Sandbourne Housing Association (202342829)

Background

1. The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of a semi-detached property. The landlord owns the next-door property. The resident reported issues with the guttering running between the two properties.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Concerns about staff behaviour.
   2. Guttering repairs.
   3. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of concerns about staff behaviour.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of guttering repairs.
   3. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Handling of concerns about staff behaviour

4. The landlord investigated. It said the staff member’s behaviour was unprofessional and apologised. The landlord said the staff member had rescheduled an appointment. It did not acknowledge the staff member had cancelled the visit. It did not address the resident’s concerns about bullying.

Handling of guttering repairs

5. The landlord agreed to inspect the guttering but only inspected the front of the property. After the resident complained it inspected and offered to do repairs. The landlord did not clearly communicate the findings of the inspection.

Handling of the resident’s complaint

6. The landlord followed its complaints policy.

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 have not considered

7. The resident complained about the behaviour of a staff member. We do not investigate complaints concerning terms of employment or other personnel issues. Internal disciplinary processes are for the landlord to manage. We have therefore not investigated the staff member’s behaviour. We have assessed the landlord’s investigation and how it responded to the resident.

What we have considered

8. The resident told the landlord the staff member had shouted at her during a call on 8 January 2024. She said the staff member was a “bully”. The resident said an apology was not good enough.
9. In its stage 1 response, the landlord explained how it investigated. The landlord spoke with the resident and listened to recordings of the phone calls. It said the staff member’s behaviour was unprofessional, rude, and potentially patronising. The landlord did not address the resident’s bullying concerns.
10. The landlord said the staff member apologised for a mistake about the timing of a visit. It said the staff member offered to visit the next day. The call recordings show later in the call the staff member said they would not visit.
11. Where the landlord admitted failings, we consider whether the redress it offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. We take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
12. The landlord recognised the staff member’s behaviour was unprofessional and apologised. It acknowledged the resident felt an apology was not good enough but did not explain why it was sufficient. The landlord did not address the resident’s concerns about bullying. For these reasons we have found service failure. We have ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay £75 compensation. This is in accordance with our remedies guidance where there was a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided.

13. There were historical issues with the guttering. The resident said the landlord replaced guttering at her neighbour’s property in 2008 and at her property in 2021. She said the guttering between the properties was “incompatible” and this affected her property and her wellbeing. We are unable to investigate issues dating back 15 years. We usually consider the 12-month period before a complaint is made. We have looked at the period from January 2023, until May 2024, when the landlord sent the inspection report.
14. The resident said she made multiple reports about the guttering. The landlord has not sent us any reports before 5 January 2024, when the resident said the problems were not fixed. The resident said the guttering at her neighbour’s property was different. She said this meant water flooded over her property. The resident asked the landlord to inspect. The landlord inspected the guttering at the front and said the overflow was probably due to heavy rain. It did not inspect the guttering at the rear of the property.
15. The resident complained the guttering could not handle heavy rain. She said the water company had confirmed the guttering was not fit for purpose. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said the resident was a shared owner and was responsible for repairs. It said in 2022 it replaced some guttering to fix a problem with the “guttering joint” between the properties. The landlord offered to clean the gutters at the front and the rear of the resident’s property. In its stage 2 response the landlord repeated its findings.
16. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 3. She sent photos of the guttering. She said she had reported problems after the landlord replaced guttering at the rear of the neighbour’s property. She said in 2011 the landlord confirmed it was incompatible with the guttering at her property. The resident said the landlord had done minor repairs but not fixed the problems. She said in 2021 the landlord replaced guttering at her property, but this was still not compatible. The resident said the landlord was responsible for fixing the problem.
17. The landlord did not escalate the resident’s complaint. It suggested a meeting with the resident, a mediator, and a roofing contractor. It said it would replace the “joint between the two properties” if it was damaged. It said it would only replace the guttering if the installation was faulty. The resident agreed to meet and asked for a copy of the inspection report.
18. On 20 April 2024, the landlord inspected. The report said the gutter and down pipe was “fit for use” but needed adjusting to work properly. The landlord did not send the resident the inspection report. Instead, it sent a summary of the works it would do. It said it would repair some guttering and clean the gutter, downpipe, and roof.
19. The resident asked again for the inspection report and the landlord sent it. She said she did not want the work to start before she read and agreed the report. The resident subsequently referred her complaint to us. She said she wanted the landlord to replace her guttering and for it to be like her neighbour’s. The landlord said it had not been in contact with the resident since July 2024.
20. The landlord previously told the resident as a shared owner she was responsible for repairing her property. This is in line with the resident’s lease and the landlord’s repair guidelines. Nevertheless, the landlord agreed to replace guttering it previously provided, if this was faulty or damaged, and to clean and do some repairs to this. This was reasonable because its previous guttering work led the resident to expect it would continue to take action for the guttering, particularly as the neighbour’s property was also involved. However, the resident’s lease and the landlord’s policies and procedures did not require it to do so.
21. The landlord said it would inspect the guttering but only inspected the front of the property. After the resident complained it arranged an inspection and agreed some repairs. However, it did not clearly communicate the inspection results or the repairs it would do. As a result, we found service failure in the landlord’s handling of guttering repairs. We have ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay £75 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance where there was a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided. We have recommended the landlord consider writing to the resident setting out the guttering repairs and cleaning it has agreed to do, including to the “guttering joint”.

22. At the time of the resident’s complaint the landlord had a 3-stage complaints policy. It said it would acknowledge a stage 1 complaint within 5 working days and send its response within 10 working days. At stage 2, it said it would respond within 10 working days. The policy said the resident could ask to escalate their complaint to stage 3. It said the landlord would assess whether the request met its escalation criteria. At any stage in the process the landlord might offer independent mediation. This was in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in operation at the time. The landlord has since changed to a 2-stage complaints policy.
23. On 9 January 2024, the resident complained. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and sent its stage 1 response within its policy timescales.
24. The resident escalated her complaint on 29 January 2024. The landlord sent its stage 2 response within the timeframe in its complaints policy.
25. On 7 February 2024, the resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 3. The landlord assessed her request against its escalation criteria. It told the resident her escalation request did not include any new evidence. It said it would not escalate to stage 3 but said the resident could refer her complaint to us. The landlord offered to meet with the resident and a mediator.
26. The landlord followed its complaints policy. As a result, we found no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

27. The landlord should ensure inspection reports clearly state its repair responsibility and any necessary repairs.

Communication

28. The resident told the landlord she was not happy with an apology. The landlord should establish what complaint resolution a resident is seeking. It should explain whether this is a resolution it is able to provide.