Sanctuary Housing Association (202326411)

Background

1. The resident has asthma and previously lived in a flat. He reported a water leak from above to the landlord, and said the leak was causing damp and mould to his bathroom walls. He complained as he was unhappy with how it was handling repairs to resolve the issue.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak, damp, and mould.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak, damp, and mould.
5. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Reasons

What we did not investigate

6. The resident told us he has asthma, which can be worsened by damp and mould. We cannot consider the impact of the damp and mould on the resident’s health. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further, but we can decide if the landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did investigate – The resident’s reports of a leak, damp, and mould

7. The landlord accepted it was responsible for repairs to the resolve the leak, damp, and mould when they were reported. This was in line with its responsibilities to repair the structure and outside of the property from the resident’s lease agreement and its repairs policy. The lease agreement sets out that the resident is responsible for internal decoration.
8. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that it will aim to complete major repairs within 90 days. If a repair cannot be fully diagnosed at the first point of contact, an inspection should be completed within 10 working days.
9. The resident said in his complaint that he first reported the leak on 14 April 2023, but this is disputed by the landlord. The landlord said in its stage 1 response he first reported the leak on 17 July 2023, but it said in its stage 2 response he first reported the leak on 26 April 2023.
10. The landlord’s repair records show the resident first reported the leak on 17 July 2023. It is possible that the resident reported it before this date and this is not shown on the landlord’s records. In any event, the landlord decided an inspection was required to diagnose the repair. It first inspected the issue on 15 August 2023. It failed to carry out an inspection within 10 days in line with its policy, regardless of which of the 3 dates it was first reported.
11. The resident believed at first that the leak was coming from an overflow from another flat in the block. The inspector confirmed that there had been a leak from a cistern in another flat, but the landlord had also recently carried out roof repairs to the block. The landlord later traced the source of the leak to the roof. The landlord got 2 quotes from external contractors to repair to the roof. This was reasonable to ensure the landlord used a contractor who was suitable to carry out the repair. The landlord received the quotes back on 5 September 2023 and 7 October 2023. It approved its chosen quote 58 days later on 4 December 2023 and told the contractor on 7 December 2023 to complete repairs to the roof.
12. The landlord needed to use a specialist contractor and put up scaffolding to complete the repair. The leak was causing damp, but it was not flooding the property. It is therefore reasonable to class the repair to the roof as a major repair in line with its repairs policy.
13. The contractor completed repairs to the roof on 13 January 2024. This was 274 days after the resident said he reported the leak on 14 April 2023. It was 180 days after the date shown in the landlord’s records of 17 July 2023. Although the date of the first report is disputed, in any event this was an unreasonable delay and significantly over the timescales set out in its policy. Had the landlord not delayed approving the quote for the repair, it may have completed it sooner, reducing the inconvenience to the resident.
14. The landlord apologised in its stage 1 response for the delay in approving the quote. It offered £125 compensation to recognise the inconvenience this caused to the resident. At stage 2, it acknowledged that its communication about the repairs had been poor. It said it would share learning from the complaint with its teams to improve its service and avoid the same issues happening again in future, which was positive. It increased its compensation offer to £610 for the failings in its response to the resident’s reports of a leak, damp, and mould. It said £350 of this was for the resident’s time and trouble. £200 was a contribution towards decorating costs, and £60 was a contribution towards the cost of running the dehumidifier.
15. The landlord provided the resident with a dehumidifier, but it acknowledged in its stage 2 response that there were delays in providing this. Positively, the landlord offered to redecorate the resident’s bathroom as a gesture of goodwill to recognise the delays in completing the repair and the inconvenience caused. This was the resident’s responsibility under the terms of the lease, and he could have made an insurance claim for the cost of redecorating. As the resident arranged for the decorating himself, it was appropriate that the landlord offered compensation equivalent to decorating costs, given it had made this promise.
16. The resident told the landlord he had asthma. The landlord recorded this appropriately in its repair records and told us it was aware of his health condition. There is no evidence that the resident reported his health was affected, but he did tell the landlord he had asthma when he escalated the complaint on 12 December 2023. He said he was living with damp and black mould and was concerned that this was dangerous. There is no evidence that the landlord considered the possible health impact in its handling of the leak, damp, and mould. If it had, it may have been appropriate to try and bring the repair date forward when the resident escalated his complaint.
17. The landlord telephoned the resident on 18 April 2024 before it issued its stage 2 response. It discussed the damp and mould with the resident who confirmed that these issues were now resolved. It is positive that the landlord discussed the damp and mould with the resident as part of its complaint investigation, but this was on the last day of its investigation. There was a missed opportunity for the landlord to have had this conversation earlier with the resident, which could have helped to resolve the complaint sooner.
18. In summary, there were unacceptable delays in resolving the leak, damp, and mould. The landlord’s communication around the repairs was poor. The landlord recognised its failings, apologised, and offered compensation. Its compensation policy sets out that payments of up to £400 may be made to recognise the time, trouble, and inconvenience of a service failure that had a high impact on a resident. Its offer of £610 was above this amount, reflecting that it had also promised to redecorate but the resident had arranged this himself. This compensation offer is in line with our remedies guidance where there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident. There was therefore reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak, damp, and mould. We recommended it pay the £610 compensation it offered him, if it has not already done so.

Complaint handling

19. Under the landlord’s complaints policy, it will acknowledge stage 1 and 2 complaints within 3 working days. It will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days of the acknowledgement and at stage 2 within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. It allows an extension of up to 10 working days at both stages if this is required. The policy complies with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
20. Positively, the landlord acknowledged the complaint at both stages in line with the timescales in its policy. It responded at stage 1 on 28 November 2023, which was 18 working days after the complaint was made on 2 November 2023. This was a minor delay, and there is no evidence that this had an adverse impact on the resident.
21. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 18 April 2024, 88 working days after the resident escalated the complaint on 12 December 2023. This was significantly longer than the timescales set out in its policy and our Code, and an unacceptable delay. The landlord’s records showed that the resident chased a response several times during this period.
22. The landlord’s stage 2 response was thorough and it acknowledged its response was significantly delayed. It offered a sincere apology and £250 compensation in recognition of its complaint handling failures. Its compensation policy sets out that payments of up to £250 may be made to recognise the time, trouble, and inconvenience of a complaint handling failure that had a high impact on a resident. Its offer was the highest amount recommended in its policy, and this is in line with our remedies guidance where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident. There was therefore reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling. We recommend it pay the resident the £250 compensation it offered him, if it has not already done so.

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.

Recommendations

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