Sanctuary Housing Association (202318273)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318273

Sanctuary Housing Association

23 April 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 reports of drainage problems in his garden.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is the assured tenant of the property, a ground floor flat in a terraced house, which is owned by the landlord, a housing association.
On 10 December 2022 the resident telephoned the landlord to report that his drains were blocked. The landlord’s contractor attended on 15 December 2022 but did not solve the problem. The contractor then carried out works on 19 January 2023 which resolved the leak. This involved lifting paving slabs, breaking out concrete around a drainage gully and replacing the slabs. It said it would return to resolve a trip hazard on the patio shortly.
The resident was concerned the works had damaged the patio, leaving it stained, uneven and not draining properly. He contacted the landlord regularly about this in early 2023.
The resident complained on 20 April 2023, saying his drain had been blocked for months. He said when the landlord eventually carried out works, it damaged the patio which was now uneven. He said water no longer drained properly from the patio. He wanted the landlord to pay compensation for the delay and repair the patio.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 6 June 2023 it apologised for the delays in dealing with the drainage problem and said it would repair the patio on 19 June 2023. It offered the resident £150 compensation (£100 for the time and trouble, £25 for “future impact”, and £25 for the delayed complaint response).
Over the following months the landlord put the contract for works to level the patio out for tender. It received an estimate for approximately £9,000. It also discovered that the resident had installed the patio himself without seeking its permission first.
On 19 September 2023 the resident complained again. He reiterated that his drains had been blocked for several months over the winter. He said the landlord agreed to repair the patio but had failed to do so. He felt it was a health and safety hazard. He wanted the patio restored and compensation.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 2 October 2023 it apologised for delays in dealing with the blocked drains and carrying out the initial works on the patio. However, it had since discovered that the resident had installed the patio himself and it should not, therefore, have agreed to repair it. It apologised for doing so in error. It offered £275 compensation for its failures (£150 for ‘complaint handling failures’ alongside the £125 it initially offered).
In his referral to us the resident said he wanted the landlord to repair the patio and pay him £1,000 compensation.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of drainage problems

The landlord’s repairs policy says it will attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours. It classes completely blocked drains as an emergency. The resident first telephoned the landlord on 10 December 2022 and called again on 13 and 14 December 2022. As the contractor did not attend until 15 December 2022, the landlord failed to follow its policy. The records show that it attempted to raise a repair during this time but its contractor failed to respond.
There is disagreement about what happened when the contractor first attended. The resident says they did not have the correct tools. The contractor says it had become clear the job would be complex and it needed to prepare a quote for the extra works. The evidence supports the contractor’s position, given that there was then a lengthy delay while the necessary quote was prepared.
Meanwhile, the resident continued to report that water still backed up when he used his sinks. He was also concerned that water was not draining from the patio. He told the landlord on 20 December 2022 that, while wastewater was slow to drain, he was able to prepare food and bathe. This meant the matter was not, according to the landlord’s repairs policy, an emergency.
The policy says it will deal with “appointed” (non-emergency) repairs within 45 days. It says it will deal with “enhanced” appointed repairs within 28 working days. The main repairs to the drain were carried out on 19 January 2023, 40 working days after the initial report and within the “appointed repairs” timeframe. While understandably frustrating for the resident, this means the landlord did comply with its target response timeframes.
However, there was a period of 34 days between the contractor’s first visit, when it said it would quote for the extra works, and the landlord approving that quote. This suggests there is a problem with the landlord’s process for requesting and approving quotations for works. This may be causing unnecessary and avoidable delays which could be remedied to improve resident satisfaction. A recommendation is therefore made for the landlord to consider investigating its communications with contractors, particularly around quotes for work which appear to be prone to delay.
The works on 19 January 2023 resolved the leak and the resident signed a form agreeing that they were done to his satisfaction. The contractor said it would “return to put in mesh to prevent a trip hazard”. However, it did not do so for some time and this was a failure in service. The resident telephoned the landlord in February 2023 and said the patio was stained. While the landlord could not see any staining it did ask for quotes for works to the patio to resolve the trip hazard.
There were, again, lengthy delays while the landlord processed these quotes. In early April 2023, a contractor attended to complete the trip hazard works. The landlord’s records state the resident refused them access as he wanted the entire patio to be relayed. It was at this point the resident complained formally. He said that, since the repairs had been done, much of the patio had become uneven and water could not escape and formed puddles. He said he wanted the landlord to repair it. The notes state that he also wanted a path resurfaced.
In its stage 1 response of 6 June 2023 the landlord said it would carry out the required works on 19 June 2023 and apologised for not doing so sooner. The resident said that, if the landlord completed the works, he would accept its offer of £150 compensation.
At around this time, the landlord began to question whether the resident had received its permission to build the patio as his tenancy agreement required. The resident has said that he felt he had the landlord’s implicit permission. However, the tenancy agreement says he must receive permission in writing before carrying out works, which he did not do.
Nonetheless, on 21 July 2023 a contractor inspected the patio. It found that paving slabs were moving underfoot, some had sunk, and the subbase supporting the patio needed replacement. A landlord surveyor visited again in mid-August 2023. They found that the only work the landlord should carry out was replacing timber supports under a manhole cover with brick ones.
The landlord’s contractor provided a quote shortly after to level the whole patio for about £9,000. The landlord stated in internal emails that it did not intend to repair the patio as it was only responsible for supporting the manhole cover. It obtained an alternative quote for those works.
On the evidence, it is not possible for us to reach any conclusions on the cause of the damage to the patio, or the extent to which the leak repairs affected the rest of the patio. There is evidence that the resident complained of puddling on the patio in early January 2023, suggesting there may have been pre-existing issues before the leak repair. If the resident wishes to pursue his concerns about any damage caused by the landlord to his patio, he should consider taking legal advice. This matter would be more appropriately determined by a court, which can assess expert evidence and make decisions of this kind.
However, it is not disputed that the resident had not obtained permission from the landlord before installing the patio. This means the landlord did not have an opportunity to consider the possible impact of the proposal or to inspect the works after completion. Such permission is required so that the landlord can satisfy itself as to the suitability of the proposed works including, for example, any impact on drainage.
In the absence of giving its express permission, the landlord did not have an automatic obligation to repair the patio. It had not approved the plans or formally accepted any responsibility for it. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude (albeit belatedly) that it would not carry out the full patio replacement requested by the resident.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 2 October 2023 it confirmed this position and increased its offer of compensation for its handling of the patio repairs to £250. While the landlord indicated that the additional £125 awarded at this stage related to ‘complaint handling’ it was, in fact, intended to redress the communication failures around the patio works. We have, therefore, considered the total offer on that basis.
In identifying whether there has been maladministration, we consider both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. We will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
The landlord had a duty to repair the resident’s drain and it delayed in doing so. This was a service failure. It then communicated poorly throughout the repairs process, by undertaking to repair/replace the patio and later withdrawing that offer. This caused the resident considerable frustration. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to consider a financial remedy. Its compensation policy says it will award between £51 and £150 in cases where its failures cause a medium impact. Therefore, the landlord’s offer of £250 exceeded the guidelines set out in its policy.
Considering the full circumstances of the case, including the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, and in consultation with our own remedies guidance; the £250 compensation offered is considered reasonable. Therefore, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident for its handling of the drainage problems. We have made a recommendation for the landlord to pay the resident this £250 compensation, if it has not done so already. The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid, as it recognised genuine elements of service failure by the landlord.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy says it will respond to complaints within 10 working days and to escalation requests within 20 working days. The landlord was late in providing its stage 1 response as the resident complained on 20 April 2023 and did not receive a response until 6 June 2023, 30 working days later. The landlord apologised for this and offered him £25 for the delay.
While this is at the lower end of our guidelines on remedies, it is common practice for compensation for complaint handling to be more moderate than other awards relating to substantive issues. This is to reflect the lower impact caused by a delayed complaint response.
At the time of the delay, the substantive issue had already been resolved. Further, the delay did not ultimately affect the outcome of the complaint. When the complaint was escalated in September 2023 the landlord responded in line with its policy timeframes. This indicates it had learnt from its earlier errors and prioritised the stage 2 response accordingly.
Overall, there was minimal detriment caused to the resident by the landlord’s failure to adhere to its complaints policy at stage 1. As a result, the £25 compensation is considered reasonable redress for the landlord’s complaint handling. As above, a recommendation is made in that regard.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress in relation to the resident’s:
1. Reports of drainage problems in his garden.
2. Associated formal complaint

Recommendations

The landlord is recommended to:
1. If it has not already done so, pay the resident the £275 compensation previously offered, as follows:
  1. £250 for its handling of the drainage problems.
  2. £25 for its complaint handling.
2. Consider investigating its communications with contractors, particularly around quotes for work which appear to be prone to delay.