Sanctuary Housing Association (202340521)

Background

1. The resident lives with her daughter in the property. In November 2023 the resident reported that there was a leak coming through her daughter’s bedroom ceiling. The landlord attended that month and carried out a repair to make it safe. The resident said no work had been completed on that visit. In December 2024 the landlord returned to the property to provide a quotation for the necessary repair works. A repair attempt was subsequently made in March 2024. Despite these actions, the resident reports that the leak has not been permanently repaired and is requesting that the landlord resolves the issue.

What the complaint is about

2. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. A repair to the property’s roof.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a repair to the property’s roof.
4. There has been service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of a repair to the property’s roof

5. The landlord failed to communicate appropriately with the resident and there were unreasonable repair delays. There is evidence the landlord did not manage its contractors effectively and its internal processes relating to approval and allocation of jobs was unnecessarily cumbersome. The level of compensation offered was insufficient for the failures identified in this report.

The complaint handling

6. The landlord treated the resident’s complaint at stage 1 in line with its own complaints procedure. It failed to treat the escalation request in January 2024 correctly. The landlord acknowledged delays in both stage 1 and stage 2 responses and offered appropriate 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.

7. It is not in dispute that the landlord was responsible for the reported repairs. The resident’s tenancy agreement stipulates that the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure of the property, including the roof and internal ceilings. According to the landlord’s repairs policy, an emergency repair is defined as one required to eliminate a serious threat to health and safety. All other repairs are classified as appointed repairs, which should be completed within 28 days.
8. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it may award compensation for damage resulting from its inaction, based on belief or probability. The policy outlines that the landlord may offer discretionary compensation of up to £400 for the resident’s time, trouble, and inconvenience.
9. Under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, landlords are required to carry out repairs within a “reasonable” timeframe and to a standard that ensures the property remains fit for occupation. While the Act does not define “reasonable” timescale, relevant considerations include the nature and extent of the repair, and the impact on the resident.
10. The landlord’s contractor attended the property on 22 November 2023 which was 21 days after the resident initially reported the leak on 1 November 2023. This aligns with the landlord’s repairs policy for appointed repairs and was a reasonable response. While the resident has stated that no repair was completed during this visit, we have reviewed an invoice indicating that the gutter was realigned and the flashing refixed to make the area safe. The invoice also noted that further work was required, as it referenced a forthcoming quotation. The landlord has acknowledged that it failed to follow up on this, resulting in the resident having to submit a formal complaint to progress the outstanding work.
11. While it should not require a complaint from the resident for repairs to be carried out, the landlord was responsive once the complaint was made. The landlord attended the property on 12 December 2023 and assessed the work required. The quotation indicated extensive repairs, including the need for scaffolding. Email correspondence shows the landlord made proactive efforts to escalate the approval of the quotation and commencement of works. However, it is evident that the landlord’s repair procedures at the time hindered its ability to progress the repair more swiftly. The approval process and its allocation of work to its contractors was drawn out unnecessarily. The landlord has since acknowledged this to us and advised it has implemented a bespoke technology-based system in November 2024 to combat the issues identified in this report.
12. Although an internal email from the landlord indicated that the repair was scheduled for 21 February 2024 there is no evidence that this appointment took place. The landlord did attend on 7 March 2024 and confirmed there was still a leak. The evidence provided indicates the initial repair was completed on 18 March 2024. This was 81 days after the initial “make safe” action on 22 November 2023. This represents a delay of 53 days beyond the timeframe set out in the landlord’s repairs policy. We have considered the need for the landlord to have to plan for the repair and arrange for scaffolding to be erected so the delay in itself although inconvenient it was not unreasonable. We have however considered the lack of communication where such a delay occurred. The resident was left to chase the landlord for information about the repair which was unreasonable and would have caused unnecessary distress and inconvenience. With this extensive work being completed it would be reasonable for the landlord to have been able to evidence the repair was fully complete.
13. In May and June 2024, the landlord’s contractor was reporting to it that the ceiling was now dry. The evidence provided indicates the landlord attended on 10 July 2024 to damp test the ceiling and was told by the resident the ceiling was now dry and no more issues. We have seen an email of 19 July 2024 where the resident is unhappy that a contractor who was painting her fence had again checked the ceiling and found that it was dry. The landlord has to satisfy themselves an issue does not persist; however, it must consider the advice of its professional contractors and in this case, it was reasonable for it to have closed the repair on 30 July 2024. The landlord also emailed the resident on 30 July 2024 to confirm this but did not receive a reply.
14. The resident has recently told us that there is still a leak. In the interest of fairness, we have made an order for the landlord to contact the resident to establish if the repair remains outstanding and for a schedule of works to be produced by an appropriate professional.
15. We have seen evidence of poor communication by the landlord as the resident chased the repair on 10 and 13 November 2023 believing it was attending sooner as an emergency repair. Although it replied, there is no evidence the landlord explained at the time that it was not treating it as an emergency repair. It would have been appropriate for it to have done so, which may have helped manage the resident’s expectations. The resident again chasing the repair spoke with the landlord on 30 November 2023 and although we have seen the landlord chasing its contractor, we have not seen a timely response to the resident. This was unreasonable and caused her to have to make a formal complaint to receive a response.
16. The landlord’s communication in April and May 2024 (post stage 2 response) was not effective. The resident was receiving acknowledgment emails with a date where she should hear back from the landlord. The resident had to chase a response after the date had passed on 17 April 2024, 26 April 2024, and 10 May 2024 causing unnecessary frustration to the resident. This was not a reasonable or customer orientated response. We expect landlords to monitor their communication, to ensure residents are responded to. This helps deliver clear, effective, and timely communication, which is essential to an effective repairs and complaints handling process.
17. In its stage 2 complaint response on 18 March 2024 the landlord offered the resident £250 compensation for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused by the delayed repair. It appropriately acknowledged it failed to keep the resident updated as promised in its stage 1 response and apologised. It explained that roof repairs were not treated as emergencies due to having to work at height and repairs are weather dependant, which helped the resident understand it was working within its repair policy guidelines. In its response the landlord said its target date to attend and make safe the repair was 29 November 2023 which it met.  However, it explained it had not received a quotation for the further works to complete the repair and as such its contractor had to reattend, which delayed the works which it appropriately apologised for. It committed to provide a starting date for the repair, track the repair and have the work completed which although delayed was a reasonable response. 
18. The resident was unhappy with the level of compensation offered as the landlord had not considered the damage to personal belongings and the time she had to take off work for the appointments. We have not seen the resident raising these issues within the complaint procedure so it was reasonable for the landlord to reconsider its offer and increase it to £550. It explained that it did not provide compensation for loss of earnings; however, considered this in its increased offer of £400 for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused. It also offered £150 towards replacing personal items and explained it was the resident’s responsibility to move items away from under the leak once it has been discovered. This was unreasonable as the repair was outstanding for an extended period. Its policy states it would offer discretionary compensation if the damage occurred through the landlord’s inaction and would base its decision solely on belief or probability. Although it was positive the landlord offered discretionary compensation it would have been reasonable for it to have asked for any specific details of the damage. This would have allowed it to offer compensation reflecting the damage caused. We have made an order for it to reconsider its compensation based on the actual damage or provide its insurance details to allow the resident to make a claim.
19. Given the poor communication around the repair delays we have found there to have been service failure in the landlord’s handling a repair to the property’s roof.
20. We have made an order for the landlord to pay an additional £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience this caused. This sum is in line with our remedies guidance which says such a sum is appropriate where there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident but did not have a permanent impact.

21. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints procedure in accordance with its complaints policy, which aligns with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The policy stipulates that responses to stage 1 complaints should be provided within 15 working days, and Stage 2 responses within 25 working days. This includes a five-working-day period for acknowledging the complaint. The policy also states that any extensions to these timescales must not exceed 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2.
22. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s formal complaint of 11 December 2023 within the 5 days allowed in its policy. It advised the resident on 22 December 2023 that It required more time to investigate. It appropriately explained the reason for this and told her when she would receive its response.  It thereafter provided its stage 1 complaint response on 10 January 2024 again in line with its above policy.
23. The resident requested escalation of her complaint on 20 January 2024. The landlord acknowledged this request on 30 January 2024, 3 working days beyond the timeframe set out in its policy and advised that a response would be issued by 9 February 2024. The landlord failed to provide its response by that date which was unreasonable. This led to the resident contacting the landlord on 13 February 2024, which the landlord mistakenly treated as a new escalation which was not appropriate.
24. The resident corrected the landlord by email, advising it she had escalated her complaint previously. On 22 February 2024 the landlord requested an extension, which remained within the 25 working days permitted under its policy.
25. The stage 2 complaint response was issued on 18 March 2024 which was 17 working days after the extension request, and within the policy’s timescales. The landlord acknowledged the delays in both stage 1 and Stage 2 responses and its failure to correctly process the resident’s initial escalation email. It offered £150 compensation, which was reasonable and consistent with its compensation policy for service failures.
26. The resident complained to the landlord about its contractors failed appointments in an email dated 25 May 2024. We have seen no evidence the landlord has dealt with this through its complaint procedure. We recommend the landlord contacts the resident and if appropriate treat it as a new complaint if it has not already done so.
27. The landlord has subsequently informed us that it has learned from previous complaints and has introduced a complaints training package along with a competency framework for its staff. While we have not yet seen evidence of these measures, this represents a positive step toward improving its approach to handling residents’ complaints. As such we have not made any learning orders.

Learning

28. The landlord has shown learning and a commitment to improve by implementing a new complaints training and accreditation system.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

29. The landlord has since implemented a bespoke system which should help improve the issues around record keeping and the sharing of that information with its contractors which is positive to see.

Communication

30. The landlord’s communication was delayed at times because it was sending confirmation emails with a date that it would reply by. Although positive the resident was receiving an acknowledgment email the landlord’s failure to thereafter contact the resident led to her having to chase a response.