Sanctuary Housing Association (202409928)

A blue and grey text

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202409928

Sanctuary Housing Association

31 July 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Report of a fault to the immersion heater.
2. Report of a rodent infestation.
3. Report that it delayed in replacing the property’s windows.
4. Report of a repair to the front door.
5. Concerns regarding the condition of the kitchen, the guttering and fascia and living room ceiling.
We will also consider the landlord’s complaint handling as part of the investigation.

Background

The resident is the tenant of the property which the complaint concerns. The landlord owns the property.
The resident’s tenancy started in February 2009.
The property is a 1 bedroom bungalow.
On 18 October 2023 the resident made a complaint to the landlord about repairs and a rodent infestation. In summary the resident said:
1. The immersion heater was faulty as it did not properly heat the water in the property. He explained that the cost of heating water was approximately £8 per day which was excessive. He noted that he had asked the landlord to replace the immersion heater with solar panels as he believed this would be more cost effective.
2. The kitchen had not been replaced in 40 years.
3. The landlord had delayed in replacing the property’s windows. He stated that the old windows were insecure.
4. The seals on the front door were damaged.
5. The ceiling in the living room was “almost falling down”.
6. The gutters were broken and leaking.
7. The fascia boards were broken. He explained that this had allowed rodents to enter into the property’s loft.
Within his correspondence the resident advised that he was a “vulnerable adult with mental health problems”.
On 23 October 2023 the landlord acknowledged the complaint confirming that a stage 1 response would be provided by 31 October 2023.
On 31 October 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident setting out that its stage 1 response would be delayed. It confirmed that the response would now be provided by 14 November 2023. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience this would cause.
On 14 November 2023 the landlord provided its stage 1 response. In summary the landlord said:
1. On receipt of the complaint an appointment had been booked for 20 December 2023 to look at the kitchen, the front door and the immersion heater. It noted that it had made an internal request to see if the appointment could be brought forward.
2. The windows were replaced in April 2023 – no further details given.
3. The resident reported repairs to the property’s soffits and facias on 6 April 2023. It confirmed a work order was raised with its contractor who had attended the property – date not given. Following the visit the contractor confirmed that “extra works” were needed. It set out that the follow on works were “still waiting for approval”. It confirmed it would chase the approval.
4. It acknowledged that the resident had “experienced delays during the repairs” which was due to poor communication internally. It therefore apologised and awarded £200 compensation for “impact and inconvenience”.
Within its response the landlord explained that, as the resident had arrears on his rent account, if he accepted the compensation it would be credited to the account.
On 16 November 2023 the resident wrote to the landlord about the complaint. In summary the resident said:
1. An appointment was scheduled to look at the immersion heater on 13 November 2023. He explained that the attending operative however had incorrect details of the work order and therefore the immersion heater was not looked at. He noted that the operative was “incredibly rude and obnoxious” and brought mud into the property.
2. He did not believe that £200 compensation was proportionate to the circumstances of his complaint.
3. It was unfair that the landlord wanted to use the compensation to credit his rent account. He noted that he had a court ordered payment plan in place to clear his rent arrears.
On 28 November 2023 the resident wrote to the landlord. He explained that it had cost £11 to heat the property’s hot water overnight. He said this clearly indicated that there was a fault with the immersion heater which required immediate attention.
On 15 December 2023 the resident’s solicitor issued the landlord with a draft letter of claim using the Pre-Action Protocol for Housing Conditions Claim. In relation to the matters subject of the complaint the solicitor said:
1. The fascia boards were damaged and rotting causing water ingress.
2. The guttering was in poor condition as it was congested with debris causing water ingress.
3. The weather seal around the front door was blown allowing a cold draught and water to enter the property.
4. The kitchen was “suffering with disrepair” including out of date units, out of date fan, cracked ceiling, damp and mould.
5. The living room had multiple cracks on the ceiling and was beginning to break.
6. Despite the resident reporting these repair issues for “almost a year” the landlord had not taken action.
7. The repair issues were causing the resident “discomfort, inconvenience and distress”.
8. The resident was vulnerable as he had “physical disabilities, ill-health and mental health problems”.
Also on 15 December 2023 the resident requested to escalate the complaint. He set out that it was unsatisfactory that he had been “waiting for so long for stuff to be done” and the outstanding repairs had not been completed. He reiterated that the operative who attended on 13 November 2023 had attended with the incorrect work order. He set out that while the repair to the immersion heater was outstanding it was resulting in “excessive electricity usage”.
On 20 December 2023 the resident wrote to the landlord. He explained that an operative had attended the property earlier that day. He said during the appointment the operative had inspected the kitchen and front door however was unable to inspect the immersion heater as they were not qualified for the job.
On 27 December 2023 the resident advised the landlord that he was seeking compensation for “excessive electricity usage” in respect of the immersion heater.
On 28 December 2023 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request.
On 23 January 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that its stage 2 response would be provided by 5 February 2024.
Also on 23 January 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that it was chasing internally for an update on the status of the repairs. It confirmed that an appointment was scheduled for 16 February 2024 to repair the front door.
As part of the disrepair claim the resident’s solicitor instructed an expert to inspect the property for issues of disrepair. The inspection took place on 25 January 2024. Within the report the expert detailed the areas of concern which they had identified. In summary and in relation to the matters subject of the complaint:
1. The fascia boards were showing signs of deterioration which included timber decay and degraded paintwork. This was due to a “lack of maintenance”.
2. The gutters were blocked with leaves and plant growth. There was also evidence of leaking connection joints. This was due to a “lack of maintenance”.
3. The rubber gasket weather seal to the front door threshold was part missing which allowed draughts to enter the property. This was due to “wear and tear”.
4. In the kitchen there was moderate mould formation to parts of the ceiling and to the corners of the wall at high level. Numerous cracks had formed in the ceiling. The units were dated but in a “functional and reasonable condition”. The work surfaces had degraded due to wear and tear.
5. There were numerous cracks to the ceiling boards in the living room which were considered “excessive”. Movement had occurred to all board joints due to ongoing movement and defective tape joints to the plasterboard prior to plastering.
The expert provided a schedule of repair with the report detailing the repairs which should be undertaken to address the issues they had identified.
Between 5 February 2024 and early March 2024 the resident chased the landlord on multiple occasions to request an update on the status of its stage 2 response.
On 8 March 2024 the landlord responded confirming that its stage 2 response would be provided by 21 March 2024.
The resident replied to the landlord on the same day setting out that the delay in completing the repairs was unsatisfactory. He noted the water ingress into the property from the fascia and guttering had caused damaged to his personal items.
On 14 March 2024 the landlord provided its stage 2, final, response. In summary the landlord said:
1. It was sorry for the delay in the provision of both its stage 1 and stage 2 responses.
2. It received the resident’s letter of claim on 15 December 2023. It explained that in accordance with its complaint policy it was not appropriate to continue with its complaint process where the issues subject of the complaint were being dealt with by legal proceedings. It confirmed that the disrepair claim included the following repair items – fascia, guttering, kitchen and living room ceiling. It was therefore no longer able to consider these repair issues under its complaint procedure.
3. As the resident’s concerns regarding the rodent infestation and immersion heater were not part of the disrepair claim it was able to consider these matters.
4. Rodent infestation:
  1. On 6 April 2023 the resident contacted it to report that rats were entering the property via a broken fascia board. It therefore raised a work order for pest control who attended the property on 23 May 2023. Pest control found no rat droppings or signs of entry points.
  2. On 8 June 2023 pest control reattended the property where it found no signs of pests.
  3. On receipt of the resident’s complaint a “follow up” visit was completed on 19 February 2024 where no evidence of pest activity was identified. The landlord did not indicate whether it was pest control who completed this visit.
5. Immersion heater:
  1. On 16 January 2023 the resident reported that the immersion heater was not working correctly. In response it arranged for a contractor to attended within 24 hours. From review of its records the outcome of the appointment was not clear.
  2. The resident next raised concerns regarding the immersion heater as part of his complaint. In response it arranged for an operative to attend on 13 November 2023. It acknowledged that there was confusion by the attending operative on the works to be completed. It therefore apologised.
  3. A new appointment was made to inspect the immersion heater on 9 February 2024. The inspection found that a new cylinder and a limescale prevention kit was required to repair the immersion heater. The parts had been ordered and it would monitor the repair until completion.
  4. It was sorry for the delay in repairing the immersion heater.
6. It would like to offer the resident £775 compensation comprising:
  1. £25 delay in stage 1 response.
  2. £150 delay in stage 2 response.
  3. £400 time, trouble and inconvenience caused by the delay to repair the immersion heater.
  4. £100 unclear recording keeping and failure to attend for correct repair regarding immersion heater.
  5. £100 future impact until the immersion heater was repaired.
The landlord concluded by informing the resident of his right to refer the complaint to us and confirming that its offer of compensation may be credited to his rent account if was in arrears.
Following receipt of the landlord’s stage 2 response the resident replied to confirm that he was unhappy the landlord had not addressed his concerns that the operative who attended the property on 13 November 2023 was rude and had brought mud into the property. He said he was also unhappy that the compensation would be applied to his rent account.
On 25 September 2024 the landlord made an offer of settlement in writing to the resident’s solicitor in response to the resident’s disrepair claim. In summary the landlord said:
1. It offered £2,145.85 in damages in full and final settlement of all claims or counterclaims against it arising out of “housing conditions at the property as at completion of repairs”. It noted the sum would be set off against any outstanding rent arrears on the resident’s account.
2. It agreed to “reasonably endeavour to raise and complete” the repairs identified by the expert within 4 calendar months of the date of receipt of acceptance of its offer.
The landlord confirmed to us on 4 April 2025 that it had not received a response to its offer of settlement.
In April and July 2025 the resident provided us with updates to the complaint. In summary the resident said:
1. The landlord’s handling of the complaint about the repairs had been unsatisfactory. He said this included closing the complaint “without any form of response or notification”.
2. The landlord’s contractors had turned up at the property unannounced on many occasions which was a breach of tenancy.
3. During works to complete repairs the landlord’s contractor had caused damage to his personal items including a wardrobe and the carpets.
4. It had taken the landlord approximately 4 and a half months to replace the kitchen. He stated that the kitchen replacement was the “cheapest, poorest quality”. He noted that during this period there had been times when he had been unable to prepare food.
5. The repairs completed had not been completed to a satisfactory standard.
6. The roof leaked.

Assessment and findings

Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the landlord must keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property as well as the installations for the supply of water, gas and electricity and for sanitation. These obligations are set out in the tenancy agreement for the property.
A landlord is not liable to carry out any repair until it has been put on notice of the need for repair. The landlord must then carry out the repair within a reasonable time thereafter. As the repairs reported by the resident could fall within the repair obligations of the landlord it was required to investigate and to make good any issues identified.
While the landlord did not consider the repair issues about the condition of the kitchen, guttering and fascia, and living room ceiling under its complaint procedure we will consider them as part of the investigation. The resident could have used the protocol to progress matters, which could ultimately have meant issuing of proceedings via the court. However in this case legal proceedings have not been issued and therefore the Court has not made a legally binding decision on these matters. The Ombudsman is therefore able to consider them.
The landlord has provided its contemporaneous records to demonstrate its response to the repair issues raised by the resident as part of the complaint.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a fault to the immersion heater

The landlord’s records document that on 16 January 2023 the resident reported a problem with the immersion heater. In response the landlord requested an emergency appointment. This was appropriate. Despite the appointment the landlord’s records do not document an outcome. This is unsatisfactory and reasonably suggests that the repair issue was not resolved at that time.
On receipt of the complaint the evidence shows that the landlord arranged an appointment on 13 November 2023 to inspect the immersion heater. The evidence documents that the appointment was unsuccessful due to confusion on the works to be undertaken. It is unsatisfactory that the attending contractor was not aware of the correct work to be completed at the appointment. This will have resulted in inconvenience and frustration to the resident due to the missed opportunity by the landlord in progressing a repair to resolve the issue with the immersion heater.
Following the unsuccessful appointment in November 2023 a new appointment was scheduled for 9 February 2024. While it was appropriate that the landlord made a new appointment, it is not clear why the appointment was not arranged for a much earlier date. It is unsatisfactory that the resident was required to wait approximately 3 months for the rearranged appointment.
The record of the appointment on 9 February 2024 confirmed that new parts were required in order to repair the immersion heater. The repair to fix the immersion heater was completed on 17 April 2024. This was a protracted period of time. The records do not document why the repair could not be completed at an earlier time. We recognise that while the repair was outstanding it will have been frustrating for the resident, including as he was concerned about excessive running costs.
In responding to the complaint the landlord acknowledged that its response to fix the fault with the immersion heater had been unsatisfactory, including unsuccessful repair appointments in January 2023 and November 2023 and delays. The landlord therefore apologised and awarded a total of £600 compensation comprising £400 for time, trouble and inconvenience, £100 for record keeping and the appointment error and £100 for future impact until the repair was completed.
The apology was appropriate to demonstrate that the resident had been impacted by its repairs service which will have resulted in inconvenience to him.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out compensation may be awarded where it has failed to meet the level of service reasonably expected. It also sets out where there has been a service failure causing “high effort [or] high impact” it may award between £151 and £400 compensation. As the landlord had identified a service failure it was appropriate that it engaged its compensation policy. We consider that the landlord’s offer was reasonable as it appropriately reflected the unreasonable delays the resident experienced in it completing a repair to fix the immersion heater and resulting distress and inconvenience caused.
While the landlord did delay in repairing the immersion heater, it has since identified and acknowledged its failures, apologised and offered appropriate compensation in recognition of this. The landlord has therefore offered redress to the resident which in the Ombudsman’s opinion resolves this part of the complaint satisfactorily.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation for excessive electricity costs will be addressed in the complaint handling section below.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a rodent infestation

The landlord’s records document that it raised a work order for pest control following a report from the resident in April 2023 about rodents entering the property due to a repair issue. The report following pest control’s visit on 23 May 2023 reported “no rat droppings found [and] no signs of entry points”. The report confirmed that rodenticide and tracking dust were applied in the loft to monitor activity. A follow up appointment was completed by pest control on 8 June 2023. The report confirmed “no bait takes found… nothing caught in traps [and] no foot prints from tracking dust laid”. The landlord’s response to the resident’s report was appropriate as it took steps to identify whether there were any pests or access points present within the property within a reasonable period of time of the matter being reported.
There was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s report of a rodent infestation. This is because the landlord arranged for pest control to attend the property promptly following the resident’s report in April 2023 to inspect and monitor for pest activity and then followed this with a further visit to ensure there was no infestation.
The landlord’s comments in respect of the follow up visit on 19 February 2024 for pests will be addressed in the complaint handling section below.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report that it delayed in replacing the windows

The first record that we have been provided with of the resident raising concerns regarding the condition of the property’s windows is in May 2022. The resident reported that the windows were a security risk because they were externally beaded. In response the landlord agreed to inspect the windows. This was appropriate to determine if the windows needed replacement.
Following the appointment to inspect the windows in early June 2022 the landlord submitted a request for replacement windows in August 2022. The evidence shows that the costs to replace the windows were approved on 5 September 2022. These actions were completed within a reasonable period of time from the resident’s report of May 2022.
The windows were replaced in April 2023. This was a period of approximately 6 months after the costs were approved which is a protracted period of time. While we acknowledge that the windows will have required manufacturing, which will have taken some time, we consider that the window replacement could however had been completed within a shorter timeframe.
There was service failure by the landlord in response to the resident’s report that it delayed in replacing the windows. Following approval the replacement of the property’s windows was not completed within a reasonable period of time.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a repair to the front door

Prior to the complaint the records show that in February 2023 the resident requested a repair to the front door as the weather seal was missing. The landlord’s records indicate that a repair was completed at the time of reporting. This was appropriate.
The evidence documents that in response to the complaint the landlord raised a work order to inspect the front door. This was appropriate to determine if the repair it had completed in February 2023 had been successful.
The appointment to inspect the front door took place on 20 December 2023. The record following the inspection confirmed that the rubber threshold seal and letter plate required replacing. We understand that the front door inspection was delayed due to the resident having a stay in hospital.
The evidence shows that the repair to “overhaul” the front door was completed on 16 February 2024. This was a period of approximately 40 working days following the inspection which was outside of the landlord’s 28 working days service standard for responsive repairs. This is unsatisfactory, especially as the earlier repair in February 2023 had proven to be ineffective in addressing the issue. The records do not document why the repair could not be completed at an earlier time. We recognise that while the repair was outstanding it will have been frustrating for the resident.
There was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s report of a repair to the front door. The timeframe to complete the repair to fix the front door following the inspection was protracted.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding the condition of the kitchen, the guttering and fascia and living room ceiling

The kitchen – Prior to the complaint and in January 2023 the resident requested that the kitchen was replaced. In response the landlord considered the request confirming that the kitchen had been “reviewed” and did not “not require replacement”.
On receipt of the complaint the evidence shows that the landlord raised a work order to inspect the kitchen. This was appropriate in order for the landlord to review its decision to not replace the kitchen earlier in the year.
The appointment to inspect the kitchen took place on 20 December 2023. The record following the inspection on 20 December 2023 noted that the “kitchen [was] in full working order” and “replacement [was] not recommended”. As the inspection reconfirmed that the kitchen was in full working order it was reasonable for the landlord to decline to renew it at that time. This takes into account that the resident had not reported any specific repair issues with the kitchen which required its attention. We understand that the kitchen inspection was delayed due to the resident having a stay in hospital.
While the landlord’s decision to not replace the kitchen following the inspection in December 2023 was reasonable we cannot see that it wrote to the resident to inform him of its decision. This is unsatisfactory. A landlord should provide a resident with appropriate explanation to support the decision it makes.
Gutters and fascia – The evidence shows that in response to the resident’s report of a repair needed to the gutters and fascia on 6 April 2023 the landlord attended on 15 June 2023 to inspect. The record of the appointment confirms that it could not gain access to complete the inspection. The record also documents that the landlord left a voice message with the resident to reschedule the appointment. This was appropriate as a landlord should contact a resident following a no-access appointment.
The appointment to inspect the gutters and fascia was rescheduled for 29 August 2023. The record of the appointment confirmed that the fascia was rotten due to “lack of decoration”. The attending operative recommended replacement of the gutters and fascia with UPVC ones. Despite the recommendation to replace the gutters and fascia we cannot see that the landlord progressed this at the time. This is unsatisfactory.
In response to the complaint the evidence shows that the landlord requested approval for the replacement gutters and facia. This was appropriate as it the issue was outstanding. Despite the landlord’s commitment to follow up on the repair it was not completed thereafter. This is unsatisfactory.
The living room ceiling – Prior to the complaint and in January 2023 the landlord’s records show that the resident requested a repair to the living room ceiling to address “cracks”. In response the landlord raised a work order for “plasterer”. The record of the appointment to plaster the ceiling on 8 February 2023 confirmed that further works were required to replace the ceiling boards, coving and redecoration. Despite follow on works being identified the records do not document that these works were progressed at that time. This is unsatisfactory.
On receipt of the complaint the landlord should have taken steps to investigate the resident’s concerns regarding the living room ceiling. There is no evidence that it did so. This is unsatisfactory as the landlord had been made aware of a repair issue which could fall within its repairing responsibilities.
In response to the findings of the expert in January 2024 and in September 2024 the landlord agreed to complete the work identified by the expert, as detailed in the landlord’s settlement letter. This included replacement of the kitchen, repair of the gutters and fascia and works to address the living room ceiling. This was appropriate as the expert had highlighted these issues as areas of concern and they were outstanding from the complaint.
The evidence documents:
1. The kitchen replacement works began in early January 2025 and were recorded as completed by 27 February 2025. The works were therefore completed approximately 13 months after the expert report was issued.
2. The gutters and fascia were replaced on 7 January 2025. The works were therefore completed approximately 12 months after the expert report was issued.
3. The works to address the cracks on the living room ceiling were undertaken on 31 March 2025. The works were therefore completed approximately 14 months after the expert report was issued.
On 4 April 2025 the landlord signed a post inspection report in respect of the disrepair work. The landlord signed to confirm that all works were completed to the required standards with the resident querying a repair to the bathroom ceiling, which was not part of the complaint. It was appropriate that the landlord completed a post inspection report to satisfy itself that the works had been completed and no further work was required. We note that the resident did not sign the form, which he was entitled to do.
The landlord has explained that it delayed in starting work to address the repairs identified by the expert due to discussions with the resident and his solicitor. While this may have been the case we do not consider the overall timescale for completion of the repairs, over a year, to be reasonable. Once a landlord has been put on notice of a repair issue it should take steps to progress the works within a reasonable period of time which it did not do.
There was maladministration by the landlord in response to the resident’s concerns regarding the condition of the kitchen, the guttering and fascia and living room ceiling. This is because the landlord:
1. Significantly delayed in starting works to replace the kitchen following notification from the expert that replacement of the kitchen was required.
2. Did not progress the works to replace the guttering and fascia following the appointment on 29 August 2023 or the complaint. It then significantly delayed in completing the works following the findings of the expert.
3. Did not progress the works to repair the living room ceiling following the appointment on 8 February 2023 or the complaint. It then significantly delayed in completing the works following the findings of the expert.
The landlord’s handling of these issues will have impacted on the resident. While the repair issues were outstanding the resident will have experienced avoidable inconvenience, distress and uncertainty. We also recognise that in pursuing the repairs the resident will have experienced time and trouble as the landlord unreasonably failed to progress the issues on repeated occasions and within a reasonable period of time.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord provided its stage 1 response 20 working days after the resident made the complaint. This was outside of the standards prescribed the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the code) – 10 working days. While we note that the landlord requested an extension to provide its response this was requested on the date that its stage 1 response was due.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response 62 working days after the resident made the complaint. This was significantly outside of the standards prescribed by the code – 20 working days.
It is unsatisfactory that both complaint responses were delayed. This will have resulted in uncertainty, inconvenience and distress to the resident in addition to feeling that his concerns were not being taken seriously. It was also unsatisfactory as the purpose of a formal complaint procedure is to address complaints at the earliest stage.
In responding to the complaint the landlord acknowledged that both its complaint responses were delayed. It therefore apologised and awarded a total of £175 compensation. This was appropriate in recognition of the delay and the impact on the resident.
The code sets out that in responding to a complaint landlords must address all points raised and provided clear reasons for any decisions. In responding to the complaint the landlord did not do this:
1. The landlord did not address the resident’s request for compensation for excess electricity costs due to the fault with the immersion heater. In line with its complaint policy the landlord should have requested evidence, such as statements, in order for it to consider the request to determine if the fault had, or could have, resulted in additional costs to the resident. We note that the resident has provided evidence to us which shows he provided utility bills to the landlord in January 2024 highlighting excessive electricity costs.
2. The landlord did not address the resident’s report that the outstanding repairs were impacting on his mental and physical health conditions. A landlord should carefully consider a resident’s reported circumstances or vulnerabilities when responding to a complaint to determine if any further support or assistance should be offered.
3. The landlord did not address the resident’s concerns that some of his personal belongings had been damaged as a result of delays in its repairs service. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered whether any shortfalls in its service delivery did, or could have, resulted in damage to the resident’s personal belongings; in addition to signposting him to its insurers to make a claim.
4. The landlord did not address the residents’ concerns about the operative’s conduct during the appointment on 13 November 2023. If the landlord did not consider it appropriate or practical to address the issue as part of the existing complaint it should have informed the resident of this.
Within the landlord’s stage 2 response it said that a follow up visit was completed on 19 February 2024 to check for pest activity. We asked the landlord for evidence of the visit. In response the landlord said “the interaction on 19 February 2024 was just an update in relation to works raised in April 2023 and attended on 23 May 2023 and then again on 8 June 2023”. We consider that the landlord’s reference to a follow up visit within its response was therefore misleading and confusing as it suggested a further pest control visit had been completed. This is unsatisfactory as a landlord should ensure that its complaint responses are clear, unambiguous and contain accurate information.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that it will “normally offset any compensation or goodwill gesture made against any arrears or debt owned by the customer”. The resident suggests that the landlord’s decision to apply the compensation awarded to his rent account was unfair, as he had a court ordered payment plan in place. However in our opinion its decision to do so was reasonable. This is because the landlord’s compensation policy makes provision for this to happen.
We note that the landlord could have used its discretion to consider whether the policy should apply in the resident’s case, taking into consideration the payment arrangement already in place. This would have been a discretionary decision for the landlord and, as its policy allowed it to pay its compensation awards towards rent arrears there was no service failure.
The code sets out a complaint may not be considered under a landlord’s complaint procedure where legal proceedings have started and been filed to the court. The landlord’s complaint policy reflects this condition. As no formal court proceedings were issued it was unfair that the landlord did not consider the repair issues which were included in the resident’s letter of claim and subject of the complaint. This failure shows a lack of proper consideration and understanding of its policy and denied the resident a full response to all issues subject of the complaint.
There was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling. The landlord failed to provide the resident with a comprehensive complaint response which properly addressed all matter subject of the complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident which satisfactorily resolves his complaint in respect of its:
1. Response to his reports of a fault to the immersion heater.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the Ombudsman finds:
1. No maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s report of a rodent infestation.
2. Service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s report that it delayed in replacing the property’s windows.
3. Service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s report of a repair to the front door.
4. Maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns regarding the condition of the kitchen, the guttering and fascia and living room ceiling.
5. Maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must:
1. Provide the resident with an apology around the failings identified within this report.
2. Pay the resident a total of £1,925 compensation. This comprises the £975 which it awarded itself in addition to £350 comprising:
  1. £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in replacing the property’s windows. This compensation should not be offset against arrears the resident may have in line with the Ombudsman’s policy and guidance on remedies.
  2. £100 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience for the delay in repairing the front door. This compensation should not be offset against arrears the resident may have in line with the Ombudsman’s policy and guidance on remedies.
3. £500 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience for the delay in replacing the kitchen, guttering, fascia and repairing the living room ceiling. This compensation should not be offset against arrears the resident may have in line with the Ombudsman’s policy and guidance on remedies.
4. £250 compensation in relation to poor complaint handling and the resulting inconvenience caused to the resident. This compensation should not be offset against arrears the resident may have in line with the Ombudsman’s policy and guidance on remedies.
Within 6 weeks of this report, the landlord must write to the resident and request evidence of the additional costs incurred because of the immersion heater. If the resident is unable to provide evidence of the additional costs, the landlord must make an offer of compensation based on the length of time the issue remained outstanding, and the average cost identified within the resident’s complaint and confirm this in writing. It must provide the resident and the Ombudsman with a copy of any letters.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord should provide the resident with details of its insurer so that he may submit a claim to it for damage to his personal belongings if he wishes to do so.

Recommendations

The Code sets out that a complaint may be excluded from consideration under a landlord’s complaint procedure where legal proceedings have started. This is defined as details of the claim have been filed at court. The landlord should ensure that its complaint handling staff are aware of this requirement and that this may not apply where a draft letter of claim has been issued.