Sanctuary Housing Association (202405207)

Background

1. The resident holds a joint assured tenancy with the landlord in a 3 bed semi detached house. The resident added a conservatory to the property in 2014. The landlord gave consent for this addition. From March 2022 the resident started raising issues of damp in his kitchen, in the original part of the property. The resident believes this was caused by water ingress in his kitchen floor, which the landlord had repaired in 2012.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of damp.
   2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination) 

3. We have found that:
   1. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp.
   2. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of damp.

4. The landlord conducted a thorough investigation into the cause of the damp in the kitchen by conducting inspections to establish the cause of the issue. It was entitled to rely on its expert’s opinion that the likely cause was the resident’s addition of a conservatory to the property.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

5. The landlord’s complaint handling could have been improved. The overall compensation offered by the landlord was proportionate for the failures identified in this investigation, and in line with our guidelines. However, we cannot make a finding that it provided reasonable redress. This is because the landlord failed to acknowledge its inaccuracy (relating to the consent for the conservatory) in its stage 1 response. This was a failure for which the landlord did not demonstrate learning.
6. We, therefore, order the landlord to apologise for this. We do not order the landlord to pay any more compensation.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration, or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we did not investigate

7. The resident had been reporting issues with damp in his kitchen since March 2022. Between May 2022 and July 2023, the resident raised 2 complaints under references 8000567380 and 8000660602. Both ended at stage 1 of the landlord’s 2 stage internal complaint process.
8. We are unable to investigate matters that have not completed a landlord’s internal complaint process. Therefore, since both complaints ended at stage 1 and did not complete that process, we cannot investigate how the landlord handled those complaints.
9. We are also aware that, since this complaint was closed, the resident has raised further damp issues and complaints with the landlord. The landlord has conducted further investigations and this matter is ongoing, with the landlord proposing a schedule of works. While we are aware that the resident is concerned with the landlord’s approach, these matters will not be included in this investigation as they are not included in the complaint the resident brought to us to investigate.

What we will investigate

10. This investigation will focus on matters between 12 July 2023, when the landlord closed the previous complaint, and 30 January 2024, when the landlord issued its stage 2 response for this complaint. Any mention of matters outside of these dates is to provide context only.
11. When the resident raised this complaint on 5 September 2023 the landlord had already conducted 2 inspections. The inspection on 11 October 2022 found damp around the radiator pipe work, which had been altered to supply radiators to the conservatory. The inspection on 23 November 2022 found that there was a bridge of the DPC within the wall, with the likely cause being the addition of the conservatory. It recommended that the radiator in the kitchen was removed, and the plaster stripped back to masonry to confirm if the damp proof course had been breached.
12. The landlord’s surveyor and housing officer had visited the property on 30 March 2023 to discuss the findings with the resident. In this visit they gave the resident the following options to resolve the issue. These were:
    1. Completing the work recommended in the November 2022 inspection.
    2. The resident cutting 2 bore holes into internal wall, removing a small section of laminate floor and surveyor reattending.
    3. The resident hiring a private builder to investigate.
13. On 5 April 2023 the landlord raised a routine repair for the damp specialist contractor to attend and carry out the recommended repairs. However, these works were stopped by the resident, and he employed a builder to conduct an inspection on the property on 19 August 2023. The builder concluded there was no connection between the damp area in kitchen and the conservatory. The resident submitted those findings to the landlord.
14. The landlord has provided evidence to show that in reaching its conclusion, in relation to the cause of the damp, its senior surveyor considered all the information available to them, including the resident’s builder’s findings and the advice of its specialist contractor. This was reasonable and the landlord was entitled to rely on the advice of its expert. This investigation has found no maladministration in the landlords handling of the resident’s reports of damp at the time of this complaint.
15. It was positive that the landlord used its complaints responses to identify the disruption that dealing with this issue caused the resident. It appropriately offered an apology and a £75 “payment in relation to the overall time & trouble caused on this occasion”.

16. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The Code, applicable at the time, required landlords to acknowledge a stage 1 complaint within 5 working days and issue a response within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint. This required landlords to issue a stage 2 response within 20 working days of an escalation request. The landlord’s published complaints policy complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
17. The Code said that if an extension was required at stage 1 that “exceptionally, landlords may provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be received. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason”. And “if an extension beyond 20 working days is required to enable the landlord to respond to the complaint fully, this should be agreed by both parties”.
18. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint in 2 working days, in line with the Code. While its stage 1 response was not issued until 27 working days after its acknowledgement, the landlord has provided evidence that it agreed this extension with the resident. Therefore, the landlord’s stage 1 complaint responses were in line with the Code.
19. It is noted that, in its stage 1 response, the landlord stated that the resident had not sought permission to build the conservatory. This was not accurate and suggests the landlord had not carried out a full and thorough investigation before issuing its response. This was likely to have caused the resident further frustration.
20. The Code said that if an extension was required at stage 2 that “exceptionally, landlords may provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be received. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason. And “if an extension beyond 10 working days is required to enable the landlord to respond to the complaint fully, this should be agreed by both parties”.
21. While not required to do so by the Code, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint within 3 working days. It issued its stage 2 response 56 workings days after the complaint was raised. This was not in line with the Code. The landlord recognised this failure in its stage 2 response and offered an apology and proportionate compensation as redress.

Learning

22. Since this complaint, the landlord has told us that it has implemented dedicated policies and procedures for addressing damp and mould. It has also reviewed and updated its complaints policy & procedure.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

23. There were no issues identified with the landlord’s record keeping throughout this investigation.

Communication

24. There were some communication failures of the landlord and occasions where the resident had to chase it for updates. However, the landlord identified these in its stage 2 complaint response and offered an apology and proportionate compensation as redress. It also confirmed that it had shared those concerns with its customer relations management team, to improve the levels of service in the future.