Sanctuary Housing Association (202103334)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202103334

Sanctuary Housing Association

18 January 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 response to the resident’s reports of multiple repair issues at her property, including:
1. a crack in the external wall of the property;
2. a boundary wall in a state of disrepair;
3. a roof leak.
The complaint is also about the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the property of the landlord. The deed of transfer has not been provided to this service by the landlord and so it is unclear when the resident purchased the property. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing.
It is a term of the lease that the landlord maintains the roof and main structure of the building, including all external walls. The resident is responsible for the internal decoration of the property.
Should works recoverable through a service charge be in excess of £250, Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (as amended by the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002) requires that all leaseholders be notified of the works and that they be given 30 days to discuss the works and make comments. Works must then be tendered, and any quotes must also then be approved by the leaseholders.
The landlord operates a repairs policy. The policy defines emergency repairs as repairs that are necessary to remove a serious threat to the health and safety of residents. Examples of emergency repairs include a water leak coming through the ceiling. Such repairs will be attended to within 24 hours. Non-emergency repairs will be completed within 28 days, and examples include repairs to boundary walls. The policy notes that unforeseen delays can occur, following which the landlord will provide as much warning as possible and agree a suitable way forward. The policy does not mention that it does not apply to leaseholders.
The landlord operates a complaints policy. The landlord will aim to resolve complaints informally initially. If this is unsuccessful, a complaint will then be investigated through a two stage complaints procedure.
The landlord operates a compensation policy. The policy covers time, trouble, and inconvenience caused to residents, and also delayed or poor responses from the landlord. It also covers additional costs incurred by a resident or damage to a resident’s belongings due to the landlord’s inaction. The policy notes it takes an evidence-based approach to such compensation. The policy notes it may offer up to £400 for a ‘high impact’ issue. It may also offer up to an additional £150 for time and trouble. Regarding loss of use of rooms, the policy notes the landlord will assess the habitability of a property at the point a repair has been requested. In such circumstances, a reduction of rent of 20% may be offered for the loss of the use of a bedroom.
Both the resident and her partner have individually communicated with the landlord regarding the complaint. For the purposes of this report, communications from either will be referred to as being from the resident, unless it is otherwise necessary to distinguish between them.

Summary of events

On 29 October 2018, the resident reported to the landlord that she had noticed a crack in the front facing external wall of her property. She noted that the landlord had responsibility for external walls and queried what she should do next. The landlord replied that this should be reported to the repairs team. This service has not been provided with evidence that this was subsequently reported to this team, however, in its later communications, the landlord has accepted it was made aware of the crack at this time.
While in discussions with the landlord about her service charge, the resident again noted the crack in a communication dated 26 March 2019, and that she had only just been contacted by the landlord’s architect, which she considered to be poor service from the landlord. On 11 April 2019, she noted that the landlord’s structural engineer had now visited the property, but reiterated she was dissatisfied by the amount of time this had taken. She also advised the crack was beginning to cause internal damage.
In its later correspondence, the landlord has advised that the surveyor’s report issued in April 2019 recommended that the crack be monitored for a period of 12 months, following which further works could be carried out depending on how the crack had developed. It is not evident, however, that this was advised to the resident at this time.
The landlord has provided this service with its internal communications from the period of the complaint. In April 2020, the landlord noted that it was in the process of reporting the cracks to its insurer.
On 20 July 2020, the resident reported to the landlord that other local residents were loitering outsider her property and leaning against the boundary wall to the property. She advised that this boundary wall was in a state of disrepair and likely to collapse, which she considered to be unsafe. On 28 July 2020, the landlord advised it would carry out an inspection of the boundary wall to determine if any works were required.
It is evident that in August 2020, the resident chased an update as to when the boundary wall would be inspected. On 3 August 2020, the landlord advised that usually its repair team would call to arrange a time, but as this wall did not require access, they may not do so in this instance.
On 30 September 2020, the resident raised a formal complaint. Regarding the external crack on the wall, she noted the issue had been ongoing for over a year and that she considered she had lost out on the sale of her property due to not being able to advise when the works would be completed. She also advised she was having to expend money on internal repairs due to the crack. She noted the landlord had advised her it was liaising with its insurer regarding repair works, but that she had since had no further updates. Regarding the boundary wall, she noted the landlord had carried out an inspection, but that she had received no further updates about any required works. Additionally, she advised there was now water entering her bedroom which she considered to be coming from the roof (it is not evident if this final concern was previously reported to the landlord prior to this complaint). The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 2 October 2020.
On 5 October 2020, the resident provided video evidence depicting water coming into her bedroom from the ceiling and confirmed she had reported this to the landlord’s repairs team. She noted that when she had purchased the property, the landlord had mentioned the roof was in need of refurbishment and also that she was concerned that her neighbours used the roof area as a terrace for which it was not designed.
On 12 October 2020, the landlord advised it was currently obtaining quotes for the repair works. The resident queried which works these quotes related to and the landlord subsequently advised the quotes were for “any structural repairs.” The resident also enquired as to how long the works would then take, to which the landlord advised it would keep her informed.
Throughout October 2020, the resident made four requests for updates. She also noted that the leak was actively continuing and that she was concerned about damage to her belongings. On each occasion, the landlord replied that it would chase up its contractors, but it is not evident it ever then provided a further update. On 30 October 2020, the landlord advised it had raised the works order on 20 October 2020, and so its contractors would have 28 days to attend.
The resident noted on 3 November 2020 that the contractors had now attended to assess the works and had advised her they could start work as soon as the works were approved by the landlord. The landlord subsequently advised it was awaiting the contractor’s report so that it could then approve the works. On 19 November 2020, the landlord advised it had received the report and had forwarded it to its surveyor to approve. The resident enquired how long this may take to which the landlord advised it had requested it be done as soon as possible.
The resident made several more requests for updates throughout November 2020, to which again the landlord replied it was chasing updates, but then did not provide any follow up. On 23 November 2020, the resident requested her complaint be escalated to the formal investigation stage of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. The landlord acknowledged this on 25 November 2020 and advised it would provide its stage one response by 23 December 2020.
On 2 December 2020, the resident noted she was still yet to receive an update regarding the works. She noted she had leaks coming into her bedroom for seven weeks now and that she considered the room to be unusable. On 3 December 2020, the landlord advised it was still chasing an update on the works, and that it had queried with its surveyor as to whether any interim works could be carried out to address the water ingress. The landlord also noted the resident’s previous comments that she believed the landlord to have advised when she had purchased the property that the roof required refurbishment. It subsequently requested she provide evidence of these comments.
The landlord’s internal communications from 3 December 2020 note that the roof contractor had advised no temporary works could be carried out to the roof and that it required replacement. On 4 December 2020, the resident provided an email from the landlord from the period prior to her purchasing the property which noted comments about the roof requiring replacement.
On the same date, the resident noted to the landlord that contractors had arrived at her property. The landlord confirmed that urgent works had been approved and the contractors were available for an immediate start. It apologised for not having had the chance to give prior notice to the resident. It is not disputed that the roof was then successfully replaced at this time.
On 8 December 2020, the landlord’s internal communications note a query as to whether the use of the roof as a terrace had been investigated, to which a member of staff of the landlord replied that they did not believe so.
On 10 December 2020, the resident queried when the remaining works would be completed. The landlord replied on 11 December 2020 that it was still awaiting quotes for the remaining works. On 22 December 2020, the landlord advised that as it was still awaiting a resolution for the further works, it was extending its complaint response time to 12 January 2021.
On 12 January 2021, the landlord advised its repair responses were being affected by the most recent COVID-19 restrictions, and that at this stage, it was unable to comment on whether the resident’s works would be affected.
On the same date, the landlord provided its stage one response. The landlord acknowledged the wall crack had been reported initially in late 2018, and that following its inspection in April 2019, it had been advised to monitor the crack for 12 months. The landlord had arranged for a further structural survey in February 2020, but COVID-19 restrictions from March 2020 had meant it could only carry out emergency repairs. Following the lifting of these restrictions, it had faced a large back log of repair works which had further delayed works. It noted it had received its contractor’s report for the structural works on 18 November 2020 and that it was still awaiting quotes for works. The landlord did not specifically refer to the works regarding the boundary wall but apologised for delays to all the works. It noted that COVID-19 restrictions may continue to delay the works.
Regarding the water ingress, the landlord noted it had first been made aware of the water ingress on 3 October 2020, following which its contractors had attended on 13 October 2020. It advised that a temporary repair had not been possible, and that the roof had subsequently been fully replaced on 4 December 2020. It apologised for the delay to these works and acknowledged that they should have been prioritised much sooner.
Regarding all three works, the landlord offered £600 compensation, breaking it down as £100 for delays, £50 for the delay to its formal complaint response, £50 for its poor communication, and £400 (which it noted was the maximum it could offer) for the high impact on the resident.
On 19 January 2021, the resident advised she would accept the compensation but that she was unhappy with the complaint response. She also advised the compensation did not cover her own internal redecoration costs caused by the crack and the water ingress. She also queried whether she could arrange for her own repair works for the crack and then be reimbursed by the landlord. On 21 January 2021, the landlord advised it would need to carry out the external works itself as it was responsible for these. It also requested evidence of the resident’s expenditure for repair works in order for it to consider any additional compensation.
On 29 January 2021, the resident provided text message quotes from her redecorator, following which the landlord advised it could not accept a text message quote as evidence on which to base further compensation. It also advised it was continuing to chase up quotes for the works.
On 3 February 2021, the resident expressed concern that there had not been a mention of any works to the boundary wall. On 8 February 2021, the landlord confirmed that the quote included the boundary wall, and that it had now received the quote and was awaiting authorisation. The resident subsequently queried how long authorisation would take, however, it is not evident the landlord provided a response.
Based on the landlord’s internal communications, throughout February 2021, the landlord identified that, as the works were in excess of £250, a Section 20 consultation with other residents would be required. It also queried why this had not been claimed for through the insurer, to which another member of the landlord’s staff advised it had not informed the insurer when the issue was initially reported, so it was unable to claim. It also noted this was likely to be highlighted in the Section 20 process.
The landlord provided a stage two response to the resident on 23 February 2021. It reiterated its apologies for the delays, and the further delays which it attributed to the COVID-19 restrictions. It advised that quotes had now been received and were being approved by the relevant team within the landlord, who would be in touch with the resident shortly to provide a timescale for works. Regarding any additional compensation, it advised that as it had not received any further evidence of expenditure, it would not be offering any additional compensation.
In early March 2021, the resident made several further requests for updates. On 5 March 2021, the landlord advised a Section 20 consultation would be required, for which there would be a further delay. It is evident that the resident then queried why the insurer would not be covering the costs, to which the landlord replied that it “did approach our insurers who assessed the damage and advised it would not be covered.” The resident chased further updates and on 23 March 2021 requested the landlord explain why the insurer would not cover the damage. She further expressed her dissatisfaction that the possibility of a Section 20 consultation had never been raised in the two years her complaint had been ongoing.
On 24 March 2021, the landlord advised it was liaising with its insurer in order to provide more clarity on why the repairs would not be covered. It advised, however, that it had a legal obligation to proceed with the Section 20 consultation. It is not disputed that the landlord’s notification of works as required under the Section 20 procedure was issued on the same date.
The landlord’s internal communications from this time note that its staff identified that the Section 20 process should have been started when it was made aware the insurer would not cover the costs.
On 9 April 2021, following ongoing concern from the resident, the landlord advised that it was investigating whether these works could have been covered by an insurance claim.
On 28 June 2021, the landlord advised the resident that it had not correctly reported the issue to its insurer when it had initially been reported. This had meant it was unable to make a claim. It advised that as such, it had cancelled the Section 20 consultation and would be carrying out the works at no cost to leaseholders. It also advised that an insurance claim would have resulted in a £1,000 excess being passed on to leaseholders, but that no such charge would be applied. It apologised once again for its “suggestion that residents should meet the costs of the work,” and for the time it had taken to progress the works.
The resident has advised this service that as of December 2021, the works were underway but were yet to be completed. She has also advised that there have been ongoing issues with damp caused by the crack which she is continuing to chase with the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Repairs

As per the terms of the lease, the landlord is responsible for repairs to the roof and external structure of the property.
The landlord’s repair policy distinguishes between emergency and non-emergency repairs. While not specifically referred to in the examples of non-emergency repairs, it was reasonable for the landlord to not have considered the crack to be a “serious threat to the health and safety” given that no reports of this nature had been received. Under the policy, non-emergency repairs are to be completed within 28 days. The Ombudsman understands that where specialist assessment and works are required, this timeframe is not always possible. In such circumstances, the Ombudsman expects a landlord to act proactively, not cause unreasonable delay, and to keep the resident informed. This is also noted in the landlord’s policy, which states it will “provide as much warning as possible.”
Keeping a resident informed, in the first instance, would include an acknowledgement of a report within a reasonable timeframe and an explanation of what the next steps would include. Based on the evidence provided to this service, the resident initially reported the issue of the crack in the wall on 29 October 2018. The landlord, in its later communications, has noted 1 November 2018 as the first time it became aware. Following the resident’s initial reports, the landlord advised the resident to report the issue to its repairs department, which was a reasonable response. In such circumstances however, it would also be helpful for a landlord to internally forward the reports to assist the resident.
Following the initial report, this service has not been provided with any evidence (such as correspondence or repair logs) that the landlord’s repair team acknowledged the reports or advised next steps within a reasonable timeframe. It is evident that the landlord did take steps to arrange for an investigation of the issue, as the resident noted in her correspondence of 26 March 2019 that the landlord’s architect had only just contacted her. This was some five months after her initial reports and this delay would have caused considerable distress to the resident. It would also have been helpful had the landlord provided written communication to confirm these steps were being taken. As noted by the resident at this time, the landlord’s lack of communication represented poor service.
The landlord has advised that its contractor carried out an inspection in April 2019 and that they advised that the crack should be monitored for a period of 12 months before determining what further works may be required. Again, it is not evident that the landlord informed the resident of this requirement to wait a year. The Ombudsman notes that the resident did not make any further enquiries as to works over this period, so it is possible she had been made aware of this, however, the Ombudsman considers that keeping an accurate audit trail is an important part of a landlord’s service delivery. The landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of any correspondence, repair logs, or telephone notes so that it can satisfy itself and the resident (and ultimately the Ombudsman if necessary) that it took all reasonable steps. Given that no evidence has been provided to indicate the resident was reasonably informed, the Ombudsman considers this to have been a significant failure of communication which would have left the resident distressed and unclear about how the repair issue would be resolved.
In April 2019, the resident also raised concerns that the cracks had caused internal damage. While the lease terms state that the resident is responsible for the internal decoration of the property, where damage is caused by a delay to the landlord taking action, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to consider covering the cost of any repairs. In the first instance, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to carry out a reasonable investigation to satisfy itself as to whether it was responsible for the internal damage, or to be able to advise its position. It is not evident that the earlier inspection of the external crack in April 2019 had assessed the internal damage, and so the landlord’s failure to arrange for a further inspection again highlights its pattern of not taking timely action when receiving reports of disrepair, which in turn would have caused distress for the resident.
Given that the landlord later advised the resident that it could only consider compensation if the resident had evidence of costs incurred relating to internal damage, this would also have been an appropriate time to alert the resident to ensure she kept evidence of any costs incurred, however, the landlord did not do this.
The landlord has advised in its stage one response that it arranged for a further inspection in February 2020 (which is notably less than the 12 months recommended by its contractor, without a clear explanation as to why), but that it was unable to arrange further works due to the national COVID-19 restrictions in place from March 2020. The Ombudsman accepts that these restrictions had a severe impact on the service delivery of landlords, and in such circumstances, it was reasonable for landlords to limit repairs to emergency works only. The Ombudsman expects, however, for landlords to have provided reasonable communication during this period to advise the circumstances to residents and provide an updated timeframe where possible. This service has not been provided with any evidence to suggest this information was given to the resident at this time, which would once again would have left the resident unclear about how her concerns would be addressed.
The landlord’s repairs policy specifically notes repairs to boundary walls as an example of a non-emergency repair. Following the resident’s reports of her boundary wall being in state of disrepair, the landlord appropriately acknowledged her reports and responded to her further queries regarding an initial inspection. It is not evident, however, whether this inspection occurred during the 28 days following her reports, and no further updates were given to the resident, which would have left he unclear if this report was being addressed and led her to making a formal complaint.
The landlord’s repairs policy also specifically notes water ingress from the ceiling to be an emergency repair, which it will attend within 24 hours. As part of her formal complaint on 30 September 2020, the resident advised the landlord that there was water ingress in her bedroom which she considered to be coming from the roof, which under the lease was the responsibility of the landlord. It is not evident that the resident had reported this issue before. While the landlord appropriately acknowledged the complaint within two days, it is not evident that it provided any urgent response to the resident’s reports of urgent water ingress. Additionally, following the resident providing additional evidence of the active water ingress on 5 October 2020, it is not evident that the landlord made any further contact until 12 October 2020, where it advised it was currently obtaining quotes.
The resident continued to request updates regarding this issue throughout October 2020, before the landlord advised that it considered that it had 28 days to attend following it raising a work order on 20 October 2020. The landlord did not explain why it did not consider this to be an urgent repair, despite it falling into that category as per its repairs policy. It is also not evident why the landlord considered 20 October 2020 to be the starting point for this timeframe, despite the resident initially raising the issue in her complaint some three weeks prior to this.
Following the resident’s repeated concerns that she considered the issue to be an emergency, the landlord later advised on 3 December 2020, some two months after the initial report, that it would enquire as to whether any interim works could be carried out. This ultimately was not possible and while it would have been appropriate to provide this advice to the resident, given that it was able to attend the property to carry out the full works the next day, it was reasonable for it not to have provided this advice in the circumstances.
Ultimately, the landlord’s failure to take urgent action is in contravention of its repairs policy and would have caused significant concern for the resident that the active water ingress was not being addressed in a timely manner. Additionally, as noted above, this would have also represented another opportunity for the landlord to have advised the resident about its requirement for evidence of any costs related to internal damage, which it did not do.
Additionally, given that the resident had expressed concern that the cause of the damage to her roof had been her neighbours using it as a terrace, it would have been helpful for the landlord to have given its position on any steps it may take to investigate this concern, however, it did not do so.
Following the landlord’s attendance on 3 November 2020, the resident made enquiries about what the next steps would be. The landlord subsequently advised that it was awaiting its contractor’s report, following which it would approve the works. The landlord did not provide any additional information about timeframes for this step, nor what further timeframes would be required to arrange the works. Given that the landlord has advised its inspection was for all the structural works, i.e. the wall crack, the boundary wall, and the roof, it would have been reasonable to assume the costs for these works may exceed £250. It would have been helpful, therefore, for the landlord to have outlined the possibility of a Section 20 consultation being required, or to have otherwise given an update on its attempted building insurance claim at this point. Throughout the course of the complaint, however, the landlord has consistently only advised the resident on the next step to getting the works done, rather than outlining the full process. This has repeatedly led to the resident’s expectations being set and then subsequently to her being caused frustration as a further delay is presented.
Following the landlord’s advice that it was awaiting its contractor’s report, the resident made several requests for updates, to which the landlord replied on each occasion that it was chasing up its contractor. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord, when advising it would chase an update, to subsequently provide an update to the resident with the outcome of its endeavours, even if this was to advise the report was still pending. Based on the evidence provided to this service, however, the landlord repeatedly advised it would chase an update, but provided no follow up, which would have caused the resident repeated further frustration.
As noted above, the Ombudsman considers it reasonable for landlords to have restricted their repair service during periods of COVID-19 restrictions, and so it was appropriate that the landlord advised this was the case in its communication on 12 January 2021.
The landlord also appropriately outlined the further delays caused by COVID-19 restrictions in its stage one response for which it apologised. While it would have also been helpful to have used this opportunity to have specifically referred to the boundary wall works as well in this response, it was reasonable that it apologised for delays to all the works included in the complaint. Additionally, it was appropriate that the landlord identified that the resident’s reports of water ingress should have been addressed much earlier, for which it apologised. Having accepted its failures in its stage one response, the landlord also appropriately addressed compensation, however, given that the period of the complaint extends beyond this point, an assessment of whether this amount of compensation amounted to reasonable redress will be made at the end of this analysis.
Following the stage one response, the resident again noted that there had been internal damage, for which she considered an offer of compensation should be made to cover her repair costs. The landlord’s compensation policy notes it will take an evidence-based approach to compensation, and so (despite its failure to make such a request earlier) it appropriately requested evidence of any expenditure from the resident. The resident subsequently provided a quote from a text message, and the landlord advised in its stage two response that it was unable to accept this as evidence of expenditure. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this approach was reasonable, as this evidence was not conclusive of expenditure. In the absence of any further evidence, it was reasonable for the landlord to have not offered any further compensation for the purpose of reimbursement of redecoration costs.
As noted above, the landlord should have been aware of the possibility of a Section 20 consultation based on the amount of works required when it initially requested a report, and it should have advised the resident accordingly. Additionally, the landlord’s investigation as part of its stage one response should have highlighted this possibility. Based on the landlord’s internal communications, it is evident that the landlord identified that a Section 20 consultation may be necessary in February 2021, and that an insurance claim would not be proceeding. While the landlord provided an appropriate update in its stage two response that it had received quotes and was seeking approval, it also had the opportunity to raise the possibility of a Section 20 consultation in order to measure the resident’s expectations about further delays, however, once again, it failed to do so.
The resident made several further requests for updates in March 2021 prior to the landlord advising that a Section 20 consultation was required. Having done so, it did not fully articulate that the process would also require a further period for leaseholders to consider any quotes, which caused further frustration for the resident. While it is not known at what point the landlord’s insurer informed it that they would not be paying for the works, it is evident from the landlord’s internal communications that it had not begun the Section 20 process upon learning this, which represents yet a further avoidable delay.
This service has not viewed the building insurance policy, however, it is evident from the landlord’s internal communications that a successful claim required the landlord to disclose to the insurer any disrepair issues when they were initially reported. The landlord has noted in its internal communications that it did not do this, resulting in the claim being withdrawn. The landlord does not have a specific policy relating to the information it must share with residents regarding any insurance claims. Around the time of the Section 20 consultation, the landlord informed the resident that its insurer would not be paying for the works, following which, the resident made further enquiries. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to set out its position regarding its failure to follow the correct insurance procedure so as not to cause unreasonable delay to the works. Given that the Section 20 procedure began in March 2021, the landlord’s update regarding its position on 28 June 2021 came after when the Section 20 procedure might have concluded, without any interim updates to the resident. This once again would have left her distressed at not knowing how her complaint would be resolved.
Based on its failure to follow the correct procedure with its insurer, it was appropriate that the landlord agreed to pay for the works itself and to cancel the Section 20 consultation. It was also appropriate that it confirmed that no insurance excess charge would be passed on to leaseholders and that it apologised for having suggested “that residents should meet the costs of the work,” and for the time it had taken to progress the works.
In summary, there were significant delays to all three areas of disrepair reported by the landlord. While there were some reasonable delays caused by COVID-19 restrictions, the landlord failed to adequately communicate this to the resident in March 2020. Additionally, while the initial period of observation recommended by the landlord’s contractor was also reasonable, it is not evident this was effectively communicated to the resident, or that any such advice was accurately recorded by the landlord. The landlord’s communication was also inadequate throughout the period of the complaint, as it often failed to provide updates following its advice that it would chase them, and it also failed to fully explain the next steps and any foreseeable further delays, which it should reasonably have known about.
Regarding the leaking roof, the landlord failed to respond in accordance with its repairs policy and treat the concern as an urgent repair, or otherwise satisfy itself that it was not an urgent repair, despite the resident’s repeated reports. It also erroneously applied a 28-day time frame to complete the repair from a date several weeks after the initial reports.
In its stage one response, the landlord offered compensation of £600. £50 of this compensation related to its complaints handling, which is referred to below. £50 related to its poor communication, £100 to its delays, and £400 related to the impact to the resident. Whether this represented reasonable redress at the time of the stage one response is not relevant as the landlord continued to cause unreasonable delays after this offer, as referred to above. Its failure to identify the possibility of a Section 20 consultation, along with its delayed decision to pay for the works itself resulted in a significant delay to the commencement of the works, which the resident advised did not occur until late 2021.
While the landlord appropriately acknowledged its delays, poor communication, and the impact on the resident, this did not result in it improving its service, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs. In addition to the compensation paid, a further £550 compensation is ordered in recognition of the further delays, poor communication, and impact on the resident.
Additionally, the Ombudsman notes the resident’s advice that the works remain ongoing and that she is experiencing damp which she attributes to the crack in the wall. As such, a recommendation had been made below that the landlord contact the resident within four weeks of the date of this determination and advises its expected timeframe for completion of the works and also advised its position or makes further enquiries regarding the resident’s reports of damp.

Complaints handling

The landlord’s complaints procedure gives it the opportunity to informally resolve a complaint prior to proceeding to a formal response. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to attempt to arrange the repair works as part of its initial complaint response.
Following the resident’s request that it be escalated to a formal complaint response stage, the landlord also appropriately acknowledged this and set out a timeframe for it to respond. The landlord’s response was delayed and so it provided the resident with advanced notice that this was the case and gave a new response date.
While this delay would have been frustrating for the resident, in its stage one response, the landlord acknowledged the delay and offered £50 compensation, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, amounted to reasonable redress in the circumstances.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports concerning multiple repair issues at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its service failure in respect of its complaints handling.

Reasons

Repairs

The landlord delayed in initially responding to the resident’s initial reports of external cracking at her property and failed to provide adequate communications at this time to inform of her of its inspection, or the outcomes of its inspection, namely a 12-month period of observation.
Following this period, while it was reasonable to postpone its further inspections and works due to COVID-19 restrictions, it is not evident this was communicated to the resident. The landlord also failed to address the resident’s concerns of internal damage caused by the cracks.
While the landlord appropriately acknowledged the resident’s additional report of issues with her boundary wall, it then failed to provide her with timely updates, which would have added to her distress.
Following the resident’s reports of water ingress at her property, the landlord did not respond in accordance with its repairs policy or take steps to adequately investigate the issue in order to satisfy itself it was not an emergency repair. It also only identified that interim repair works should be considered several weeks after the initial reports. Given that there was water actively entering the resident’s property, these delays would have caused significant distress.
The landlord’s communication throughout the period of the complaint was often delayed or resulted in failures to provide promised updates.
While the landlord appropriately identified some of these failings in its stage one response and offered apologies and compensation, following this stage, there were further significant delays. Additionally, the landlord missed multiple opportunities to identify that a Section 20 consultation may be necessary, which again added to the delays and caused significant frustration for the resident.
Based on these ongoing failures, a finding of maladministration as well as additional compensation is appropriate in the circumstances.

Complaints handling

While the landlord’s stage one response was delayed beyond its targeted response times, the landlord appropriately provided advanced notice of the delay, as well as an explanation. Its offer of £50 compensation for the delay also provided, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, reasonable redress for this service failure.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £550 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its poor communication, delays, and for the overall impact caused to the resident.
This is in addition to the £600 already paid to the resident. This amount must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.
The landlord to contact the resident within four weeks of the date of this determination and include the following:
1. its expected timeframe for completion of the works;
1. either its position regarding the resident’s reports of damp, or otherwise a request for further information.