Sanctuary Housing Association (202417319)

Background

1. The resident has complained about the landlord’s response to her reports that the exterior of the block she lives in had not been maintained. Cyclical works were last completed in April 2017. The resident feels that the landlord has not kept to the tenancy agreement because it has not completed regular redecoration or maintenance.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for external maintenance of the block.
3. We have also looked at the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for external maintenance of the block.
5. We have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord’s apology, offer of compensation, and commitment to inspect the exterior of the property was sufficient to put right the inconvenience caused as a result of the failures noted in this report.
7. While its stage 2 complaint response was delayed, it offered an appropriate level of compensation to reflect the inconvenience caused.

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.

8. It is important to note that social landlords have limited resources and are expected to manage these resources responsibly, to the benefit of all their residents. The evidence does not show that the condition of exterior of the block was dangerous or a hazard to residents. The landlord’s repairs policy does not provide time frames for cyclical works or planned maintenance but does note that, where there is no health and safety risk, it will decide how and what work to do to ensure it spends its funds in the best way.
9. We can see that the landlord’s contractor inspected the property in September 2024 and recommended some minor works to the exterior of the block. The contractor did not recommend a full replacement of the render or full redecoration. While we understand the resident’s frustration that cyclical works have not been carried out since 2017, the landlord is entitled to rely on the opinions of its qualified contractors and staff when deciding when and what works to complete.
10. It took the landlord 6 months to carry out an inspection of the exterior after the resident first complained, which was unreasonable. During this time, the landlord did not keep the resident up to date on its progress, which would have been frustrating. The landlord failed to assure the resident it was taking her concerns seriously which ultimately led to her making a second complaint and undermined the landlord and tenant relationship.
11. The resident has reported that a member of the landlord’s staff contacted her to discuss her concerns but did not know what the issues were. The resident was distressed because she felt that the landlord did not understand her complaint.
12. In the landlord’s complaint responses, it apologised for the delay in inspecting the exterior and the resulting delay in resolving the matter. It offered the resident the resident compensation for the inconvenience the delays caused, the resident’s need to chase updates.
13. Having consideration for our remedies guidance and the resident’s experience, we find that the landlord’s apology, compensation offer, and commitment to inspect was appropriate to address the issues the resident raised. The offer of compensation is also in line with our remedies guidance where there has been a failure which caused distress and inconvenience. We have therefore made a finding of reasonable redress.

14. The landlord took 10 working days to respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint which was appropriate because it was in line with the timeframes set out in the Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The landlord’s complaint policy is compliant with the Code because it uses the same timeframes.
15. The landlord took 88 working days to respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint. This was outside of the timeframes in the Code. While the landlord did write to the resident to explain it needed more time, it did not meet the revised timeframe it provided. This caused inconvenience to the resident and led to her making a second complaint about the landlord’s lack of response.
16. The landlord acknowledged it had taken too long to respond and offered the resident £150 compensation. We consider that this offer is proportionate to the delay and in line with our remedies guidance.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

17. We did not identify any record keeping concerns in this investigation.

Communication

18. The landlord’s lack of updates led to the resident receiving a poor customer experience.