Sanctuary Housing Association (201914140)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201914140

Sanctuary Housing Association

27 August 2021

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs to the resident’s front door.
2. Repairs to the resident’s washing machine.
3. Repairs to the resident’s fridge.

Background and summary of events

The resident has had an assured tenancy with the landlord since 15 November 2019 and an assured non-shorthold tenancy since 15 November 2020. The resident lives in the property
At some point in December 2019 the resident contacted the landlord to report a fault with his washing machine and fridge. Contractors attended on 17 December 2019 to inspect the washing machine and identified that it needed to be replaced.
On 19 December 2019 the landlord’s maintenance team attended the property to assess the door and the job records noted that they overhauled the door.
On 7 January 2020 contractors attended the property to inspect the fridge and identified that it needed to be replaced.
At some point in early January 2020 the landlord was contacted by police to advise that they had forced entry to the property to check on the resident’s welfare, and that the door needed to be inspected to ensure it was secure. Following this on 7 January 2020 the landlord’s contractor attended the property, however there was a disagreement between the resident and the contractor which resulted in no work being carried out. The landlord’s maintenance team attended the property on 10 January 2020 however the resident denied them access.
On 11 January 2020 the resident called the landlord to request another visit saying that the property was insecure as he could not lock the door. The landlord noted that its operatives had attended the previous evening but that it would arrange a further visit. The maintenance team attended again at some point within the following week and confirmed that a new door was required because of a failure with the multi-point locking system, but that the door was nevertheless secure.
On 21 January 2020 the resident attended the landlord’s office and expressed dissatisfaction about how the repair issues had been managed. The resident’s concerns were recorded as a complaint, with the following elements being set out as requiring a response from the landlord:
1. It was taking too long for the necessary repair work on the door to be arranged. A theft had occurred because of the condition of the door and the resident held the landlord responsible for this.
2. It was taking too long to fix the washing machine, which had damaged his bed sheets during a recent wash cycle.
3. It was taking too long to fix his fridge, and he had been buying takeaway food because he was without a fridge.
On the same day, 21 January 2020, the landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint. Contractors also attended the property to install a new washing machine and fridge that day.
On 23 January 2020 the landlord left a voicemail message for the resident noting it wished to discuss the complaint and that it was seeking an update on the replacement front door.
On 31 January 2020 the resident contacted the landlord to report that he was unable to lock the front door and a contractor attended that evening to carry out a temporary repair, leaving it secure.
On 3 February 2020 an order was raised with the landlord’s maintenance team to fit a new front door, and the landlord left a message for the resident on 19 February 2020 to note that an appointment had been booked for this work to go ahead on 22 February 2020. The maintenance team attended the property to carry out the work on that date.
On 24 February 2020 the landlord rang the resident who stated that he was dissatisfied because the door was too short and needed further work to fit a hardwood strip to the bottom of the door. The landlord agreed to look into this issue. It spoke to its repairs team who noted that the door was finished apart from small finishing touches like beading, which had been left incomplete due to the wishes of the resident that the contractors leave the property.
On 27 February 2020 the landlord left a message for the resident noting that operatives would attend on 29 February 2020 to finalise the outstanding work. The work went ahead as planned on that day.
On 3 March 2020 the landlord rang the resident about the job who expressed concerns that a 3mm gap had been left between the door and the frame, and stated that the lock did not meet regulations. On 9 March 2020 the landlord left a message for the resident stating that it had confirmed with its staff that, upon assessment of pictures of the installed door, it was of the view that there was no additional work required. The resident rang the landlord on the same day stating that the door was stiff.
On 16 March 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident to apologise for the delays and inconvenience that he had experienced, offering him £75 compensation in response.
On 17 March 2020 the resident spoke with the landlord about an appointment that had been booked for 27 March 2020 to inspect the door. The resident expressed that the length of time he would have to wait for the inspection was too long, with the landlord responding that because it was not an emergency priority repair job, this timeframe was within its policy guidance which the resident expressed dissatisfaction with.
On 19 March 2020 the resident stated to the landlord that he was dissatisfied with the £75 offer of compensation and still felt that the door work was unsatisfactory. The complaint was then escalated to the final stage of the landlord’s process which was confirmed by letter to the resident on 20 March 2020. In this letter the landlord noted that it would usually aim to provide a full response within 20 days, however the Covid-19 lockdown meant that some delays may be experienced in this process.
On 24 March 2020 the landlord sent the resident a text to state that the appointment would not be taking place because of the Government measures put in place in response to the Covid-19 pandemic.
On 16 April 2020 the landlord provided its final complaint response in which it set out the timeline of the relevant events complained about. In response to the complaint, the landlord set out the following:
1. It apologised for the issues that the resident had experienced with the fridge and washing machine in his new home so soon after moving in, as well as the delays in carrying out the necessary repair and replacement work.
2. It acknowledged there had been a delay in the fitting of a new door after it became apparent that one was required, and the work to fit new appliances was also slightly delayed.
3. Its staff had confirmed that the door installation was complete, but once a routine repairs service had resumed post lockdown it would attend the property to see if any adjustments were required.
4. It noted that the washing machine was not mentioned during the resident’s contact with the landlord and apologised that this was not considered within the overall assessment of the stage one complaint. Feedback was passed on to the relevant team to ensure they responded to all issues raised by a resident in the complaint process.
5. It was sorry to hear that the resident had experienced thefts from the property but was not able to offer compensation related to this within its complaints process. It noted that theft was a criminal matter that needed to be reported to the police. In accordance with his tenancy agreement, it did not insure his personal belongings against theft or damage and so encouraged him to discuss the matter further with his home contents insurance provider.
6. It made a revised offer to him of £196 compensation consisting of:
  1. £96 for delayed repairs:

(1) £24 for the door.

(2) £34 for the washing machine.

(3) £38 for the fridge.

£50 for overall inconvenience.
£25 for unclear records around the property’s condition at the beginning of the tenancy.
£25 for the failure to address the washing machine element of the complaint at stage one of the process.

On 24 April 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord, stating that the door had not been damaged by police but rather was damaged before he moved in. He stated that he believed he was entitled to more compensation for the problems that had occurred with him being without a boiler for three weeks as well as a problem with the lift in the building. He noted that a theft had occurred in the property while the door repair was outstanding.
On 29 April 2020 the landlord responded to the resident, noting that the complaint response had been an investigation into the door, fridge and washing machine and the scope of the complaint did not include any boiler or lift faults as these had not previously been raised. It provided him with direct contact details to report any outstanding customer service issues while noting that any allegations of theft would need to be dealt with as a police matter.
On 30 April 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord stating that the latter had a duty to ensure the door was fully secure and that the locks were changed. He restated that he had witnessed a trespasser on the property who had the intent to rob him. The landlord responded on the same day apologising that he remained dissatisfied but advising that a new door had been fitted prior to the start of his tenancy which included a new lock. It again referred him to the police for any concerns about theft.
On the same day, 30 April 2020, the landlord responded to the resident apologising that he remained dissatisfied but noting that a new door was fitted prior to the beginning of his tenancy which included a new lock. He advised the resident that he should contact the police if he was concerned about theft.

Policies and Procedures

The resident’s tenancy agreement sets out that the landlord is responsible for repairs to the resident’s door.
The landlord’s repairs policy sets out various repair categories with corresponding timeframes for repairs to be completed:
1. An emergency repair is necessary to remove a serious threat to the health and safety of a resident. Such a repair should be attended and made safe within 24 hours of receipt of the repair request. These include insecure external doors or no water supply. A second appointment may be required to complete all remedial works following an initial attendance.
2. An appointed repair is any non-emergency repair for which access to the property is required. These should be completed within 28 days. These include leaking taps and gutters and partial loss of electrical or water supply.
The landlord’s compensation guidance notes that the landlord will pay compensation in exceptional circumstances where there has been a demonstrable loss for the resident that the landlord is responsible for, or where it fails to provide a service for 14 days or more or another timeframe outside that established in the tenancy agreement. Specific amounts for particular failures are set out as follows:
1. A maximum of £25 for a failure in service that has caused a resident serious inconvenience, loss or disadvantage. If a resident has incurred costs because of the landlord’s failure to meet service standards, this can be considered for a direct reimbursement upon production of evidence.
2. £10 for the first day or part thereof, and £2 for each day or part day that a repair remains outstanding outside its set service timeframes, up to a limit of £50 per repair.

Assessment and findings

Repairs to the front door

Following reports of the need to assess the front door, the landlord attended the property on 19 December 2019 and overhauled it. There is no evidence that there was any problem with the door or the property being insecure at this point. While the landlord has noted that in its final complaint response that there was some lack of clarity about the condition of the door when the tenancy began, the fact that it was overhauled promptly following the initial report and assessment demonstrated that the issue was quickly resolved. Once the work was done, there were no reported problems until the attendance of the police who forced entry a few weeks later. The landlord also made an appropriate offer of £25 to the resident for the lack of clarity in its records on this point.
Following this it was contacted by the police in early January 2020 who advised that the door needed to be checked following a forced entry to ensure it was secure. Contractors attended the property on 7 January 2020 but work was not carried out due to a disagreement between the resident and the contractor, and a similar event occurred on 10 January 2020 when the landlord again attempted to carry out an inspection.
The resident specifically stated that he could not lock the door when he contacted the landlord on 11 January 2020. When the landlord attended the property within a week of the communication, it established that a new door was necessary due to an issue with the locking mechanism. However it was also apparent that the door itself was secure, meaning it was not an emergency repair and the repair timeframe for the issue was therefore still 28 days. As of 23 January 2020, the landlord was in the process of arranging for a replacement front door, and a contractor attended the property on 31 January 2020, the same day the resident reported having a problem with locking it and carried out a temporary repair which was appropriate to resolve the security issue that came up at that time. An order was raised to fit the front door on 3 February 2020 and the installation went ahead on 22 February 2020. Final minor work including beading was carried out on 29 February 2020.
There was a delay between when the landlord became aware of the issue in early January 2020, and the date which it responded when considered against its policy timeframes and what would have been a reasonable period for it to respond within. It has acknowledged this failing in its complaint response. It is not entirely clear how much longer it took the landlord to replace the door outside its set timeframe, given the specific date of when the issue was first reported in early January 2020 is not apparent in the evidence. It is also clear that the resident contributed to delays in the repair process given it attempted to inspect the issue on both 7 and 10 January 2020 but was prevented from doing so by the resident.
Regardless it is evident that the time the landlord was progressing the repair went at least a number of weeks beyond the 28-day timeframe, given it was made aware of the issue at the very latest in the first week of January 2020, and the new door was not installed until 22 February 2020. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord made an offer of compensation to the resident. Considered in line with the landlord’s own compensation policy and the circumstances of the case, the offer of £24 was appropriate considering the additional portion of the £50 offered for inconvenience experienced by the resident.
While the resident contacted the landlord on multiple occasions after the replacement with concerns about the door, the landlord responded reasonably to each of these enquiries by stating that it had fulfilled its repair obligations. It relied reasonably on the advice of its repairs team who inspected the door on multiple occasions after its installation and who noted there to be no major work outstanding. It was appropriate that the landlord carried out these additional inspections to ensure there were no outstanding issues, and it responded reasonably to each of the resident’s raised concerns on this basis.
The resident’s position that a theft had occurred because of an issue with the door was not backed up by the evidence available when the landlord carried out various inspections of the door, save for on 31 January 2020 when a particular issue with locking the door became apparent and was resolved. The landlord acted appropriately in directing the resident to make a claim on his contents insurance for the loss of any personal possessions in line with its policy.

Repairs to the washing machine

The landlord was first made aware of the issues with the washing machine at some point in December 2019, prior to 17 December 2019. Contractors attended on 17 December 2019 to inspect the washing machine and identified that it needed to be replaced. Following the resident’s complaint on 21 January 2020 that the repair was taking too long to fix the washing machine, contractors attended the property the same day to install a replacement. In the landlord’s complaint response it apologised for the issues he had with the washing machine soon after moving into the property and offered £34 for the delayed repairs, as well as £50 for the overall inconvenience of the repair issues.
There were evidently delays between when the landlord became aware of the repair issue and the replacement of the appliance. The matter would logically have been classified as an appointed/non-emergency repair which should have been resolved within 28 days. While it is not clear exactly which date the report was first made on, it is evident given the replacement was undertaken on 21 January 2020 that this was outside the landlord’s repair timeframes. It also is reasonable to suggest that the action of replacing the appliance on the same day was prompted by the resident’s complaint, which should not have been necessary to resolve the repairs and demonstrated the distress he had experienced in waiting for the matter to be resolved.
Considering the evidence available of the timeframe, and the fact that the delay included the Christmas break, the offer of £34 in addition to a portion of the £50 offered for the overall inconvenience was an appropriate one for the landlord to make to the resident. The delay, while causing frustration to the resident, does not appear to have gone significantly beyond the landlord’s repair timeframes, and the compensation demonstrated fair redress to the resident.

Repairs to the fridge

The landlord was first made aware of the issues with the fridge at some point in December 2019. Contractors attended the property on 7 January 2020 to inspect the issues and identified that the fridge needed to be replaced. The resident contacted the landlord on 21 January 2020 to raise a complaint, noting that at that time the fridge had not yet been replaced. The matter was resolved on the same day, with contractors attending the property to install a new fridge. The landlord apologised to the resident in its final complaint response for the issues the resident had with the fridge soon after moving in, as well as the delays in arranging the replacement. It offered £38 compensation for the delayed repair, and the fridge complaint was considered as part of the £50 offer for the resident’s overall inconvenience as well.
As with the other repair issues, there were clear delays in the landlord’s repair process given the matter should have been classified as a non-emergency repair and resolved within 28 days. While it is unclear exactly when the matter was first reported beyond the general timeframe of the first half of December 2019, the repair was evidently not resolved within the 28-day timeline. Similarly to the washing machine issue, the resident had to chase the repair by making a complaint, which would have contributed to the delay and his distress.
It was therefore appropriate that the landlord made an offer of compensation to the resident given it recognised that failings occurred during its handling of the substantive and complaint process. The offered amount of £38, considered in line with the additional £50 for overall inconvenience, was appropriate in recognition of the impact caused by the delay to the resident and was a valid attempt to resolve the complaint in line with the landlord’s compensation policy.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress by the landlord regarding its handling of repairs to the resident’s front door.
In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress by the landlord regarding its handling of repairs to the resident’s washing machine.
In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress by the landlord regarding its handling of repairs to the resident’s fridge.

Reasons

There were demonstrable delays by the landlord in responding to the repair issue with the resident’s door once it became clear that a repair was required. While there were some periods of time that the landlord was not responsible for the delays, such as when the resident did not allow the work to go ahead, the time which the delay was outstanding took the landlord beyond the repair timeframes clearly set out in its policy. The landlord has recognised its failing and made a reasonable offer of compensation to provide redress for this. It also responded fairly to each of the subsequent enquiries the resident made about the quality of the repair.
The landlord failed to adhere to its set timeframe for repairs regarding the issue with the resident’s washing machine. The resident was required to chase an update to the matter by making a formal complaint. Nevertheless, the landlord recognised its failure and carried out the replacement work on the same day as the complaint was made. Its offer of compensation was appropriate in the circumstances and demonstrated a valid attempt to provide a resolution for the resident.
The landlord failed to adhere to its set timeframe for repairs regarding the issue with the resident’s fridge. The resident was required to chase an update to the matter by making a formal complaint. Nevertheless, the landlord recognised its failure and carried out the replacement work on the same day as the complaint was made. Its offer of compensation was appropriate in the circumstances and demonstrated a valid attempt to provide a resolution for the resident.

Recommendations

I make the following recommendation:
1. The landlord, within the next four weeks, to pay to the resident its original offer of £196 for the failings in its repairs process.
The finding of reasonable redress is contingent on the above recommendation being carried out. If this payment has previously been made to the resident, the recommendation will be considered to have been carried out.