Sanctuary Housing Association (202418136)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202418136

Sanctuary Housing Association

18 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:
   1. Repairs to a bedroom window.
   2. Reports of damp and mould.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom flat situated in a larger block with his partner and daughter. The resident is an assured tenant. The landlord explained that it is the leaseholder of the block and is responsible for internal repairs. The freeholder is responsible for external repairs. In early 2023, the landlord agreed to merge with a larger landlord. It continued to operate as normal at this time.
4. The resident began reporting issues with mould and faulty windows in January 2023. The landlord attended to perform mould washes and inspect the condition of the windows on several occasions.
5. On 20 July 2023, the resident reported that the window in his daughter’s bedroom had fallen off its hinges. The landlord made the window safe but noted that it was unrepairable. The landlord attended on 2 November 2023 and fit a new window.
6. The resident called the landlord on 11 January 2024 to report that mould had returned in his daughter’s bedroom. He sent an email explaining that he was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the issue, as it had yet to be resolved. The landlord raised the call as a formal complaint and performed a mould wash the following day.
7. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 18 January 2024. It apologised for delays in repairing the window. It added that it had arranged for a surveyor to attend to establish the cause of the mould.
8. The landlord attended on 26 January 2024. It surveyed the property and raised works to improve the “poor insulation” in the bedroom.
9. On 8 March 2024 the resident called the landlord to escalate his complaint. The landlord recorded that he remained unhappy because no compensation had been offered. The resident also wanted to be reimbursed for his costs, such as the purchase of a dehumidifier and replacing belongings damaged by mould.
10. At an unknown date between the stage 1 and stage 2 complaint response, the merger took operational effect. The landlord went through largescale changes in its policies, procedures, working practices, and branding.
11. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 15 April 2024. The response was consistent with its stage 1 response except that it offered £150 in respect of the delays experienced. It said that it would reimburse the resident’s purchase of a dehumidifier upon receiving a receipt.
12. On 17 April 2024 the landlord revised its compensation offer up to £350. It also added the cost of the dehumidifier, taking the total to £459.99.
13. The resident later reported that the works completed had been ineffective. Largescale works remain ongoing at the block.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

14. As an outcome of his complaint, the resident wanted the landlord to take action to resolve the damp and mould issues at the property. The evidence shows that from the time of the stage 2 complaint response, a programme of major works has been ongoing at the block to address the causes of damp and mould. The Ombudsman therefore has not made any orders or recommendations relating to the ongoing works.
15. The resident has expressed dissatisfaction with the progress of these works. However, the evidence suggests that there may be complex reasons for any delays seen. The landlord has not yet had an opportunity to respond to these concerns through its internal complaints process. As such, it would not be reasonable for the Ombudsman to investigate these concerns at this time. This investigation will not assess events past the date of the stage 2 response.

Repairs to a bedroom window

16. The landlord’s Maintenance Repairs Policy states that the landlord should complete standard repairs within 15 working days and planned repairs within 45 working days. The policy does not clearly identify which type of repair the window should be categorised as. The evidence shows that the windows required bespoke manufacturing, it is reasonable therefore that the 45 working day timescale apply, after the landlord made the window safe.
17. The evidence shows that before the window fell off its hinges, the landlord had been aware it required a repair from as early as 27 January 2023. It further noted the need for a window specialist on 13 March 2023. It raised further concerns about cracks and abnormal movement to the window on 14 April 2023. There is no evidence that the landlord took action.
18. The landlord met with the contractor in August 2023 and noted that the contractor’s record keeping may have played a part in these failings. There were therefore a number of missed opportunities to complete a repair sooner than it did. However, it is unclear if this would have prevented the window from later falling from its hinges.
19. The landlord completed interim repairs to make the window safe on 17 July 2023. The repair was completed on 2 November 2023. This was 78 working days later. The landlord managed the resident’s expectations when it attended on 28 July 2023, by explaining that the window replacement may take 2 to 4 months to complete. It explained that this was due to the time it would take to authorise the repair and then have the window made. This was appropriate.
20. The landlord was right therefore in its stage 2 complaint response to apologise for the delays in getting the window fixed. It offered compensation, but did not clearly outline in its response what the compensation was for. Internal emails confirm that £150 of the total compensation offered was in respect of “the time the resident was without a functioning window”. This offer was consistent with our remedies guidance where a failure has had an adverse impact on a resident.
21. In conclusion, the landlord acknowledged its failings and made an offer of compensation which reasonably reflected the adverse effect experienced by the resident. As such, the landlord provided reasonable redress in respect of its handling of repairs to the bedroom window.
22. The failures identified in this report took place prior to when the merger took an operational effect. The landlord followed different policies, procedures, and likely had different working practices. As such, we have made no orders for the landlord to review its working practices.

The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould

23. At the time of the resident’s first report of mould, there is no evidence that the landlord had a dedicated damp and mould strategy or policy. There is no reference to mould found within the landlord’s Maintenance and repairs policy.
24. In October 2021, the Ombudsman published its “Spotlight report on Damp and Mould”. It notes that damp and mould can be prejudicial to health. It notes that it is good practice to inspect and take appropriate actions, such as performing mould washes, promptly. The Spotlight report recommends that landlords “ensure their operatives are appropriately qualified (and equipped) to investigate the causes of damp and mould”. It also stresses the importance of thorough investigations into the root causes.
25. When the resident reported that mould had returned in his daughter’s room on 11 January 2024, the evidence shows that the landlord attended to perform a mould wash the following day. This showed good practice by the landlord.
26. The evidence shows that the landlord had been taking steps to arrange major works to the block, with a view to resolving damp and mould problems across the building. It had completed detailed surveys of the building. It had met regularly with the freeholder to progress the external works required.
27. However, it was still important that the landlord’s investigations were thorough. It had previously believed that issues with the window had been contributing to excess moisture in the property. The repair logs support that this was a reasonable conclusion and that it had taken appropriate steps. There is no evidence that failings by the landlord directly caused the mould to return.
28. However, the resident’s reports of mould after the window had been repaired warranted further investigation. The landlord acted appropriately by attending again on 26 January 2024 to investigate any causes of damp and mould local to the resident’s flat. It identified poor insulation and raised appropriate works to improve insulation in the affected bedroom. It did this within 45 working days, as set out in its Maintenance Repairs Policy. This was an acceptable timescale, because it had already performed a mould wash in the meantime.
29. The resident later complained that the works were ineffective and the boarding which had been put up fell down again. The evidence shows that this was due to water ingress caused by issues at the block for which major works were already being planned. Although these works were unfortunately ineffective, there is no evidence that this was due to any failing by the landlord at the time.
30. At this time, the resident wanted the landlord to contribute to the cost of damage to items and decorations in his daughter’s bedroom. He also took the step of purchasing a dehumidifier for the bedroom and wanted to be reimbursed. The landlord showed good practice by reimbursing the resident for the cost of the dehumidifier. It paid an additional £200 to the resident in response to his request for compensation for redecorating. The resident was satisfied with this.
31. In conclusion, although the mould issues are reported to remain unresolved, there is no evidence of any failings by the landlord prior to date of its stage 2 complaint response. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.

Complaint handling

32. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the expectations the landlord must meet in handling complaints. The Code defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made. Landlords should respond to all elements of a complaint. The Code states that landlords must acknowledge complaints and escalation requests within 5 working days of being received. Stage 1 complaint responses should be issued within a further 10 working days. Stage 2 responses should be issued within a further 20. Landlords are typically expected to have a 2 stage complaints process. The landlord’s complaints policy is in line with the Code in these regards.
33. The complaints policy states that its contractors must also adhere to it. It adds that “any compensation relating to repairs will be paid in full by the contractor”.
34. Following the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, the evidence shows that the resident then engaged in further negotiations with the relevant contractors about compensation. The contractors did not produce their own complaint responses, but did make offers of compensation, which formed part of the landlord’s final offer.
35. This approach resulted in the resident going to additional time and trouble, on top of engaging with the formal complaints process, to reach a resolution. Although the landlord followed its policy, it should have worked with the contractors on the resident’s behalf to minimise the resident’s time and trouble.
36. The day after the stage 2 complaint response, the resident wrote to the landlord explaining that some elements had not been responded to, such as the compensation toward redecorating his daughter’s bedroom. The landlord sought to put things right the following day, by recognising its mistake and offering a further amount of compensation.
37. The landlord appeared to consider the amount requested by the resident to redecorate to be reasonable. It agreed to the amount without further unnecessary delay. However, the offer was after the landlord’s final response, which was a shortcoming. Although the landlord’s stage 2 response was within the timescales expected of a stage 2 response, the subsequent offer was not.
38. The evidence also shows that the resident made a clear expression of dissatisfaction to the landlord by email on 26 July 2023. The landlord should have raised these concerns through the internal complaints process. The evidence does not show any adverse effect caused to the resident by not raising a complaint, because it took the necessary actions to resolve his concerns at the time. However, this was a shortcoming.
39. The resident was unhappy that the landlord closed his complaint after its stage 2 response. The resident reported wanting to reopen the complaint at a later date, when he had further concerns about the landlord’s ongoing handling of damp proofing works. He reported that the landlord instead opened a new stage 2 complaint response. The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s frustration. However the landlord’s approach, as described by the resident, was in line with both the Code and its own complaints policy. Furthermore, the Code does not allow for a 3 stage process.
40. The landlord’s complaints policy has since changed as a result of the merger. We are satisfied that the landlord’s complaint handling policies and procedures are now consistent with the Code. As such, we have made no orders for the landlord to review this.
41. The landlord should however pay an amount of compensation to reflect the unnecessary time and trouble gone to by the resident as part of its complaint handling. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance states that where minor failings have occurred that have resulted in the resident going to additional time and trouble, £50 should be considered. This has been ordered below. There was a service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

42. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord provided reasonable redress regarding its handling repairs to a bedroom window.
43. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
44. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

45. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must pay the resident £50 compensation in respect of its complaint handling.