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

Sanctuary Housing Association (202314679)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202314679

Sanctuary Housing Association

5 February 2025


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 handling of a leak into the resident’s property which resulted in damp and mould.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
  2. On 1 August 2023, the resident reported a leak into her property following heavy rainfall. In addition, the resident also reported a leak into her property on 24 November 2023.
  3. On 8 December 2023, the landlord completed repairs to the guttering to resolve the leak.
  4. On 29 May 2024, the resident submitted her complaint to the landlord. She explained she had a reoccurring leak entering her property for several years. The resident stated the leak stopped but then, a few months later, it started again, so explained the issue was unresolved. She also explained that during the winter months, her house was cold and damp because of the leak. In addition, she also stated she had to replace the flooring in her hallway because the leak damaged the carpet.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 13 June 2024. It acknowledged that the resident had been reporting a leak affecting her kitchen ceiling for several years. The landlord apologised to the resident because she had to chase the repair issue. It confirmed that its contractor identified the leak was coming from a neighbouring property’s balcony. The landlord explained it was attempting to contact the resident at the neighbouring property to fix the leak.
  6. On 8 July 2024, the resident contacted the landlord and requested her complaint to be escalated to the next stage of the landlord’s complaints process. She explained the leak was becoming worse and had been ongoing for 3 years. The resident stated she would like the landlord to provide a date and time for when the leak would be repaired. She explained that whilst the leak repair was outstanding, she was living in a property which was not fit for purpose.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 6 August 2024. It apologised for the issues the resident had experienced with the unresolved leak. The landlord acknowledged the leak had not been resolved in a timely manner. It explained that the leak was coming from a neighbouring property which was owned by the local authority and confirmed it would continue to communicate with it to repair the leak. The landlord confirmed it would complete the necessary repairs inside the resident’s property once the leak had been resolved. In addition, it explained it was aware of the resident’s request to be rehoused and stated it was considering her request. It offered the resident £500 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay.
  8. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and submitted her complaint to the Ombudsman. She stated her desired outcome was for repairs to be completed and to receive increased compensation for the delays.

 

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation 

  1. The resident raised concerns that there have been issues with a reoccurring leak at her property for over 3 years. The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s comments about the length of time the issue has been ongoing for. We accept it is a longstanding issue which has caused difficulties for her and her family. However, there is no evidence of her raising a formal complaint to the landlord until May 2024. In view of the time periods involved in this case and considering the availability and reliability of evidence, this report will not consider any specific events approximately more than 12 months prior to when the resident submitted her complaint to the landlord in May 2024. This is because paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (available on our website), explains that this service may not investigate complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, normally within 12 months of the matters arising.

Policies and Procedures 

  1. The landlord’s website includes information on repairs. It explains that the landlord is responsible for repairs to the roof, guttering and balconies.
  2. In addition, the landlord’s repairs policy also includes the following response timescales for repair categories:
    1. Immediate repairs- the landlord will attend and make the repair safe within 4 hours.
    2. Emergency repairs- the landlord will complete the repair within 24 hours.
    3. Standard repairs – the landlord will complete the repair within 15 working days.
    4. Planned repairs – the landlord will complete the repair within 45 working days.

 

Assessment

  1. On 1 August 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and reported a leak into the property, which was damaging the kitchen ceiling. She explained the leak had reoccurred in the same location from a previous report. From reviewing the landlord’s repairs records, it is unclear if the landlord’s contractor visited the resident’s property following the leak report. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to respond to the report in line with the timescales referenced in its repairs policy.
  2. On 15 November 2023, the resident contacted the landlord again about the leak entering her property. In response to the report, the landlord agreed that an inspection of the roof was required to locate and resolve the leak. Shortly after, the landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property on 8 December 2023 and completed repairs to the guttering, which they had identified as the cause of the leak. The landlord acted appropriately by completing the necessary repairs to the guttering and there were no further reported issues about the leak until around 6 months later.
  3. The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord on 29 May 2024 because the leak had restarted in the same location in the resident’s kitchen ceiling. She explained that the previous repairs completed by the landlord had not resolved the leak. The resident also stated she had to replace her carpet in the hallway because the leak had damaged it. The Ombudsman recognises that it would have been difficult for the resident living with a reoccurring leak. However, it should be noted that it can take more than one attempt to resolve a leak, as it can initially be difficult to identify the cause of the issue. In addition, sometimes different repairs may need to be attempted before the leak is permanently resolved.
  4. Shortly after the resident submitted her complaint, the landlord raised a work order on 31 May 2024 for a plumber to the attend the resident’s property to locate and resolve the leak. The landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property on 3 June 2023 and identified that the source of the leak was coming from a neighbouring resident’s balcony. However, the neighbouring property was managed by the local authority for that area. The landlord took reasonable steps by reinspecting the resident’s property to identify the source of the leak. It also carried out the inspection promptly following the resident’s complaint submission.
  5. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 complaint response issued on 13 June 2024 that the leak had been reoccurring for a long time, and it apologised that it was unresolved. The landlord informed the resident that the leak was coming from a neighbouring resident’s balcony, and it confirmed it was trying to contact the neighbouring resident, so the leak could be repaired. The landlord’s response was reasonable, as it is recognised that the leak repair was the responsibility of the local authority who managed the neighbouring property.
  6. Although the landlord’s explanation in its stage 1 response was reasonable, it failed to address the resident’s complaint point that she replaced her carpet due to the leak damaging it. The landlord acknowledged in its file submission sent to the Ombudsman that it failed to address this complaint point, and it confirmed its staff had completed training to ensure the consideration of compensation for a resident’s damaged belongings as part of its complaints process. It is a positive step that the landlord recognised its error in failing to address the resident’s complaint point about her damaged carpet. However, it would also be appropriate for the landlord to investigate the resident’s concerns about the damaged carpet and provide her with a written response. If the resident remains dissatisfied once she has received the landlord’s final response, she may be able to refer the matter to the Ombudsman as a separate complaint at that stage.
  7. Whilst the landlord and resident were waiting for the neighbouring balcony to be repaired by the local authority, the resident experienced rainwater entering her property in July 2024. The landlord responded promptly to the report and made the resident’s kitchen ceiling safe on 6 July 2024. However, due to the leak remaining outstanding, the resident requested her complaint to be escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process.
  8. On 6 August 2024, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It apologised that the leak was still unresolved and confirmed that it was communicating with the local authority about the leak repair and would complete the remedial works inside her property once the leak had been fixed. It also confirmed that it was reviewing the resident’s request to be rehoused because of the ongoing leak. The landlord also offered the resident £500 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in resolving the leak. The compensation amount offered by the landlord was sufficient to recognise the delays up to August 2024, we acknowledge that the delay by the local authority repairing the neighbouring balcony would have been outside the landlord’s control.
  9. For the landlord to consider the resident’s rehousing request as agreed in its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord’s surveyor needed to complete an inspection of the resident’s property. Therefore, on the 12 August 2024, the landlord’s surveyor inspected the resident’s property. The inspection identified mould around the window frames in most rooms and on the kitchen wall. Also, the extractor fans were turned off at the time of the inspection. The surveyor concluded that a decant (temporary move) was not required. However, the landlord confirmed it would arrange a mould wash for the affected areas, and it would continue to communicate with the local authority about the balcony repairs. The landlord also provided the resident with information about applying for a permanent move. The landlord was entitled to rely on the expert opinion of its surveyor that the property was habitable and responded reasonably to the resident’s request to be rehoused. We have not seen any evidence, aside from the resident’s comments to show the property was uninhabitable. We cannot conclude it was uninhabitable without evidence to support this.
  10. On 14 August 2024, the landlord emailed the resident with an update about the leak repairs. It explained that the local authority had accepted responsibility for the leak and had instructed its contractor to complete the necessary repairs to the neighbouring property. It was a positive step taken by the landlord by updating the resident about the leak repair.
  11. Shortly after the update sent to the resident, the local authority’s contractor attended the neighbouring property on 22 August 2024 and completed repairs to the guttering. In addition, its contractor also completed the necessary repairs to the balcony on 5 September 2024 to resolve the leak.
  12. As the local authority completed the repairs to resolve the leak in September 2024, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to complete the remedial works inside the resident’s property soon after this. The Ombudsman recognises it was reasonable for the landlord to wait for a period of time to pass, to ensure that the leak had permanently been resolved and to allow the property to dry out. However, the length of time taken for the landlord to arrange an appointment for the remedial works inside the resident’s property was unreasonable. The landlord booked the remedial works to be completed on 20 and 21 January 2025. The landlord and resident have confirmed that remedial works were completed on the agreed dates. In addition, the landlord has confirmed that it painted the affected ceiling on 29 January 2025. However, the resident has informed the Ombudsman that a light fixture needs to be installed to the ceiling. Therefore, the landlord should complete the required works to install the light fixture.
  13. We acknowledge that the landlord offered the resident £500 compensation in its stage 2 complaint response to recognise the distress and inconvenience she experienced due to the delays in resolving the leak. However, there was a further delay by the landlord in arranging and completing the remedial works inside the resident’s property after the leak was fixed. Therefore, there has been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of a leak into the resident’s property, which resulted in damp and mould. It would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident an additional £250 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the further delay. This means the total compensation will be £750, including the landlord’s earlier offer.
  14. The amount of compensation ordered by the Ombudsman, including the compensation previously offered by the landlord, is compliant with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance (published on our website), which sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation. The remedies guidance suggests awards of £600 to £1000 where there has been a serious failure by the landlord, which had a significant impact on the resident.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a leak into the resident’s property which resulted in damp and mould.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint about her damaged carpet.
    2. Pay the resident £250 compensation for its handling of the leak at the resident’s property. This amount is in addition to the £500 the landlord offered in its stage 2 complaint response.
    3. Install the light fixture on the ceiling at the resident’s property.
  2. The landlord must comply with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report, providing evidence to the Ombudsman that it has done so by the same date.