Sanctuary Housing Association (202343688)

Background

1. The resident raised concerns with the landlord about its maintenance of communal garden areas at the block of flats she lived in. She was also concerned that its service charge costs would not reflect the standard of service it provided. The landlord did not provide the resident with answers to her concerns, so she raised her complaint about the issue.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about its maintenance of the communal areas and its charges for this service.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about its maintenance of the communal areas and its charges for this service.
5. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord’s stage 2 response told the resident its expected frequency of its communal area maintenance. It recognised the inconvenience caused to the resident and offered her compensation for this. However, it did not provide her with an answer about her service charge concerns, which was a main part of the issue she raised.
7. The landlord’s stage 2 response recognised its complaint handling failures. It acknowledged the inconvenience caused in the resident having to chase it for answers and its delays in providing her with its final response. Although it did not explain the reasons for its delays, we consider the compensation it offered her was appropriate for the detriment caused.

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.

Recommendation

Our recommendation is not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow this.

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 consider

8. We are unable to consider the reasonableness, liability, or the methodology used to calculate service charge contributions. This requires a decision by a court or tribunal service such as the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). The resident may wish to seek legal advice should he wish to discuss the matter further. However, we can consider if the landlord’s overall communication with, and responses to the resident were appropriate, fair, and reasonable.

9. The resident contacted the landlord on 7 September 2023. She wanted to know when it would be doing communal estate work. The landlord’s records show it discussed the issue internally on 25 and 26 September 2023. It said it should attend the communal garden twice a month, but due to staff sickness it had not been able to. The evidence shows the landlord left a voicemail for the resident on 27 September 2023 about the issue. It is unclear if the resident received this message, as she chased it for a response on 9 October 2023. She asked it to call her back. However, there is no record that it did. This was a record keeping failure.
10. The landlord’s evidence included its attendance logs for communal area gardening. This shows it did not visit the resident’s block between 26 July and 18 December 2023. It is unclear if this was due to staff sickness. However, there is no record it passed this information onto the resident or if its service charge costs accounted for the 5 months it did not attend. This was a record keeping failure.
11. The resident raised her complaint due to the landlord not responding to her enquiries. She was unhappy she would be paying a service charge for communal areas that it had not maintained. It had been 34 working days since she raised the issue before it sent its stage 1 response on 25 October 2023. This did not provide her with an answer on the issue, despite it knowing of staff sickness. It said its housing officer would contact her about the issue. This was not reasonable and indicates a lack of ownership of the issue by the landlord.
12. The landlord’s stage 1 response asked the resident to send it photos that showed it had not maintained the communal areas. It was not reasonable that it put the onus back on the resident. It should have considered obtaining photos itself as part of its investigation.
13. The resident chased the landlord for answers on 2, 8 and 11 November 2023. She was unhappy that its housing officer had not contacted her about the issue. This was a communication failure by the landlord. This inconvenienced the resident as she needed to escalate her complaint due to it not responding.
14. The landlord visited the communal area on 24 November 2024. It found this was slightly untidy and raised a repairs job to remove bags of rubbish. However, it noted on 17 January 2024 it had not been able to remove the rubbish as a “works order” had not been raised. This was not reasonable and is likely to have caused the resident distress, as the rubbish had not been removed. There is also no evidence that it explained the reason for this to her.
15. The landlord’s stage 2 response on 16 February 2024 acknowledged the inconvenience it had caused, along with its poor communication. It apologised for this and advised the resident of the frequency it should maintain the communal areas. This was reasonable.
16. The landlord’s stage 2 response offered the resident £100 in compensation for the inconvenience caused. This was in line with our remedies guidance for minor failures where it delayed resolving the issue which caused distress and inconvenience. However, it did not clarify if it needed to adjust the resident’s service charge costs, due to its staff’s sickness. This was not reasonable as her financial concern about its maintenance charge was central to the issue.
17. One of the reasons the resident referred her complaint to us was because the landlord had not clearly explained its service charge costs about the lack of maintenance by it. In not addressing this issue it caused the resident detriment. For this we have made a finding of service failure. We have ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident and confirm its position on whether it had considered its staff’s sickness when charging the resident for its communal maintenance service.

18. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge complaints within 3 working days. It will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days of its acknowledgement and 20 working days at stage 2. It may extend the timeframe to respond to a complaint at both stages by 10 working days. It will confirm any extension with the complainant and provide a reason for this.
19. The landlord sent its acknowledgement 1 working day over its published timeframe at stage 1 and 6 working days at stage 2. This was a failure to follow its complaints policy.
20. The landlord’s stage 1 response was sent 5 working days after its acknowledgement. This was reasonable and in line with its complaints policy’s timeframe for responding.
21. The landlord extended its stage 2 investigation 3 times. The first time it did this on 14 December 2023 it said it would respond to the resident by 17 January 2024. This was not reasonable as the extension was 11 working days over the timeframe set out in its policy. It failed to send its response by this revised date or its next revised date of 3 February 2024. This caused the resident inconvenience as the evidence shows she chased it for answers.
22. The landlord extended its stage 2 investigation again on 7 February 2024. It provided her with its response on 16 February 2024. This was 24 working days over its complaints policy’s timeframe to respond, allowing for a 10-working day extension. This was not reasonable and a complaint handling failure.
23. The landlord’s stage 2 response did acknowledge its complaint handling failures. It offered the resident £150 compensation for the delays and poor communication. It did not provide the resident with an explanation for its delays, which would have been reasonable. However, the compensation it offered was in line with our remedies guidance for failures which adversely affected the resident. We consider this was reasonable redress for its complaint handling failures. The landlord should pay this compensation if it has not already done so, as this formed out basis of our reasonable redress finding.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

24. There were minor record keeping failures by the landlord. Overall, its record keeping was reasonable. However, it should take learning from this case to ensure it takes steps to action its records, to avoid inconvenience to residents.

Communication

25. The landlord’s communication with the resident was lacking, as she chased it for answers on several occasions. It acknowledged this during its internal complaint’s procedure. This is a positive step by the landlord, and it should take learning from the case to improve its future service offer.