Sanctuary Housing Association (201914372)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201914372

Sanctuary Housing Association

11 March 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

  1. The complaint is about the level of compensation offered to the resident by the landlord, following a period of time when her shower was inoperative.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
  2. On 3 January 2020, after a repairs operative attended the resident’s property, the shower pump pipe was disconnected, meaning the resident could not use her shower. Major works then ensued on her shower over the next several weeks. The bathroom basin and toilet were still working while the work was done.
  3. On 4 January 2020 the resident raised a formal complaint. She said that she had been told she could not use her shower even though it was her only means of bathing. She also referred to other issues she had with the condition of the property when she first moved in.
  4. On 7 February 2020 the resident advised the landlord that as a resolution to her complaint she wanted her property to be “fit to fully live in”. She referred to how she had not had bathing facilities for five weeks. She said she wanted to be compensated for being without bathing facilities, having to take annual leave with no work carried out in the property, having to wash elsewhere, and for the “anxiety and stress” caused.
  5. The landlord’s records indicate the shower was fixed on either 13 or 14 February 2020 (the records are not clear which day it was).
  6. On 5 March 2020 the landlord issued what it referred to as its stage two complaint response. It apologised for how the resident’s complaint was handled at stage one of its process (no copy of a stage one response has been provided for this investigation), and for delays completing the work. The landlord explained the timeline of events from when an operative first attended the resident’s property on 2 January 2020. It upheld her complaint, and offered her £419.00 as compensation (some of this amount was for problems the resident had also experienced earlier in December 2019):

a)     Complaint not being responded to at FLR in accordance with P&P £75.00

b)     Poor communications £25.00

c)     Multiple visits £25.00

d)     Missed visits x 2 @ £10 between 4-6 February 2020 £20.00

e)     Time & trouble taken to pursue a complaint £25.00

f)       Delays (maximum amount) £50.00

g)     Inconvenience 3 x £25 (December – February 2020) £75.00

h)     Shower running hot and cold from 22 December – 30 December 2020 – 10% of daily rent for 8 days = £11 

i)        Loss of bathing facilities from 3 January – 13 February 2020 – 20% of daily rent for 41 days = £113

  1. The landlord concluded by explaining that if it did not hear further from the resident within 20 days it would “consider this matter resolved” and close the complaint.
  2. The resident responded to the landlord on 6 March 2020. She was dissatisfied with the compensation. She said that if she had “insisted on being decanted” it would have cost £50 per day and therefore £2050 in total, which the landlord would have had to pay for. She was dissatisfied with the offer of £25 for her time and trouble pursuing the complaint. She also said she was unable to use the toilet for one evening while the shower repair work was ongoing, although no specific date was given.
  3. On 9 March 2020 the landlord emailed the resident. It clarified how it had decided to offer the resident £419 in line with its compensation policy. It said that it had taken into consideration the fact that the resident was unable to use her toilet for one evening when it offered her £124 for the loss of facilities. It said that the resident would not have been decanted as she had “hot running water and a basin in which to wash”.
  4. It referred the resident to this Service if she remained dissatisfied with the outcome. 

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord acknowledged several of its shortcomings in terms of its handling of the major repair work to the resident’s shower. In recognition of that the landlord acted fairly by acknowledging its mistakes, apologising for them and making an offer of redress. 
  2. The landlord’s compensation policy recognises that a gesture of goodwill may be the most appropriate remedy in certain circumstances when the resident has “incurred time, trouble or distress” as a result of its action or inaction. It offered the resident £419 after having considered when its inaction had impacted her. It took into account what the resident had said she wanted as a resolution to her complaint. The resident wanted to be compensated for having no bathing facilities for a duration of time, having appointments cancelled, and undergoing anxiety and stress. In recognition of this, the landlord offered the resident compensation and its apologies. The amounts if offered were well explained, in line with its compensation policy, and broadly in line with what the Ombudsman would expect in these circumstances.
  3. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the amount of compensation the landlord offered. She explained that the landlord had not considered that if she had insisted on being decanted, alternative accommodation would have cost the landlord approximately £2000. The landlord explained in response that decanting would not have happened because, even though her shower was not working, she still had bathing facilities in the form of running hot water and a basin. The landlord’s compensation policy explains that a resident may be decanted “due to rooms being uninhabitable”. This in no way undermines the obvious inconvenience and frustration for the resident being without a shower, but, in the circumstances of this complaint, the landlord’s response was reasonable and in line with its policy, as the bathroom had not been deemed uninhabitable given that it was still partially useable.
  4. The resident has also said that she was dissatisfied with the £25 that was offered to her for her time and trouble spent chasing the complaint whilst the repair work was ongoing. It is not disputed that the resident “had to chase, call and email virtually daily”. No evidence has been provided for this investigation of the landlord providing the resident with a timeframe for the completion of the repair work to her shower. Nonetheless, the landlord acknowledged the efforts the resident went to, and a significant part of the compensation it offered was for its poor communication, poor complaint handling, and basic time and trouble she was put to. It acknowledged how its failure to communicate with her effectively throughout the complaint procedure and repair work to the shower had exacerbated the situation, and it offered suitable redress in light of this.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the complainant prior to investigation which resolved the complaint satisfactorily.