Sanctuary Housing Association (202001888)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202001888

Sanctuary Housing Association

21 February 2022

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 window repairs at the property.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

The resident and her husband are joint tenants of the landlord’s property. The property is a three-bedroom flat.
In June 2020, the resident contacted the Ombudsman to raise concerns about her landlord. On our complaint form, the resident advised that the need for window repairs at the property had been identified in 2003, but that repairs had not been completed until 2020. The resident said that she wished to seek redress for the stress and inconvenience that they had been caused. In addition, they wished to be reimbursed as she considered that their heating bills were in excess of what they should have been as the windows were in need of repair.
We subsequently made enquiries with the landlord to establish if it had dealt with the resident’s concerns as a formal complaint. In September, the landlord confirmed that it had been in discussion with the resident about her concerns, that the resident had provided some energy bills, and that its complaint investigation was underway.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 10 November. It said:
1. It wished to apologise for the issues the resident had experienced.
2. It had originally sent out a letter about replacing the windows in 2003; however, it could see no evidence of contact between the resident and the repairs team between 2003 and 2019. In addition, the evidence of increased energy usage that had been provided were statements – and did not evidence actual usage.
3. In recognition of the issues that the resident had experienced, it wished to offer a goodwill gesture of £450 – which was broken down as £400 for “serious inconvenience caused and delays”, and £50 for time and trouble of complaint.
On 16 November, the resident contacted the Ombudsman to advise that while the landlord had offered £450 in compensation, she was unhappy with the response that had been received. The resident said that the landlord had not reimbursed them for an increase in bills; and that they had not been compensated for a “failure to repair”, or “missed appointments”. The resident confirmed that she had asked for her complaint to be escalated.
On 17 November, the landlord wrote to the resident and advised that its offer of £450 remained. It clarified that while the resident had provided statements of their energy usage, these only evidenced standard usage. It added that the resident could contact her energy supplier and ask for a comparison of annual usage – and that this would show any evidence of evidence usage. It also added that if the resident wished to progress her complaint, it would consider the request on the provision of any further evidence.
Correspondence between the landlord and the resident continued, and on 5 March 2021, the landlord reiterated that the previous bill information provided did not show an increase in energy usage. As such, the offer remained at £450. If the resident did request further billing information from her supplier, and forward this within a “reasonable timeframe”, it could consider the matter further.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman again in March 2021 as she had received electronic correspondence from the landlord, but was unable to view it. The resident added that she was unclear about what was happening with her complaint. We made enquiries with the landlord and on 15 March it advised that the complaint had been closed as there was no contact from the resident between 7 December 2020 and 4 March 2021. Following further communication, the landlord issued a further response to the complaint dated 13 April 2021. It said:
1. Under its complaints policy, it did not investigate issues that occurred more than six months prior to the complaint being raised – unless there was evidence that a customer had tried to raise a complaint and no action had been taken. In view of its policy, it had considered the service that the resident had received following contact from August 2019.
2. However, for context, it had referred to events that transpired in 2003. At the time, it had commissioned a window replacement programme for the resident’s block This was undertaken by an external contractor. The contractor had contacted the resident on 19 November 2003 to request access on 24 November 2003.
3. Given the time that has passed, it could not clarify how many attempts had been made to contact the resident. However, the reports state that the contractor was unable to gain access to the property and as such, it was not included within the replacement programme at the time.
4. It also noted that concerns had been raised by the resident between 2005 and 2016 about the window, and there were “a number of attempts” to carry out an inspection. However, “no access was noted on many of these occasions”.
5. In August 2019, the resident made contact in relation to the windows and an inspection subsequently took place on 3 September. During this, the resident informed the surveyor that the property was empty and being “squatted”, and that was why the windows were omitted from the original programme.
6. Following the inspection in September 2019, no works were raised as the windows were reported to be “adequate” in terms of opening and closing correctly.
7. On 5 December 2019, the resident’s husband visited the offices with the letter from 2003, and asked if the windows could be replaced. The requested was considered and agreed; and a full property window replacement was raised on 17 December 2019.
8. Its contractor attended on 21 January 2020; however, incorrect measurements were taken at the time and a new appointment had to be raised. It wished to apologise for the inconvenience that was caused as a result of this.
9. The replacement of the windows was completed on 21 February 2020.
The landlord then detailed the events that had transpired after the resident contacted the Ombudsman in 2020 up until its offer of £450 compensation. It said that having considered the series of events, it was satisfied that it did not fail in the service that was provided in 2003. It was also satisfied that its actions in 2019 were appropriate, and that the subsequent offer of £450 was fair in the circumstances.
We subsequently accepted the complaint for investigation and sought clarification about the outstanding issues. In response, the resident advised that she was unhappy with the landlord’s offer of compensation and considered that a minimum of £3,000 would be more acceptable. The resident added that the window sill in the main bedroom was “rotting”, and that she wished for the landlord to check the windows and the contractor’s workmanship.
The landlord informed this service that it had not received any previous reports about any outstanding repairs, or concerns about workmanship. It explained that if the resident had concerns, it would arrange for a surveyor to carry out an inspection. In addition, if the resident wished, it could raise a new complaint for these issues to be investigated further.

The landlord’s duties and obligations

Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, the landlord agrees to keep the structure and exterior of the premises in good repair. This includes the window sills and locks, window frames and glass.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman has been provided with a copy of the letter which was issued by its contractor in 2003 in relation to the windows. It states – “we now have your new double-glazed windows on site ready to fix. We need access to your property on Monday 24 November 2003 to carry out the work.” As such, the evidence does clearly show that the resident’s windows were due to be replaced in 2003.
When the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in 2020, it advised that its records show that the installation did not go ahead as the contractor was unable to gain access. However, the landlord was unable to provide any further detail in relation to how many attempts may have been made by the contractor to contact the resident. The resident has not refuted the landlord’s comments, and has not provided any comment in relation to what happened in 2003. As such, the events that took place in 2003 are unclear; however, given the time that has passed it was not unreasonable that the landlord could not elaborate further on what had transpired at the time. In the circumstances, the landlord’s response was reasonable.
The evidence provided to the Ombudsman shows that once the landlord became aware of the situation in August 2019, it promptly arranged for an inspection of the windows. The repair records show that the surveyor who completed the inspection considered that the windows were “adequate” in terms of “function and ability to open and close correctly”. However, he noted that the resident was unhappy as she considered the windows to be draughty, and that they should have been renewed in 2003. The landlord was entitled to rely on the views of its surveyor when deciding not to carry out any works at the time. However, after the resident’s husband provided a copy of the letter from 2003, the landlord subsequently agreed to replace the windows. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
As detailed above, when the landlord initially responded to the complaint it offered the resident £400 for “serious inconvenience caused and delays”, and a further £50 for the time and trouble in raising a complaint. This offer was upheld at stage two of the landlord’s complaints procedure. The landlord also advised that it could reimburse the resident for any increases in their energy bills upon receipt of the relevant billing information.
The landlord’s offer was reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances. There is no evidence which shows that either the resident or her husband provided the landlord with a copy of the 2003 letter and made it aware that the installation had not gone ahead prior to December 2019. Once the landlord was made aware of the situation, it took prompt action to inspect and subsequently replace the windows. The overall offer to compensate the resident for the inconvenience caused by the delay in replacing the windows was therefore proportionate.
With regards to events that transpired between 2003 and 2019, the landlord said that while the resident had reported issues with the windows, it was unable to gain access on “many occasions” to investigate this further. In correspondence to the Ombudsman, the resident has advised that they had reported concerns about the windows on a number of occasions, but that no action was ever taken. The resident has added that they tried to chase the matter, to see what was happening, but did not receive a response.
The Ombudsman has been provided with a copy of the landlord’s repair records for the property. These do show that concerns had been reported about the windows between 2003 and 2016; and that access could not be gained on some occasions. However, there is insufficient detail on some of the entries, and it is not clear whether an attempt to access the property had been made or if the landlord failed to follow-up.
It would be reasonable for the landlord to ensure that its repair records contain information such as whether an inspection took place, what was found on inspection, and whether any works were identified. However, as the records do not contain sufficient detail, the Ombudsman cannot establish what happened as a result. In addition, the resident’s concerns about her reports not being followed up cannot be addressed. The landlord should review its record keeping practices now, and take steps to ensure that improvements are made as necessary. The landlord should also compensate the resident for the impact of its record keeping failure.
After the complaints procedure was exhausted, the resident informed the Ombudsman that she was unhappy with the landlord’s offer of compensation, that the window sill in the main bedroom was rotten – and that she wished for the workmanship of the window installation to be reviewed. The landlord advised the Ombudsman that it was not previously aware of any issues but that it could arrange to inspect this. The landlord’s offer was reasonable in the circumstances, and it should now contact the resident to obtain further information about her concerns so that an inspection can be arranged as necessary.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55 of the Scheme, in relation to the window repairs at the property, the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s repairs record keeping.

Reasons

In 2019, after the landlord was made aware that the window replacement that had been scheduled in 2003 had not taken place, it promptly arranged for the resident’s windows to be inspected and subsequently replaced. Given the time that had passed, the landlord could not, reasonably, establish what had transpired in 2003. However, it offered the resident compensation that was proportionate in the circumstances.
However, when investigating the complaint, the landlord acknowledged that there had been several reports by the resident in relation to the windows between 2003 and 2016. While the landlord could not gain access on a few occasions, it is not clear from the records whether the landlord could not gain access, or if there was a failure to follow-up. Owing to failings in the record keeping, the Ombudsman cannot say whether there was service failure; however, the failure to record clear information in relation to the resident’s reports is a failing in itself.

Order

Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. Re-offer the £450 compensation which was offered during the course of the complaints procedure. The landlord should also consider any billing evidence that the resident is able to forward for its consideration within the next four weeks. Should the landlord reimburse the resident for increased usage, it should clearly explain the basis on which any reimbursement has been calculated.
2. Pay the resident £150 for the inconvenience caused by the record keeping failure identified by the Ombudsman.
3. Contact the resident to obtain details about outstanding window sill repairs and to arrange an inspection of the windows. The outcome of this should be shared with the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

Within six weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should review its record keeping practices in relation to repairs. The outcome of the review should be shared with the Ombudsman.