Sanctuary Housing Association (202325359)

Background

1. The resident reported faults with her windows. She complained about how long the window repair was taking and remained unhappy with the landlord’s response to her concerns. After referring the complaint to us, the resident made another complaint as the issues remained unresolved. The landlord has since completed the window repairs.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of window repairs.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. The landlord offered reasonable redress for its failures in its handling of:
   1. window repairs at the property.
   2. the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord took an excessive length of time to complete the window repairs and did not communicate regularly with the resident about progress. However, it appropriately acknowledged its failures and offered her a proportionate amount of compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience she experienced as a result.
6. The landlord failed to escalate both of the resident’s complaint escalations. It also failed to address all the issues she raised in her initial complaint. However, the landlord’s offer of compensation was fair and put things right.

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.

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.

7. The subject of both Complaint A and Complaint B is the same. We have therefore considered both together through this investigation.
8. The resident’s lease agreement confirms the landlord is responsible for repairs to her windows, except for repairing the glass. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance procedure says it will aim to complete routine, non-emergency repairs within 45 calendar days.
9. The landlord inspected the windows on 31 March 2022 at the resident’s request and found defects which led to draughts entering the property. It was therefore on notice that a repair was required from 31 March 2022, and it should have raised repairs as soon as it was aware of them. It was unreasonable that the resident was left to chase the matter in August and September 2022. In response, the landlord told her to contact its repairs team. This was unreasonable since it was already aware of the repairs. The landlord failed to appropriately monitor and log repairs.
10. The landlord told us the window repairs were completed in October 2024. This was approximately 2 and a half years after it became aware of the repairs. This was a delay that significantly exceeded the 45 calendar days set out in the landlord’s procedure.
11. Since specialist parts were needed to complete the window repairs, it may have been reasonable for the landlord to exceed its normal repair times. However, it was unreasonable that it did not regularly update the resident on progress. We have seen no evidence it proactively kept the resident updated of the expected timeframe for completion. The landlord’s updates were infrequent and were prompted by the resident spending time and trouble to complain and chase it for updates. It would have been reasonable for it to monitor the progress of the outstanding repair and provide regular updates to the resident. This may have reassured her that it was still actively trying to resolve the repair.
12. The landlord asked 4 contractors in total before the final one was able to get the parts to complete the repair. The contractors’ inability to complete work or obtain parts was largely outside of the landlord’s control. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to regularly chase the contractor to get updated timeframes and relay these to the resident. There was no evidence of the landlord proactively monitoring the repair and its contractors to minimise the delay. It appropriately acknowledged on 29 August 2024 that it had not maintained contact with its contractor. However, it is unclear why it did not identify its failure to do this sooner.
13. It was positive that the landlord acknowledged its failures in its complaint responses and offered compensation. On 1 December 2023 the resident said its compensation offer of £450 was insufficient to recognise her inconvenience and increased heating costs. The landlord increased its compensation for its handling of window repairs to £700, which the resident accepted. The landlord’s decision to increase its offer showed it reasonably considered the negative effect on the resident from the delayed repair, and that further compensation was warranted to put things right.
14. In its final complaint response to Complaint B, the landlord offered £350 further compensation. £100 of this was to recognise the resident’s extra heating costs. In total it offered £1,050 compensation in total for its failures in its handling of the window repairs. The landlord also replaced 4 double glazing units which it was not obliged to do under the lease. While it is noted that the replacement of the windows was significantly delayed, the combination of the double-glazing replacement and £1,050 was a reasonable offer of redress that was in line with our remedies guidance. Our guidance is available to view on our website. This says compensation of over £1,000 is appropriate when there has been a failure by the landlord which has had a severe long-term effect on the resident. We are satisfied that the landlord did take steps to put things right both by the end of Complaint A, given the circumstances at that time, and by the end of Complaint B.
15. The resident told us that a degree of draughtiness remained after the landlord’s window repairs. She said she had not reported this to the landlord. Since it was not informed about this, there was no failure by the landlord in not remedying the remaining draughtiness. However, we will recommend that it inspects the windows to assess what further repairs may be needed.

16. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. The timeframes in the landlord’s complaint policy mirror those set out in our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which sets out our expectations of landlords’ complaint handling practices. These are 10 working days for responding at stage 1, and 20 working days for responding at the final stage. At either stage it may extend the deadline by 10 working days if it tells the resident that it needs more time.
17. There were failures in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. These were:
    1. It failed to escalate Complaint A in a timely manner. As a result, the resident needed to spend time and trouble chasing the complaint escalation in May and June 2023 before the landlord acknowledged it on 27 October 2023. This was an unreasonable delay of 6 months before it recognised her complaint escalation.
    2. The landlord closed Complaint A when the resident did not respond to its initial question about the escalation request. Its complaints policy says it will tell the resident when it declines to progress a complaint. Therefore, it was inappropriate that the landlord did not tell the resident it would close the complaint and explain why.
    3. The landlord’s final stage complaint response to Complaint A on 24 November 2023 did not address the resident’s concerns that the condition of the windows had led to her spending more on heating. There was no evidence it considered this until she spent further time and effort expressing dissatisfaction with the compensation amount in December 2023.
    4. The resident escalated Complaint B on 21 April 2024, and it did not respond until 29 August 2024. This was approximately 3 months later than the timeframe in its policy and the Code.
18. It was positive that the landlord acknowledged most of its complaint handling failures in its complaints responses and offered compensation. It did not acknowledge the resident’s request for compensation for heating costs in its final response to Complaint A. However, it acted reasonably by agreeing an increased level of compensation with the resident afterwards in December 2023 to account for this.
19. Over both complaints, the landlord offered £550 compensation in total for the resident’s distress and inconvenience arising from its failures in complaint handling. Its offer of £550 was a proportionate amount which put right the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced. This amount was in line with our remedies guidance. This says that compensation of £100 to £600 is appropriate when there have been failures which negatively affected the resident, but which did not have a permanent effect.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

20. The landlord did not provide comprehensive records of its contact with its contractors about the repairs. It may wish to review its procedures for monitoring its contractors and recording contact to ensure that residents’ repairs are not unnecessarily delayed.

Communication

21. The landlord could have coordinated better between its internal departments to raise the window repairs sooner and minimise the delay. It may wish to consider how its internal departments can communicate better and act in a coordinated way to improve its service to residents.
22. The landlord may also wish to consider carrying out refresher training with its complaints handling staff. This may be with a view to improving its response times and responding to complaints in accordance with the Code.