Sanctuary Housing Association (202328174)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202328174

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about:
1. The boundary fence and gate.
2. The windows and door.
3. The bedroom ceiling.
4. The central heating.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a 3-bedroom house.
In March 2022, the resident reported a ceiling crack and issues with a gate. In late 2022, the landlord approved works to replace the gate and fence. It also noted that the resident was unavailable until January 2023 for an asbestos survey required for the ceiling, and she was asked to make contact when available.
In April 2023, the resident reported that her windows had water ingress, loose handles, and draughts coming in. She also reported that a recently fitted front door had a gap that was causing loss of heat. The same month, the resident reported that she had to keep the heating at over 35 degrees due to issues with the radiators, and asked the landlord to assess if renewal of the radiators was needed. Following this, an operative attended on 24 May 2023 for the windows where the resident says the windows were found to be too old to repair.
In May 2023, an asbestos survey was requested and completed.
On 1 June 2023, the resident complained about the quality of works to replace the fence and gate. She was unhappy with the fence height and said the works were horrendous.
On 5 June 2023, the landlord provided a stage 1 response. It said it awaited a report about the resident’s concerns, and awarded £75 in recognition of the quality of works and inconvenience caused.
On 15 June 2023, the resident chased about the outcome for the windows and door, after which the landlord contacted an individual who needed to decide how they wanted the windows and door to be progressed. The resident also chased about the outcome for the asbestos survey of the ceiling, after which the report was received and a quote was requested for removal of the ceiling.
On 4 July 2023, a heating operative attended for the April 2023 report. They noted that the radiators were bled and all working, but they noted that they were old and could be upgraded.
On 5 July 2023, the resident made another complaint. She said windows leaked when it rained and let warmth out and were beyond repair. She said a front door installed a year prior was identified to have been not installed properly and was loose around the frame. She said she was still waiting for a repair to a crack across the ceiling. She also noted that a gas man had said the heating needed updating and was escaping through windows and doors. The same day, a quote to remove the ceiling was approved.
On 6 July 2023, the landlord provided a stage 1 response. It said it had escalated the resident’s multiple outstanding repairs to prevent further delays, and said she would be contacted about inspections and repairs. It awarded £125 in recognition of the delays and inconvenience caused.
On 13 July 2023, the resident chased again about the windows and door, after which the landlord contacted 2 staff. The same day, the resident also chased an update for the replaced fence which was only 4 foot high and starting to fall down, after which the landlord noted that a contractor had attended 3 weeks prior and were producing report and quote.
On 30 and 31 August 2023, the ceiling works were completed.
On 5 September 2023, the heating contractor noted that parts were required after a service of the resident’s boiler. The following day, the landlord noted that the resident said she had no facilities, although it noted that she had an immersion which had cost over £10 the previous night.
On 7 September 2023, the resident made a report about a bedroom window hanging off and raised concern that it would fall down. The landlord’s records are unclear for this but the resident confirms it was made safe.
On 12 September 2023, the landlord chased the fence quote, after which it was noted on 22 September 2023 that a revisit was required as photos had been lost.
On 15 September 2023, the landlord completed a repair and service of the boiler.
On 25 September 2023, the landlord provided a stage 2 response.
1. It noted that the resident had reported that the fence fitted at the beginning of the year was coming apart. It said previous photos taken of the fence had been mislaid and it would need to revisit the property, after which it would monitor works and keep the resident updated.
2. It noted that an operative had attended on 24 May 2023 after reports about the windows and door and said they would need to liaise with a supervisor about proposed works. It said it had internally flagged that there had been a lack of response to this and the resident would be contacted about repairs.
3. It acknowledged that after the resident had reported cracks to the bedroom ceiling in March 2022, she had experienced delays and failed appointments. It said this was being discussed internally to improve future service.
4. It noted that the resident had reported issues with radiators not heating up properly in April 2023, after which radiators were bled in July 2023 and left in working order. It then noted that after the resident reported no heating facilities on 6 September 2023, operatives attended on 14 September 2023 and replaced parts.
5. It said that it had reviewed complaint handling and acknowledged escalation delays and issues with communication, which it had raised internally to improve service.
6. It awarded compensation which comprised the £200 offered in its stage 1 responses, £200 for inconvenience caused by delays, £25 for its delayed stage 2 acknowledgement, £250 for stage 1 complaint handling, £175 for delays to the fence, windows and door repairs, assuming these completed by 31 December 2023, £33 for lack of hot water in September, and a further £250 for the overall inconvenience caused. The landlord said its total compensation award was £933.
On 3 October 2023, a contractor revisited for the fence, after which a quote for extra works was approved and fence works were completed on 7 November 2023. The following day, the landlord’s surveyor post-inspected the works. They noted that the fence was 6 feet tall, and the only issue was that the gate was fitted too tight to the post, which could make it difficult to open and close, and a recall was raised.
On 7 February 2024, a repair was raised for an operative to repair the windows and to submit a proforma if replacement was required, after which they attended on 15 April 2024. The following day, the landlord noted that the operative had submitted a proforma for replacement but no reason had been given, so they had been asked for more information.
In July 2024, the landlord said that replacement windows were declined, but a further attendance was arranged that identified that doors did not need replacement, as these had been recently changed, but 7 windows required replacement. It said the windows had been referred for internal authorisation.
In mid August 2024, the landlord said that the windows were declined, but a manager was visiting to re-assess the findings. In late August 2024, the landlord said that a manager had visited and replacement windows had been approved. It said window repairs had been raised and had a target date of 30 October 2024.
In November 2024, the landlord said that a planned maintenance team had visited, taken measurements and ordered materials to complete the window repairs. The same month, in response to enquiries from the Ombudsman about the gate and front doorframe, the landlord said it was unclear repairs were completed for these, so it had requested urgent attendances in respect to these.
The resident has raised dissatisfaction with the height and look of the replacement fence, raised concerns about the property’s heat retention, and stated a desire for the windows to be replaced and the hole by the front door to be repaired.

Assessment and findings

The boundary fence and gate

The resident raised dissatisfaction in June 2023 with the height and look of a replacement fence which it is understood was erected in 2023. Following this, the landlord carried out some works and its surveyor inspected in November 2023. The surveyor said they were satisfied with the fence including its height of 6 feet, but noted some follow on works to the gate which the resident has not complained are outstanding.
The Ombudsman understands that the resident’s main dissatisfaction is with the height and look of the fence not being in line what it was before. However, we can see no evidence that the landlord has failed in its obligations in respect to the current height and look of the fence. The tenancy agreement confirms the landlord is responsible for fencing, but this and relevant information about repairs do not specify this should be like for like. The landlord should ensure that the fence works is satisfactory, which it took steps to do, and it is entitled to rely on the opinion of its staff and contractors in respect to such matters.
In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord has responded reasonably about the fence and gate. It considered the resident’s dissatisfaction, arranged some further works, inspected the fence to confirm it is satisfied with the works, identified some follow on works for the gate. It also awarded a share of compensation for issues the resident experienced which seems reasonably proportionate to these based on the landlord’s policies and our compensation guidance.
The landlord’s stage 2 response said the total compensation awarded was £933, however the Ombudsman’s calculation based on the landlord’s summary totals £1,133. The Ombudsman therefore recommends for the landlord to pay the resident the difference of £200 if it has not already.

The windows and door

The resident has raised issues since April 2023 with windows and a gap in a recently fitted front door, which she has said resulted in water ingress and loss of heat. In May 2023, a contractor attended who the resident says found the windows to be beyond repair, and in June 2023 it was noted that an individual needed to decide how they wanted the windows and door to be progressed. The landlord’s July and September 2023 complaint responses chased discussions about proposed works and awarded a share of £933 for issues she experienced. The landlord was positive to acknowledge delays and award compensation, but its handling of the reports about the window and door was not satisfactory.
The evidence shows that from June 2023, a decision was awaited for how the windows and door should be progressed, but despite this being chased in July and September 2023 during the complaint, no substantial consideration or action in respect to this is evident until February 2024, when a repair was raised for an operative to attend and submit a proforma if replacement was required. The operative subsequently attended in April 2024 and submitted a proforma for replacement of the windows, but this reportedly did not contain enough information, and when this was obtained the request was declined. The windows were inspected again in July 2024, where 7 windows were identified to require replacement, but this was declined. The window replacement was subsequently approved in August 2024 after a manager visit.
The landlord’s communication about what was happening about the windows was poor, and it took too long to consider the replacement of the windows. The April 2024 operative visit to assess if replacement was required was 7 months after the September 2023 stage 2 response, and 10 months after it was stated in June 2023 that staff needed to decide how to progress the windows and door. The August 2024 manager approval was 11 months after the September 2023 stage 2 response, and 14 months after it was stated in June 2023 that staff needed to decide how to progress the windows and door.
The landlord does not show it followed a clear process for where windows may need replacement, which potentially led to the issue being so protracted. The evidence is unclear about what was happening when it internally chased in July and September 2023. It also evidently received multiple recommendations to replace the windows from around June 2023, and in April and July 2024, but these were insufficient for replacement to be approved until reviewed by a manager. The landlord is not expected to take such decisions lightly, given costs, but it is unclear why various professional views supporting replacement of the windows was not enough. It is clear that actions in June, July and September 2023 should have led to progress of the issue sooner.
The landlord says it was identified that the doors did not need replacement when they were inspected in July 2024, as they had been recently changed. This was 10 months after the landlord’s September 2023 stage 2 response, and 13 months after it was stated in June 2023 that staff needed to decide how to progress the windows and door, again a lengthy period of time. The outcome to the inspection is also unsatisfactory. The resident’s complaint was about gaps around a newly installed door letting in draughts, rather than a request to replace the door itself. It is not evident the doors were changed since the complaint, and as well as being delayed, the landlord’s action for the complaint seems to have failed to address the substantive issue.
Overall, while the landlord acknowledged some issues and delays and awarded compensation, its response about the windows and door was not satisfactory. It took too long to consider the replacement of the windows, does not show it followed a clear process for where windows may need replacement, and does not show it addressed the resident’s complaint about gaps around a newly installed door. The resident has raised concerns about the impact on her living situation and a family member’s health, and while the Ombudsman does not make definitive decisions about liability for the impact on health, it is understandable that handling, communication and delays in respect to the issue will have caused the resident frustration, distress and inconvenience. This leads the Ombudsman to find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the windows and door.

The bedroom ceiling

The resident reported a crack in the ceiling in 2022 and she was subsequently asked to contact the landlord about an asbestos test for this after she became available from January 2023. The asbestos test was then done in May 2023 and ceiling repairs were completed in August 2023.
The repair took around 17 months to complete, which was excessive, but the landlord apologised and compensated for issues and delays, and it is not evident that the repair caused more significant detriment.
In the Ombudsman’s view therefore, the landlord has responded reasonably about the bedroom ceiling. It completed the works a month after the resident complained, reasonably acknowledged service issues, and awarded a share of compensation which seems reasonably proportionate to the issues she experienced based on the landlord’s policies and our compensation guidance.
As noted above, the landlord’s stage 2 response said the total compensation awarded was £933, however the Ombudsman’s calculation based on the landlord’s summary totals £1,133. The Ombudsman therefore recommends for the landlord to pay the resident the difference of £200 if it has not already.

The central heating

The resident requested an assessment of the radiators in April 2023, after which an operative attended in July 2023 and reported that they were all working, but they were old and could be upgraded. The landlord would be expected to consider replacement of the radiators if they were beyond repair. However, they were left working and were not stated to be something that should be upgraded. The landlord’s response was reasonable given this and it not being evident that further issues with the radiators have arisen.
The resident’s boiler later experienced issues from around 5 September 2023 when the landlord attended for a service, after which the landlord repaired and serviced the boiler on 15 September 2023. The landlord’s September 2023 complaint response subsequently awarded £33 for loss of hot water for an 11 day period. This reflects its compensation policy that it awards £3 per day for loss of hot water. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord did not make an award for loss of heating, but this is consistent with its policy that it does not compensate for loss of heating between May and September, and seems reasonable given the limited reports about the heating.
In the Ombudsman’s view therefore, the landlord has responded reasonably about the central heating. The action for radiators seem proportionate to the findings and lack of evidence that further issues have arisen. The landlord compensated in line with its policy for the loss of hot water that the resident experienced in September 2023.
While the above is the case, the Ombudsman notes that the resident mentioned incurring costs for the immersion during when she experienced loss of hot water. The resident did not raise this further, however the landlord’s compensation policy says it can consider if a resident has incurred any additional costs related to issues such as loss of hot water in its compensation schedule. The Ombudsman therefore makes a recommendation in respect to this.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the windows and door.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about:
1. The boundary fence and gate.
2. The bedroom ceiling.
3. The central heating.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered to, within 4 weeks, pay the resident £400 for the issues identified with its handling of the windows and door.
The landlord is ordered to, within 4 weeks, review the status of the window replacement works and provide the resident with a written update about when these are aimed. This should confirm that it is monitoring the works to ensure they are completed in a timely manner, and confirm how frequently it is and will be updating the resident until the works are completed.
The landlord is ordered to, within 4 weeks, take steps to inspect any gaps around the doors and consider appropriate actions. It should then provide the resident with a written update. This should confirm the outcome, any actions being taken and by when. This should also confirm that it is monitoring the works to ensure they are completed in a timely manner, and confirm how frequently it will update the resident until the works are completed.
The landlord is recommended to pay the resident £200 in addition to the £933 it previously paid, to reflect that the compensation breakdown in its stage 2 response totals £1,133.
The landlord is recommended to review its processes and staff training needs for where elements such as windows are identified to need replacement after repair visits. This could consider:
1. whether current processes allow replacement referrals to be managed in a sufficiently effective and timely way.
2. whether the process is clear for those making referrals, including in respect to the information they need to provide.
3. whether internal communication processes in place are sufficient where internal enquiries are made about the progress of replacement referrals.
4. whether the process for approving replacements is clear and has involvement from relevant decisionmakers early enough.
The landlord is recommended to liaise with the resident to obtain electricity bills, and to consider reimbursing her for any increased electricity costs she incurred in September 2023 running the immersion due to the loss of hot water.