Sage Housing Limited (202309013)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202309013

Sage Housing Limited

25 July 2024

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of loss of heating.
    2. The resident’s report of a bathroom sink repair.
    3. The complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, living in a 2-bedroom flat with her daughter.
  2. On 8 March 2023 she chased a repair to her bathroom sink plug, as it had been broken for 11 days. The resident then reported on 3 April 2023 that her heating was not working.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 17 March 2023 due to the landlord’s delays in completing the plug repairs and the inconvenience caused. The resident raised additional concerns on 14 April 2023 as she had no heating from 3 April 2023, and she had been waiting 7 weeks for the bathroom plug to be repaired.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 5 June 2023. It recognised that it did not attend works to reinstate the heating within its 24-hour emergency response timeframe and there were delays in chasing the developer to complete the work. It referred the job for the bathroom sink to the developer on 15 March 2023 and the developer resolved the issue on 31 March 2023, which was within its 25-day timeframe for medium priority repairs. It acknowledged it failed to respond to the complaint within a reasonable timeframe and its response was 4 weeks overdue. It offered £250 compensation for the 3 weeks without heating and £50 for the delayed complaint response.
  5. The resident emailed the landlord on 13 June 2023 and disputed that the level of compensation was appropriate for the length of the delays and miscommunication. She had to use the bath to brush her teeth for 7 weeks. She also said the issues had caused additional anxiety and health issues for her daughter during her exams. She asked to escalate her complaint the following day.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 9 August 2023. It reiterated the findings in its initial response. It said £50 compensation did not reflect the complaint handling delays, so increased its offer to £100 for the delayed communication and inconvenience caused.
  7. The resident referred her complaint to the Service as she did not think the compensation offered was appropriate or that the landlord had properly considered the distress caused, the unwarranted time to resolve the issues, and the poor communication.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Ombudsman notes the resident’s report that the landlord’s handling of this case has negatively impacted her daughter’s health. While the Ombudsman is sorry to hear this, it is beyond the expertise of the Service to determine a causal link between the landlord’s actions (or lack thereof) and the impact on the resident’s daughter’s health.
  2. Often, when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health condition has been made worse, the courts are able to rely on expert evidence in the form of a medico-legal report. This will give an expert opinion of the cause of any injury or deterioration of a condition. This would be a more appropriate and effective means of considering such an allegation and so should the resident wish to pursue this matter, she should do so via this route. This investigation will only consider whether the landlord acted in accordance with its policy / its legal obligations, and fairly in the circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of loss of heating

  1. In line with the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for keeping installations for heating in good repair and proper working order. The resident’s tenancy began in November 2022 and the resident’s manual outlines that the property was subject to a 12-month warranty period, in which time the developer was responsible for repairing defects. As the resident reported the loss of heating within the defect period, the developer was responsible for the repair. The manual outlines that a loss of heating is an emergency, which it will aim to attend and rectify within 24 hours.
  2. The resident initially reported the heating was not working on 3 April 2023 and the landlord acted appropriately as it referred the repair to the developer the same day. The resident then chased the repair on 12 April 2023 as the developer had not contacted her. Although the landlord would not be entirely responsible for the delays as the repair fell within the developer’s remit of responsibility, it should have pursued the developer to ensure that the issue was resolved. This is in line with its repairs policy which states it will communicate and work closely with any third parties responsible for repairs to ensure it provides a satisfactory service. The landlord recognised in its complaint response that it did not chase the developer until 13 April 2023.
  3. The landlord subsequently took reasonable steps to chase the developer on 14 April 2023. It assigned its own contractor the same day, as the developer had not committed to an appointment. In its complaint response, the landlord said in line with its usual process it would provide the developer with 7 days’ notice to complete repairs before instructing its own contractor. As the repair had been outstanding for 11 days, and should have been attended within 24 hours, it was reasonable that the landlord used its discretion to deviate from its usual process to ensure it promptly progressed the repair.
  4. The landlord’s repair records show that the resident refused access to the contractor on 14 April 2023 as they did not have identification. It was reasonable for the resident to expect the contractor to show identification before allowing access to the property to ensure her safety. The landlord should have promptly rearranged the appointment to prevent further delays. The repair records show that a further appointment was attended on 17 April 2023, but the resident declined access as she had arranged an independent contractor to attend. The landlord would not be responsible for this element of the delay.
  5. In its complaint response the landlord said the resident confirmed on 18 April 2024 that an electrical fault caused the loss of heating. A contractor attended on 21 April 2024 and reported that an electrician was required, and it attended a follow-on appointment on 25 April 2024 which resolved the issue. It therefore took 22 days to reinstate the heating, which was an unreasonable delay. The landlord stated there were delays in resolving the repair as it was initially misdiagnosed, and it incorrectly thought additional parts needed to be ordered.
  6. Part of a landlord’s handling of extended repairs should be a consideration of possible interim actions to mitigate the impact on the resident. This is particularly important when it is evident it cannot adhere to its response timeframes. In this case, it would have been reasonable to offer temporary heating, however, there is no evidence to suggest the landlord did. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its handling of reports of loss of heating to ensure that temporary heaters are routinely offered.
  7. In its final response, the landlord offered £250 for the 3-week period the resident was without heating. The landlord’s remedies guidance states it will provide £5 compensation per day, up to a maximum of £100, if the resident is without heating for longer than 3 working days between 31 October and 30 April. The resident was therefore entitled to the maximum payment of £100 as she was without heating for 22 days. Given the additional failings, including the delay in pursuing the repair with the developer and misdiagnosing the cause of the issue, it was reasonable that the landlord offered additional compensation.
  8. However, the landlord failed to acknowledge that it did not offer any temporary heaters, which would have significantly increased the comfortability of the property while the repairs were outstanding. This had a particularly detrimental impact as the resident reported the cold temperatures caused her daughter additional anxiety and health issues while sitting her exams. In line with the Service’s remedies guidance, an additional £100 compensation is reasonable as the landlord’s offer of compensation does not quite reflect the detriment to the resident or is proportionate to the identified failings.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a bathroom sink repair

  1. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for keeping sinks in good repair and working order. The resident manual outlines that the landlord will complete non-urgent / routine defects within 25 working days.
  2. It is not entirely clear from the records provided when the resident initially reported the bathroom sink plug repair issue. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. In this case, the lack of records has caused issues establishing a timeline of events, so it is unclear whether the landlord has adhered to its repair response timeframes.
  3. On 3 March 2023 the landlord said it had closed the repair as the resident was a homeowner, which the resident disputed as she is a tenant. The landlord should have suitable records to be able to appropriately identify the resident’s tenancy type, which would have prevented the error and the resident having to further pursue the matter to ensure the repair was resolved. The resident further chased the repair on 8 March 2023.
  4. The landlord raised a job and referred it to the developer on 15 March 2023. In its complaint response the landlord appears to have accepted this as the date it was first on notice to complete the repair. This was unreasonable as it is evident the resident raised it at an earlier date, and it should have considered the time taken to complete the repair from the resident’s initial report.
  5. The repair records show the developer completed the repair on 31 March 2023. From the context of the resident’s emails, it appears she initially reported the issue on or around 25 February 2023, meaning it took approximately 24 working days to complete the repair. However, the resident stated several times throughout the complaint process that she was unable to use the sink for over 7 weeks, which would equate to approximately 35 working days. As such, the Service cannot be certain that the landlord adhered to its repair response timeframe.
  6. In its final response, the landlord did not uphold the complaint as it said it completed the repair within its response timeframe. However, there is insufficient evidence for the Service to verify its conclusion, particularly as the date it relied on for when the repair was raised was incorrect. The landlord also failed to recognise its shortcomings in progressing the repair to the developer, which caused the resident additional time and trouble in pursuing the matter. In view of this, the Ombudsman has determined that it would be appropriate for the landlord to recognise this with £50 compensation. This is in line with the Service’s remedies guidance, which states such amount is appropriate in cases where a minor failure causes inconvenience, time, and trouble to the resident.
  7. The landlord’s review request on 16 August 2024 included a record confirming that the resident initially reported the sink repair on 28 February 2022, demonstrating that it complied with its repair timeframes, with the repair having been completed on 31 March 2023. However, the Ombudsman notes that there was initially an error where the resident was identified incorrectly as a homeowner and the repair order raised on 3 March 2022 was cancelled. A further order was not raised until 15 March 2023, although once raised, it was completed within SLA (service level agreement). Given this error and the subsequent short delay in the landlord raising the further repair it remains appropriate to uphold the finding of service failure given it is not in dispute that the delay and error occurred. This Service would like to highlight that the landlord must ensure that it shares accurate records of repairs activity in a timely manner going forward when required to do so.

Complaint handling

  1. In accordance with the landlord’s repairs policy, it should respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  2. The resident initially raised her complaint on 17 March 2023. However, the landlord did not acknowledge it until 19 April 2023. It then issued its response on 5 June 2023, exceeding its response time by 42 working days, which was an unreasonable delay.
  3. The resident then outlined the reasons she was unhappy with the response on 13 June 2023. In reply, the landlord said it had closed the complaint as it had issued its response. This was unreasonable as it should have explained how the resident could escalate her complaint to ensure its complaint process was transparent and accessible, as it was clear the resident remained dissatisfied. In this case, it did not cause a significant delay in progressing the complaint as the resident further pursued the matter and the landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 19 June 2023. It issued its stage 2 response on 9 August 2023, which exceeded its response time by 21 working days.
  4. In its final response, the landlord offered £100 compensation for the delays. While this was reasonable for the delays at stage 1, it failed to acknowledge the issues at stage 2. As such, a further £50 compensation is warranted due to the additional time and trouble caused to the resident in pursuing the complaint.
  5. The landlord told the Service that it identified an influx in complaints at the time was the reason for the delays. It is positive to note that it said it has put in place measures to improve its complaint process and has increased training and recruitment. This demonstrates it has learned from the outcome of the complaint and took steps to improve its service.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of loss of heating.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a bathroom sink repair.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. In addition to the £350 compensation that has already been offered, the landlord must pay the resident:
    1. £100 for the additional failings identified in its handling of the resident’s reports of loss of heating.
    2. £50 for its handling of the bathroom sink repair.
    3. £50 for the delays in responding to the resident’s stage 2 complaint.
  2. It should provide evidence of the total payment of £550 to the Service within 4 weeks of the date of the report.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its handling of reports of loss of heating to ensure that temporary heaters are routinely offered when it cannot adhere to its repair response timeframes.
  2. The landlord should review its record-keeping practices to ensure it correctly records all repair reports, appointments, and tenancy status, to allow it to swiftly progress repairs and identify any failings.