rising damp.
    3. It confirmed that no evidence of damp was found. Its surveyor said the damage to the flooring was caused by wear and tear.
    4. It noted that the tenancy agreement said flooring was the resident’s responsibility. It therefore recommended that the resident make a claim to her insurer as it had not caused the damage to the floor.
    5. It acknowledged that there had been a miscommunication about responsibility for the flooring. Due to an internal error, it had started the process of arranging for the flooring to be replaced before the error was identified.
    6. It apologised and offered £25 for any trouble or inconvenience caused.
  8. On 23 March 2023 the resident told the landlord she disagreed with the stage 1 response. She said:
    1. The plumber sent by the landlord on 3 November 2022 tightened a nut on a rusting pipe on the radiator, which could have been the cause of the leak.
    2. She noted that it was not disputed that the flooring was damaged, and that the damage was clearly water damage, not wear and tear, as there was swollen woodwork. The other damage on the kitchen floor was also caused by leaks.
    3. She noted that she had provided photographs of the flooring. She requested copies of the photographs taken by the maintenance surveyor.
    4. The surveyor had told her partner they may be eligible to have the floor repaired and he would “go and chase that up.” This had raised her expectations of a repair.
    5. There were ants and woodlice coming from under the radiator.
    6. Her partner’s telephone call to the landlord that morning had been handled in an unprofessional manner.
  9. The stage 2 response, dated 16 June 2023, provided a detailed account of relevant events and responded to the resident’s complaint as follows:
    1. The operative who attended on 3 November 2022, found no evidence of a leak and reported that there was insufficient evidence that the laminate flooring was damaged by the reported leak from the radiator.
    2. The customer service officer raised an order and booked an appointment for 9 March 2023, in response to the resident’s phone call on 8 March 2023. This was then queried by the planning team, who spoke with the surveyor. The surveyor confirmed they had not proposed the replacement of the flooring, and the damage was due to wear and tear. They noted no concerns related to the previously reported leak from the radiator and there was no evidence of rising or other dampness.
    3. The boxing in of the pipework was part of the work completed by the previous occupier. The resident had therefore accepted responsibility for this when completing the mutual exchange.
    4. It would replace the damaged section of skirting board.
    5. It acknowledged the resident’s frustration and apologised for:
      1. The cancellation of the appointment with the maintenance surveyor on 6 December 2022 at short notice.
      2. The delay escalating the complaint.
      3. Poor communication.
      4. Poor record-keeping.
      5. The manner in which the telephone call was handled on 22 March 2023. This was below the standard it would expect and would be addressed directly with the officer concerned.
    6. It offered £710 compensation. This was broken down as follows:
      1. £300 for time, trouble, and inconvenience caused by the customer service centre raising the order.
      2. £10 for the failed appointment on 6 December 2022.
      3. £400 for its poor complaint handling.
  10. The resident was dissatisfied with the response and contacted this Service on 28 June 2023. There was further correspondence between the resident and the landlord after the completion of the internal complaints procedure. On 9 August 2023, the landlord increased its offer of compensation to £1,267. This included £557 to replace the laminate flooring in the kitchen. This was before the landlord was first contacted by this Service on 15 February 2024.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement acknowledges the landlord’s repairing duty under section 11 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The landlord’s repairing responsibility under section 11 would not extend to floor coverings such as laminate flooring, skirting boards, or boxing around pipework. However, the landlord’s Repairs Handbook states that it is responsible for repairs to skirting boards.
  2. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance procedure current at the relevant time categorised repairs as follows:
    1. Emergency – “necessary to remove a serious threat to the health and safety, or the structure and fabric of their home.” The landlord should attend and make safe within 24 hours.
    2. Appointed repairs – non-emergency repairs. The landlord should agree an appointment during the first point of contact, wherever possible, and complete the repair within 28 days.
  3. The procedure stated that during the initial call, or within 24 hours, the landlord should accurately diagnose the repair and establish whether or not it was responsible. If it was responsible, it should raise and authorise a works order. If responsibility was unclear, it should arrange a pre-inspection to take place within 10 working days or contact its regional Homeownership team for clarification.
  4. The landlord’s records for 3 October 2022, say that when the resident first reported the leak, it was initially “added to urgent queue”. The repairs procedure does not make reference to an urgent queue, but it does say that the landlord will attend to “make safe” emergencies within 24 hours. The landlord did not do this. Assuming “urgent” reflected that it was deemed to be an emergency, the landlord was in breach of its repair’s procedure.
  5. It is unclear whether the appointment booked on 3 October 2022 for the boxing and skirting board (to take place on 23 November 2022) was for a pre-inspection or an appointed repair. Either way, the appointment was outside of the timescales for both set out in the landlord’s procedure.
  6. On 7 October 2022, the landlord booked an appointment for the radiator, to take place on 3 November 2022. The records do not indicate on what basis the landlord no longer considered the matter to be urgent. Given that the resident had described the leak as “dripping”, but she was still able to use the heating, it would not have fit the definition of an emergency, as set out in the landlord’s procedure. However, it would have been best practice for the landlord to clearly communicate to the resident why it no longer considered the matter to be urgent or an emergency. It was unreasonable that it did not do so.
  7. An operative of the landlord attended the resident’s property on 3 November 2022. The records say only that no leak from the heating circuit was found, and the boiler pressure was good. Although the landlord attended 3 days outside of the 28-day target time for appointed repairs, this was not so much outside of the target time to be deemed unreasonable.
  8. Another operative attended on 23 November 2022 for the boxing and skirting board, but the resident declined a repair as she suspected the kitchen walls had rising damp. She also mentioned a problem with ants. On the same day the landlord arranged for its surveyor to inspect the potential rising damp. The following day, it confirmed the appointment date of 6 December 2022 with the resident. This was appropriate and in line with its procedure.
  9. Although pest control would not have been the landlord’s responsibility, it should have investigated whether there was damage to the structure or exterior of the property that was allowing the ants to come in, or otherwise provided its position. It was unreasonable that it did not do so.
  10. The 6 December 2022 appointment was cancelled by the landlord on the day as the surveyor was stuck in traffic. Although the reason for the appointment being cancelled was beyond the landlord’s control, it was rearranged for 9 January 2023, 21 working days later. This was an unreasonable delay, given that the timescales for pre-inspections was 10 working days.
  11. The landlord’s maintenance surveyor attended the property on 9 January 2023. No contemporaneous record of the inspection has been seen. This indicates a failure in record keeping. On 1 February 2023, the surveyor told the landlord they had not found any elevated moisture readings and there was no evidence of rising or other dampness. They did not note any concerns related to the previously reported leak from the radiator and deemed that no further action was necessary.
  12. The Ombudsman expects landlords to share the outcomes of inspections with residents within a reasonable timeframe. No evidence has been seen that the landlord did this. This was unreasonable and meant the resident chase the landlord, which caused inconvenience, time and trouble.
  13. TOn 8 February 2023, the resident telephoned the landlord and asked for repair of the boxing and flooring. She said that the maintenance surveyor had told her the landlord would get back to her about this. The landlord’s records show that an email was sent to the maintenance surveyor querying this but there is no record of a response. A works order was raised, and an appointment booked for 9 March 2023 to repair the boxing and replace the flooring. No evidence has been seen that the landlord properly considered responsibility before raising expectations of the repairs. This was not in accordance with its repairs procedure.
  14. The landlord’s internal correspondence shows that on 8 March 2023 the appointments were queried as it did not usually carry out work to box in pipes, and flooring was the resident’s responsibility. The maintenance surveyor said they had not proposed replacement of the flooring or boxing, but when the resident had requested this, they had told repairs to “give the benefit of the doubt” as they had only attended recently. No contemporaneous record has been seen of this communication between the maintenance surveyor and the colleague, which indicates a further failure in record keeping.
  15. The landlord contacted the resident on 8 March 2023, cancelled the 9 March 2023 appointment, and explained that there had been a miscommunication. The landlord told the resident that it had emailed the maintenance surveyor’s manager about this. The absence of a contemporaneous record of the 9 January 2023 inspection makes it impossible to evidence what, if anything the maintenance surveyor said to the resident about the laminate flooring and boxing. However, it is clear that the landlord failed to clearly communicate with the resident about the extent of its obligations and failed to advise her appropriately regarding making a claim to her contents insurer at an early point. It raised her expectations by booking an appointment for 9 March 2023, and then did not provide an adequate explanation when this was cancelled on the day before. This was clearly confusing, disappointing, and frustrating for the resident.
  16. The Ombudsman’s Guidance on Complaints Involving Insurance (14 November 2024) states that in the case of damage to a resident’s possessions due to a leak, the landlord only becomes responsible for the damage if it caused the leak or failed to carry out its repairing obligation within a reasonable time. Otherwise, it would be appropriate for the resident to claim on their own contents insurance. In this case, while there were failings with its communication and record keeping, the landlord’s repair response regarding the radiator was reasonable in the circumstances. It was therefore reasonable that it ultimately determined that it was not responsible for the replacement of the flooring.
  17. The stage 1 response, on 22 March 2023, acknowledged that there had been a miscommunication, that the landlord had made an error, and it apologised for this. This was appropriate. It was also reasonable that the landlord advised the resident to make a claim to her contents insurer. However, it once again missed the opportunity to address the resident’s report of ants.
  18. The stage 2 response was provided on 16 June 2023. It was appropriate that the landlord provided a detailed account and explanation of relevant events and acknowledged and apologised for areas of service failure. These included poor communication and record-keeping, and the handling of the telephone call from the resident’s partner on 22 March 2023. It was reasonable that it acknowledged the resident’s resulting frustration, apologised for this and offered compensation.
  19. The resident was dissatisfied with the stage 2 response. On 16 June 2023 she spoke to the landlord and said she would get her own contractor to assess and provide evidence. The landlord agreed to review this. The resident provided additional evidence on 29 June 2023. While this service has not been provided with a copy of this report, or the landlord’s response, it was appropriate that it remained committed to reviewing any additional evidence.
  20. On 7 July 2023 the landlord provided a further response in which it offered to pay a contribution towards the cost of replacing the laminate flooring. On 7 August 2023 the resident provided a quotation for £557. On 9 August 2023 the landlord agreed to pay the full cost of replacing the laminate flooring and made an increased offer of £1,267 compensation, broken down as follows:
    1. £300 for time trouble and inconvenience caused by the customer service centre raising the order for the replacement flooring and boxing in of pipework.
    2. £10 for the failed appointment on 6 December 2022.
    3. £400 for complaint handling at stage 1, including the failure to escalate complaint when requested, call handling and the lack of a call back from a Team Manager.
    4. £557 for the replacement flooring.
  21. While the increased offer of compensation was made after the resident first contacted this service on 28 June 2023, it was made before the landlord was first contacted by this Service on 15 February 2024. The landlord had continued to correspond with the resident following its stage 2 response and was waiting for her to provide further evidence. There was provision for this within the landlord’s complaints policy current at the time. This said that if the resident remained unhappy following the stage 2 response, they could provide additional evidence, and explain what outcome they sought, within 10 working days of the response. The landlord would provide a final response to resident, explaining its position and the resident’s rights should they wish to pursue their complaint further, including a referral to the Housing Ombudsman Service.
  22. The increased offer of compensation was appropriate and in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance. The landlord is best placed to assess its own service failure, and its increased offer recognised that it had raised the resident’s expectations about flooring despite not being strictly obligated.
  23. In summary, there was poor communication, poor record keeping, and a failure by the landlord to understand its obligations which led to confusion, distress, and inconvenience for the resident. Thes failings would have led to a finding of maladministration; however, the landlord took appropriate steps to redress matters. It has acknowledged and apologised for its failures, arranged to repair the skirting board, and made a suitable award of compensation, including reimbursement in full for the replacement of the laminate flooring.
  24. These actions show that the landlord took the complaint seriously, openly acknowledged areas for improvement, and took action to put things right. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair; put things right; and learn from outcomes. The Ombudsman has therefore made a finding of reasonable redress and has made no orders on this complaint. This finding does not mean the Ombudsman thinks the landlord’s handling of this matter, or the impact on the resident, was ‘reasonable.’ The finding reflects that there were failings by the landlord, but it has already offered appropriate and proportionate redress to the resident which satisfactorily resolves the complaint, in line with the Ombudsman’s approach.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy current at the time said that it would acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 3 working days, confirm the scope of the complaint, and confirm its understanding of the outcomes sought. It would respond in full at stage 1 within 10 working days. Residents had a right to request escalation to Stage 2 if they were unhappy with the stage 1 response. The landlord would respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of escalation. The policy included provision to extend the timeframe to respond at Stage 1 or Stage 2 by 10 working days.
  2. The timescales in the landlord’s policy were broadly in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) current at the time. The Code also stated that on receipt of an escalation request landlords must set out their understanding of the issues that are outstanding, and the outcomes sought by the resident.
  3. The resident’s initial complaint was made to the landlord on 8 March 2023. The landlord logged the complaint on the same day and sent an acknowledgement email on 13 March 2023, 3 working days later, as per its policy. However, the email did not accurately define the complaint, or the outcomes sought, stating only that the complaint was about “concerns regarding outstanding repairs.” This was not in line with the landlord’s policy. However, the content of the stage 1 and 2 responses demonstrated that the landlord had correctly understood the resident’s complaint, so the impact of this failing on the resident was minimal.
  4. The stage 1 response was provided on 22 March 2023, 10 working days after the complaint was acknowledged, as required by the policy. The response correctly defined the complaint, and the outcome sought. The landlord accepted responsibility for its internal error and for the miscommunication and apologised for this. It explained the reasons for its decision clearly. This was appropriate. However, the response did not acknowledge the impact of the landlord’s errors on the resident or show empathy. The landlord also did not show learning from the complaint. This was unreasonable in the circumstances and the landlord missed an opportunity to rebuild the landlord/tenant relationship.
  5. The resident told the landlord she did not agree with the stage 1 response on 22 March 2023. After further correspondence, on 29 March 2023 the landlord increased the compensation offer to £100. On 30 March 2023 the resident said she did not accept the offer and still wanted to escalate the complaint to stage 2. The landlord did not escalate the complaint, and the resident had to contact it multiple times to chase this. This was poor complaints handling and clearly frustrating for the resident, and further eroded the landlord/tenant relationship.
  6. The landlord sent an email to the resident confirming that the complaint had been escalated to stage 2 on 25 May. This was 37 working days after the resident’s first request to escalate the complaint. The acknowledgement email did not set out the landlord’s understanding of the issues outstanding, and the outcomes sought by the resident. This delay was unreasonable, and in breach of the landlord’s procedure and the Code.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 16 June 2023. This was 15 working days after the complaint was escalated, but because of the delay in escalation, it was almost 3 months after the resident first expressed dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response. This was unreasonable. However, the landlord did acknowledge that and apologised. The complaint definition in the stage 2 response was vague, stating merely “you complained to [the landlord] on 8 March 2023 about the following issue: ­Damage to laminate flooring.” The outcome sought was also not defined.
  8. Within the stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged areas of service failure, the resident’s resulting frustration, and apologised for this. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to show learning from the complaint and set out what it would do differently in future; however, it failed to do so.
  9. The landlord’s policy said that if the resident remained unhappy following the stage 2 response, they could provide additional evidence within 10 working days of the response, and the landlord would provide a final response. While the current Code (published April 2024) says that a complaints process with more than 2 stages is not acceptable, the landlord’s current policy is in line with this, so no orders have been made regarding this.
  10. The landlord reviewed additional information from the resident following completion of the internal complaints procedure, and provided a final response, on 7 July 2023, advising the resident of right to refer the complaint to this Service. This was in line with its policy.
  11. In summary, there were repeated failings with its definition and understanding of the complaint, and unreasonable delays to its stage two acknowledgement. Theses failings would have led to a finding of maladministration, however, the landlord has acknowledged and apologised for poor complaint handling and its offer of £400 compensation was proportionate and in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance. The Ombudsman has therefore made a finding of reasonable redress and has made no orders on this complaint. The finding reflects that there were failings by the landlord, but it has already offered appropriate and proportionate redress to the resident which satisfactorily resolves the complaint, in line with the Ombudsman’s approach.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about leak and related repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that relevant staff involved in this case undertake complaint handling learning from our Centre for Learning (https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/centre-for-learning/key-topics/complaint-handling/).