Sanctuary Housing Association (202344392)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202344392

Sanctuary Housing Association

28 October 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 response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property and its handling of the required repairs.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint has also been investigated.

Background

The resident and her wife are joint assured tenants of the landlord under a tenancy that commenced on 14 February 2011. The property is a 2-bedroom maisonette situated above a 1-bedroom ground floor flat in a mid-terrace converted building.
No vulnerabilities are recorded by the landlord but the resident suffers from asthma, of which the landlord is aware.
For convenience, both the resident and her wife (and joint tenant) are referred to in this investigation report as “the resident”.
On 1 February 2023 the resident reported bad damp and mould in the bathroom and bedroom and that the walls were wet.
The landlord’s contractors attended the property on 3 February 2023 and found that the existing roof covering to the main flat roof, lead flashing and render were in poor condition and needed to be repaired or replaced. On 23 February 2023 they produced a quote to the landlord for works to repair the roof.
On 1 March 2023 the contractors quoted for other works to clean guttering to the rear of the property and fit it with gutter brushes.
On 15 March 2023 the landlord requested that its surveyors conduct a damp survey. This was carried out on 27 April 2023. The survey report found:
1. damage to the wall and ceiling of the back bedroom caused by water ingress through the main flat roof;
2. a wet patch to the front wall of the main bedroom caused by water ingress from damaged brickwork and mortar to the front of the property;
3. mould in the bathroom ceiling from condensation due to two possible causes, namely, water ingress from the flat roof to the bathroom and/or insufficient draw in the bathroom extractor fan;
4. damp readings in all 3 locations.
The surveyor recommended repairs to the roof and chimney flashing, repairs to the front wall, and replacement of the extractor fan in the bathroom.
There was delay in the landlord taking action in response to its surveyor’s recommendations. The landlord approved the quoted works on 21 August 2023.
Scaffolding was erected at the property on 13 September 2023. The resident was advised that the works would be carried out in the week commencing 9 October 2023 but it is unclear from the landlord’s records what, if any, works were carried out on that date. A date for the works was refixed for 29 November 2023.
A mould wash to the bathroom was carried out by the landlord on 30 October 2023.
The scaffolding was removed on 14 December 2023 without the roofing works having been completed or the leaks resolved. According to the landlord’s records, the contractors were unable to carry out the proposed works due to the weather conditions.
On 14 December 2023, the resident made a formal complaint regarding a number of outstanding repair and maintenance issues at the property. Among other things, she complained that:
1. The main roof had holes in the fibreglass and consequently rain continuously dripped down the walls from the ceilings in both bedrooms. This had been reported to the landlord but nothing had been done. She had been informed by the roofing contractors that they would not be back to carry out roofing works until the next year.
2. The property was damp and mouldy.
3. The bathroom roof and external render lacked insulation and the bathroom was cold. The resident was unable to leave towels or nightwear in the bathroom, due to the dampness and mould.
4. She was constantly breathing in the dampness which was an issue as she was asthmatic.
5. She had been informed by the landlord’s representative on 31 August 2023 that an asbestos survey was required but this had not happened or been acknowledged since.

The resident copied the complaint to the local council, the environmental health department and her MP.

The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 20 December 2023 and promised a Stage 1 response by 28 December 2023. No response was provided on that date.
The landlord met the resident on 8 January 2024 and discussed her concerns as raised in the complaint. It informed her that there was an open complaint in respect of the roofing and ceiling works and that she should hear directly from the complaints team.
The resident sent chaser emails to the landlord on 20 and 29 January 2024, stating that she had heard nothing further in respect of the repairs or the complaint and informing it that the mould was getting worse.
On 8 February 2024, the landlord provided a Stage 1 response. It accepted that the roof repair had taken a lot longer than it would expect and apologised for this. It stated that the contractors had done part of the roof works and it was chasing them for a date for the rest. It had been advised by the contractors that the works had been delayed due to weather conditions. The landlord explained that once the roof works were complete, it would raise an inspection for a surveyor to attend and assess all the internal works needed due to the water ingress. It reassured the resident that the outstanding works would be monitored to prevent any further delays and she would be kept updated and informed. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint and offered compensation of £200 in recognition of the inconvenience caused and £50 for the delayed complaint response.
The resident responded on the same day. She disputed that the roofing contractors had already done work to the roof. She referred to the lack of insulation and damaged roof to the bathroom and the outstanding asbestos survey, as mentioned in the complaint. She asked for a date when the contractors would be doing the works. The resident sent several further emails to the landlord during February 2024, explaining the deterioration in her living conditions and attaching photos. She was promised, but did not receive, an update on the repairs.
Following internal communications regarding the status of the roof repair, the landlord’s surveyor attended the property on 15 March 2024 and raised a request for an asbestos management survey.
The resident contacted this Service for assistance and on 12 April 2024 the Ombudsman directed the landlord to provide a written response to the resident’s complaint by 7 May 2024. The landlord confirmed to this Service and to the resident that it had escalated the complaint to Stage 2. It advised the resident that a response would be provided within 20 working days. It subsequently advised the resident that it was not in a position to respond within 20 working days and would do so by 28 May 2024.
On 26 April 2024 the asbestos survey was carried out which reported no asbestos detected. On the same day, the roofing contractors submitted an updated quotation to replace, rather than repair, the main roof. Queries were raised on the quote internally by the landlord and further information and a comparative quotation was obtained. The landlord approved the works on 14 June 2024.
Following further intervention from this Service, the landlord issued the Stage 2 response on 18 June 2024. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint. The landlord accepted that the length of time taken to complete the roof repair and its communication to keep the resident informed were not to the standard that it would expect. In particular:
1. It noted that the resident had accepted the goodwill payment of £250 at Stage 1 of the complaints process on the understanding that the outstanding works would continue to be monitored to prevent any further delays and that she would be kept updated. It accepted that this had not happened.
2. It accepted that it had failed to raise any works based on the recommendations in the damp survey.
3. It explained that, as the resident’s home was within a block, repairs to the roof had been raised against the block and not directly against her home and this was one of the main reasons she had not been kept updated.
4. It explained that the repairs to the roof which commenced on 9 October 2023 were only half completed due to the weather conditions. The re-arranged works had also not been completed due to weather conditions.
5. It explained that, following its surveyor’s inspection of the property on 15 March 2024, an asbestos survey had been required to the bathroom ceiling which was completed on 9 May 2024 – no asbestos was found. Its surveyor had also requested a quote from the roofing contractors for a replacement roof. It apologised that the approval process was delayed such that final approval was not obtained until 14 June 2024.
6. It advised that the works were approved to be planned in immediately. The internal works to the resident’s home would commence once the roof works were completed.
7. It had discussed the findings with the repairs team and reminded them of the importance of ensuring repair works were undertaken within a satisfactory timescale and that the customer was kept informed of any delays.
8. By way of redress, the landlord apologised for its failings and offered a further goodwill payment of £2,100, in addition to the £250 offered at Stage 1, in recognition of the poor communication, delays and the extra time and trouble to the resident in progressing the complaint. This sum represented a further £600 in respect of the delays to roof repairs; £100 in respect of the delay in the Stage 2 complaint response; £1,000 in respect of the resident’s loss of enjoyment of her home; and £400 in respect of the future impact on the resident pending completion of the works to the roof and bathroom ceiling.
The resident accepted the goodwill payment on 18 June 2024 and, in doing so, queried the timescale for completion of the repairs. She was reassured that the repairs had been passed to the relevant team to track and monitor to completion.

Post completion of the complaints process

On 5 August 2024, the resident referred her complaint to this Service for investigation due to the landlord’s delay in completing the outstanding repairs.
It is understood from information provided to this Service by the landlord that the external roofing works were completed on 26 July 2024 and that the follow on internal works to replace the bathroom ceiling and improve insulation were completed on 13 September 2024. Dates have been booked in during October and November 2024 for the replacement of the extractor fan to the bathroom and repointing to the external walls.
The resident has expressed concerns to this Service regarding the standard of some of the works carried out and whether these will satisfactorily remedy the damp problems in her property.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property and its handling of the required repairs

The landlord has an obligation to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the property. This obligation is implied under s11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and reflected in the express terms of the tenancy agreement between the landlord and resident. The tenancy agreement further states that the landlord shall carry out all repairs for which it is responsible within reasonable timescales.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy distinguishes between repairs which are an emergency, being those necessary to remove a serious threat to the health and safety of the service user, and other non-emergency repairs. Under the policy, the landlord aims to complete non-emergency repairs within 45 days and all major repairs within 90 days. Where it is not possible to complete repairs on time, the landlord must keep service users informed of the progress of their repair and provide an update of when the work will be completed.
Upon receiving the resident’s report of bad damp and mould to the bathroom and bedroom on 1 February 2023, the landlord would be expected to arrange an inspection, determine the necessary works to remedy the problem and carry them out within a reasonable time. If the timescale for repair was outside the 45 days for completing non-emergency repairs (or 90 days if a major repair was required), the landlord should have kept the resident informed and updated.
However, there were a series of delays in the landlord carrying out the repairs for a number of different reasons as considered below.
Initially, the landlord’s contractors attended the site promptly on 3 February 2023 and provided a quotation for the recommended roof repairs on 23 February 2023, which was amended on 1 March 2023 to include works to the guttering to the rear of the property.
The landlord determined that a damp survey should be carried out. Whilst this was a reasonable step for the landlord to take to obtain an understanding of the problem and a resolution, it is not clear from the landlord’s records why there was a delay in arranging the survey. This did not take place until 26 April 2023, a period of almost 3 months after the resident had made her report.
The causes of the damp problem were diagnosed in the survey report and recommendations were made to resolve them. The report was reviewed internally by the landlord around 3 May 2023. However, no action was taken by the landlord upon the surveyor’s recommendations apparently due to an error by it, pointing to a failure of both process and record keeping. The landlord appears to have realised the error on or about 15 August 2023. The result was a further 3 month delay in the landlord addressing the recommended repairs.
Thereafter, the landlord approved the works reasonably promptly. Scaffolding went up on 13 September 2023 and external roof works were scheduled to commence on 9 October 2023. A mould wash was carried out at the property on 30 October 2023.
According to the landlord’s Stage 2 complaint response, the roof works which commenced on 9 October 2023 were only partially completed due to weather conditions. It is disputed by the resident that works were carried out on this date and the landlord’s records do not evidence what was done or the reason the works were not completed. This again points to poor record keeping.
The works as rescheduled for 29 November 2023 were not completed on that date due to weather conditions and further work was deferred until 2024. Whilst the delay in completing the works at this time was caused by factors beyond the landlord’s control, it would have been reasonable for it to consider whether the property was habitable over the winter given the worsening state of the property as reported by the resident and her health vulnerability. However, there is no evidence in the landlord’s records that it did so.
The landlord’s contractors informed it on 14 February 2024 that they hoped to resume the works at the end of February to the beginning of March.
Between February 2024 and June 2024, there was considerable internal liaison by the landlord regarding the status of the roof repair. However, no progress was made in completing the repair. During this period:
1. The landlord’s surveyor requested replacement, rather than repair, of the roof around 28 February 2024, which required a re–quote for the works. A quote was obtained from the landlord’s contractors and queries were raised on it internally. A comparative quote was then obtained from alternative contractors and declined by the landlord. It is acknowledged that social landlords have limited resources and are entitled to ensure that repairs provide good value for money. However, the process followed by the landlord was unduly protracted such that internal approval – which was ultimately given to the original quote – was not obtained until 14 June 2024.
2. The landlord’s surveyor inspected the property on 15 March 2024 and raised a request for a ceiling asbestos survey on 21 March 2024. Whilst it was reasonable and necessary for the landlord to take steps to ascertain whether there were asbestos containing materials in the property prior to refurbishment works, the need for a survey had already been established by the landlord at a prior visit on 31 August 2023, as noted by the resident in her communications with it. This was not actioned at that time, for reasons which are unclear from the landlord’s records. This resulted in a further unnecessary inspection and delay.
3. The asbestos survey requested by the landlord on 21 March 2024 was itself delayed. It appears that the landlord initially instructed specialist surveyors whose contract had ended, requiring the job to be re-raised. The surveyor did not attend one appointment for the survey, at inconvenience to the resident. The survey was not carried out until 9 May 2024.
Following the approval of the quotation for the roofing works on 14 June 2024, the landlord would be expected to promptly implement the roof repair and the internal works to the bathroom ceiling which were to follow. It is noted that this is what the landlord committed to do in its Stage 2 response dated 18 June 2024.
The landlord’s records show that on 5 July 2024 the roofing works were booked in reasonably promptly for the week commencing 26 July 2024 and completed on that date. However, the follow on internal works to the bathroom took a further 6 weeks to arrange, requiring several further communications between the landlord and its contractors regarding the booking. This represents a significant further delay in the context of works which had been planned and approved, particularly given the damp and mouldy living conditions being experienced by the resident.
As a consequence of the above, the repair works to the roof and bathroom ceiling at the resident’s home took a period of 1 year and 9 months to complete. This was considerably outside policy or any reasonable timescales.
Throughout this period, the landlord should have regularly updated the resident on the progress of the works and when they were likely to be completed, in accordance with its repairs and maintenance policy. It failed properly to do so, requiring the resident to make enquiries on numerous occasions. Overall, the communications between the landlord and the resident regarding the progress of the works were poor. In particular:
1. According to the resident’s complaint dated 14 December 2023, she learned directly from the landlord’s contractors on site – rather than from the landlord – that they would not be completing the roof works on 29 November 2023 and that works would be deferred until the New Year.
2. Despite logging a formal complaint and sending chaser emails to the landlord in January and February 2024 regarding the outstanding repairs, she did not receive an update from the landlord on when the works would be completed, even after being promised one. The resident was required to seek assistance from this Service on 26 February 2024 and to send further chaser emails to the landlord in April 2024.
3. The landlord erroneously raised repairs against the building in which the resident’s property was situated, rather than recognising that there were 2 separate properties. This led to the resident receiving information about the repairs second hand from her neighbour rather than directly from the landlord. The resident identified this as an issue and raised it with the landlord on 29 February 2024. The landlord failed to rectify the problem, causing the resident to raise the issue again on 26 April 2024.
In summary, there were service failures by the landlord as it did not complete roofing works and internal repairs in a timely manner and/or within policy timescales and its communications were often poor. This caused the resident detriment. She had to tolerate unpleasant living conditions from water ingress in the property and the damp and mould caused by this. This was distressing for the resident and this was likely exacerbated by her concern as to the effect of the damp and mould on her existing health condition as an asthmatic. The resident was put to inconvenience and time and trouble in having to chase the landlord on numerous occasions regarding the works and in bringing a complaint in order to achieve a resolution.
It was appropriate in these circumstances for the landlord in its Stage 2 response to accept the shortcomings in the service provided to the resident and to offer redress.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman assesses whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes, as well as our guidance on remedies.
The redress offered by the landlord for this aspect of the complaint comprised an apology to the resident for its failings and, across the complaint, the sum of £2,200 compensation. Part of the compensation amount was the sum of £400 to compensate the resident for the impact of the damp issues at her property which she was likely to experience in the period after the completion of the complaints process and prior to completion of the repairs, as in fact occurred. The landlord also gave assurances to the resident regarding the timely completion of the outstanding works.
In the Ombudsman’s view, the total sum of compensation offered by the landlord is proportionate to the failings identified and within an acceptable range of compensation which we would expect where there have been failings over a long period which have had a significant impact on a resident, as they did in this case.
However, the landlord failed satisfactorily to resolve the resident’s complaint because it did not deliver on its assurances regarding the timely completion of the outstanding works. Whilst the external roofing works were completed reasonably promptly, there was further unreasonable delay by the landlord in carrying out the follow on works to the bathroom.
As at the date of this investigation report, some 4 months after the Stage 2 response, the landlord has not demonstrated that all the outstanding works identified by its surveyors have been completed. This indicates that the landlord did not demonstrate sufficient learning from the outcome of the complaint and has therefore not acted in accordance with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles. In these circumstances, a determination of reasonable redress is not appropriate and a finding of maladministration has been made.
A feature of this investigation has been the landlord’s poor monitoring of repairs, exacerbated by repair records which lack clarity as to the work carried out or their current status.
The Ombudsman previously ordered the landlord to carry out a review of its policy or practice under paragraph 54.f. of the Scheme in relation to responding to requests for repairs due to leaks, damp, and mould. Some of the issues identified in this case are similar to cases we have already determined. The landlord has demonstrated compliance with our previous wider order so we have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case, which would duplicate those already made to landlord. The landlord itself should consider whether there are any additional issues arising from this case that require further action.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The resident made a formal complaint on 14 December 2023 which was acknowledged by the landlord within policy timescales. A response was promised by 28 December 2023 although it did not in fact fall due under the landlord’s procedure until 8 January 2024. In the event, the landlord did not respond by either date.
Following chaser emails from the resident on 20 and 29 January 2024, the landlord provided its stage 1 response on 8 February 2024, 23 working days beyond policy timescales. While the response appropriately upheld the complaint and offered redress, it did not address the resident’s query regarding the damp in the bathroom and the asbestos survey as it should have done.
The resident replied on the same day, raising these and other queries. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to clarify with the resident whether she wished to escalate the complaint to Stage 2. However, the landlord did not clarify this or escalate the complaint to Stage 2. This led to delay and uncertainty for the resident who had to chase a response to her queries.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s email on 5 March 2024 and on 13 April 2024 notified her that the complaint had been escalated to Stage 2. On or about the same date, the resident informed the landlord that she had received a text message from it stating that the complaint had been closed. This message was clearly inappropriate and likely to cause confusion.
On 13 May 2024, being the day after expiry of the 20 working days in which it had promised a Stage 2 response, the landlord informed the resident that it was not in a position to respond and that it would contact her by 28 May 2024. This represented a 10 working day extension as permitted under the landlord’s procedure. Whilst it was appropriate for the landlord to inform the resident of the position, and the need for an extension of time, the Stage 2 response was not issued by the landlord on the extended date or until 18 June 2024, following intervention from this Service.
The above were service failures by the landlord in the complaints process which caused delays in dealing with the resident’s complaint. This caused the resident inconvenience as she had to pursue the landlord and get assistance from this Service in order to obtain a resolution.
In its complaint responses, the landlord sought to resolve this aspect of the complaint by apologising to the resident for its failures and offering compensation of £150. In the Ombudsman’s view, the amount of compensation offered is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and, together with the apology, represents reasonable redress for the failures identified in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property and its handling of the required repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to write to the resident to:
1. Apologise for the additional service failures identified by the Ombudsman.
2. Update her on progress of any outstanding repairs and provide a point of contact who will offer regular updates until all repairs are complete.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, if it has not already done so, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident the compensation of £2,200 that it awarded for its failings in the handling of damp and mould and required repairs.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should review its handling of the external render and bathroom extractor repairs since June 2024 and make a new offer of compensation in recognition of any additional delays that have occurred.
Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to carry out an inspection to satisfy itself of the property condition and confirm that the issues of damp and water ingress have been fully resolved. As part of this survey, the landlord should consider and, if appropriate, address the resident’s outstanding concerns:
1. that the downpipe guttering from the main roof of the property is discharging to the bathroom roof rather than connected to the next level guttering;
2. that the exterior roof and rendering to the bathroom has not been repaired;
3. about the standard of the internal decoration to the bathroom.
The landlord should contact this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this determination to evidence its compliance with the above order.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £150 compensation that it awarded for its complaint handling failings. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress in respect of complaint handling has been made on the basis that this compensation is paid.
Should there be any further delay in completion of repairs, the landlord should consider whether it is appropriate to award further compensation to the resident.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should contact this Service confirming its intentions regarding the recommendations made.