Sanctuary Housing Association (202401004)

Background

1. The resident is elderly and was represented by a family member who complained to the landlord and us on her behalf. For the purposes of this report, we refer to both as the resident. The resident was unhappy with paving repairs to the rear patio of the property following an occupational therapist’s recommendations in August 2021.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Paving repairs to the rear patio.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s paving repairs to the rear patio.
   2. The landlord offered reasonable redress for its complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Paving repairs to the rear patio

4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s paving repairs to her patio was poor. In its stage 2 complaint response it apologised and accepted its standard fell below expectations. It offered compensation which was not proportionate to its failings.

The landlord’s complaint handling

5. The landlord’s complaint handling was poor. It acknowledged its failings in its stage 2 response and offered proportionate 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.

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

6. The resident said the delays with the repair impacted her 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. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
7. In August 2021 an occupational therapist recommended adaptions to the resident’s rear patio. This included work to level the paving slabs in the garden, installation of a handrail and a wider step. The resident complained to the landlord in March 2023 about loose and uneven paving following the work. It closed her complaint in April 2023 and said the adaptions were done in line with the recommendations and told her a new referral was needed for any further work. She made a new complaint in August 2023 and received a final response in December 2023, which this investigation focuses on. Any reference to events prior to or after this is for context and information purposes.
8. The resident remained unhappy with the work the landlord completed and made another complaint to the landlord in March 2024 which she referred to us because she remained unhappy. That complaint and the events leading up to it and after is covered in our case reference 202423805.

What we did investigate

9. After closing the resident’s first complaint, the landlord made enquiries with its surveyor who said there was no loose paving when he completed his inspection in August 2022. It arranged another inspection on 23 May 2023 to look into this further. 
10. The inspection found the patio was in poor condition due to land movement, with sections needing lifting and relaying. It also found the handrail installed restricted the side door window opening and the large step built caused confusion because it followed a smaller step. The surveyor said the resident’s husband suffered from dementia and told him he had fallen when using the steps. The surveyor recommended raising the patio to create one step and laying more hardcore to improve the condition of the patio. He also recommended moving the handrail so the window could open.
11. The landlord updated the resident with the surveyor’s recommendations in May 2023, and June 2023 after it received a quote for the work. The resident complained in August 2023 because the work was outstanding and it did not update her.
12. In its stage 1 response, the landlord told the resident it escalated her repair and would contact her. Between September and November 2023 the resident contacted the landlord several times for updates and to escalate her complaint. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it had approved the work and aimed to complete it before Christmas. It explained the weather needed to be at a certain temperature for the work to go ahead, but it would monitor and update her.
13. The landlord did not complete the work by the timescale it gave in its stage 2 response, and it failed to manage the resident’s expectations about the delay. In February 2024, the resident contacted it again for an update and it said its complaints team would contact her directly and provide regular updates. It completed the work on 22 March 2024.
14. It is unclear if the landlord treated the repair as a standard repair or completed it under its aids and adaptions policy. Its aids and adaptions policy has a £750 threshold for minor repairs and a 28-day timescale for completion. However, the quote was over this threshold. The landlord’s policy says major adaptions over the threshold must be supported by an occupational therapist referral and completed within 26 weeks of the referral. It approved the work without a new referral. It did not complete the repair in line with its aids and adaptions policy or in line with its 28-day repairs policy timescale. It knew what work was needed in May 2023 but did not complete the work until March 2024. The resident was unhappy with the work and said it only relayed the slabs. She said it did not raise the patio to resolve the step issue and she made a new complaint.
15. Where repairs are complex or take longer than expected, we expect landlords to update residents and manage their expectations. The resident repeatedly contacted the landlord for updates. Its lack of communication and delay caused her time and trouble complaining and escalating her complaint.
16. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s paving repairs was poor. In view of the repair delays and the landlord’s poor communication, we found maladministration. In its stage 2 response it offered £250 compensation for the inconvenience its delays and poor communication caused the resident, which she has received. We do not consider its offer proportionate to the failings identified. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident an additional £250 which is in line with our remedies guidance for failings which adversely affected the resident.

17. The landlord’s complaints policy said it would respond at stage 1 within 10 working days, and at stage 2 within 20 working days of an escalation request. It could agree an extension of 10 working days at both stages. This was in line with our complaint handling code in use at the time (2022).
18. The landlord sent it stage 1 response 23 working days after the resident’s complaint.  This was not in line with its complaints policy timescale, and it did not address its failing in its stage 1 response.
19. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s request on 25 September 2023 to escalate her complaint. This caused her time and trouble contacting it several times to escalate her complaint. It sent its stage 2 response 52 working days after the resident’s initial escalation request. This exceeded the timescales set out in its complaints policy.
20. In its stage 2 response, the landlord accepted its failings handling the resident’s complaint. It offered £200 for its delay logging her complaint and escalating it, which the resident has received. Its offer of £200 for complaint handling is in line with our remedies guidance for failings that had no permanent impact. In view of this, we find the compensation it offered was proportionate to the failings we found and it offered reasonable redress.

Learning

21. The landlord should learn from this case with regards to managing and handling complaints in accordance with our Code.

Communication

22. The landlord’s communication was poor. It should consider how it can improve its repair updates with residents by giving clear, timely, and proactive updates.
23. The landlord’s stage 2 response was dated a month earlier than it was sent. It should ensure its complaint responses are accurate.