Call for Evidence on housing maintenance now open! Respond by 25 October 2024. Submit evidence online.

Sanctuary Housing Association (202105161)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202105161

Sanctuary Housing Association

18 March 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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The level of compensation offered by the landlord following the resident’s report of a leak.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. On the evening of 23 April 2021, she reported an uncontrollable leak from the loft above her bedroom which saturated her bedding. The landlord’s wellbeing team was in contact with the resident during this time, and in response to her request for a decant, advised that any further actions would be dependent on the report from the attending operative. Its operatives attended the next day to make safe the electrics and carry out testing of the water tank and pipes in the loft. The operative tested these three times and found no evidence of leak, their report suggested that the only possible cause was intentional pouring of water in the loft.
  2. The resident raised a stage one complaint with the landlord on 13 May 2021 as she was unhappy with the performance of its operative and having to chase it several times before the operative attended. She also wanted compensation for the damage to her possessions and decoration caused by the leak, and the inconvenience caused to her household, with members that had disabilities. The landlord provided its stage one response to the resident on 28 June 2021, in which it did not uphold her complaint as it found no service failures. It relayed that its operative had found no leaks in the loft and that it had attended the property to make safe the electrics and plumbing within its emergency repair timeframe of 24 hours. The landlord acknowledged that it had provided its complaint response late and offered the resident £25 compensation for this.
  3. The resident escalated her complaint with the landlord on 2 July 2021, when she pointed out that one of the overflow pipes was missing from the property. She said that its offer of compensation was insufficient to cover the damage caused to her possessions and her costs incurred as a result of the leak. The landlord issued its final response to the resident on 20 July 2021. It reiterated that it had attended the report of a leak within its emergency timeframe and said that it could not offer any further compensation as there was no evidence of a service failure. The landlord confirmed that her light fitting had been reinstated on 4 June 2021 and increased its offer compensation to £50 for its delayed stage one complaint response.
  4. The resident contested the landlord’s response on 28 July 2021, saying that it had not considered that the leak was a result of the missing overflow pipe. She also raised that she had been informed, by the electrical operative who attended originally, that her light fitting was no longer usable and hazardous. The landlord provided a further response to the resident on 11 August 2021 to advise that it would raise an inspection for the missing overflow pipe, but said that, as she had not experienced any further leaks, this was unlikely to have been the cause. It also confirmed that a qualified electrician had reinstated her light and had considered it safe to use.
  5. The resident informed the Ombudsman on 22 November 2021 that she continued to be dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her complaint. She contended that the leak had been caused by the missing overflow pipe. The resident considered that the landlord should have taken more responsibility for the leak and compensated her for her costs and inconvenience. The landlord confirmed to this Service on 25 January 2022 that it had since, on 14 September 2021, inspected the overflow pipe reported to be missing by the resident and had identified no follow-on works were necessary.

Assessment and findings

The level of compensation offered by the landlord following the resident’s report of a leak

  1. The landlord’s tenancy agreement states it has an obligation to repair the installations in the property for the supply of water and sanitation. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to attend the property to address the leak. As the leak was reported as uncontrollable by the resident, it was also appropriate for it to respond to this as an emergency repair. The landlord’s policy gives a timescale of 24 hours to make emergency repairs safe. As the landlord attended the property within 24 hours to make safe the electrics and investigate the leak, there was no evidence of a failure in its repair.
  2. It is reasonable for a landlord to rely on the opinions of its suitably qualified staff. Therefore, when its operative reported that they had tested the water tank and pipes in the loft three times and found no evidence of a leak, it was reasonable for the landlord conclude that the leak was resolved. As it had attended within 24 hours, it had acted in accordance with its procedure in making the repair safe within 24 hours.
  3. The resident has requested compensation for her inconvenience and expenses incurred as a result of the leak. The landlord’s compensation guidance states compensation is only offered when there has been inconvenience or expense caused by its actions or inaction. While it is noted that the resident experienced inconvenience and costs as a result of the leak, there is no evidence to suggest that this was due to the landlord’s actions or failure to act, and it would be appropriate for the resident to claim for her expenses through her home contents insurance. All residents are advised to arrange contents insurance for events including leaks. It was reasonable, therefore, that the landlord did not offer compensation to her, in accordance with the landlord’s compensation guidance above.
  4. Where opinions conflict on the reasons for a repair, it would be reasonable for the landlord to carry out further investigation to clarify this and provide further reassurance to the resident. It duly did so on 14 September 2021, when it inspected the missing overflow pipe reported by the resident. This inspection did not find that any further works were required. While the resident has maintained that this was the reason for the leak on 23 April 2021, the landlord took reasonable steps to inspect the possible cause of the leak and it was reasonable for it to conclude, based on the opinions of its suitably qualified staff, that no more work was required.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident on 28 June 2021, 31 working days after the resident raised her complaint on 13 May 2021. This was 21 working days in excess of its complaints procedure. There was no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident to agree an extension and therefore, it failed to provide this response in accordance with its procedure.
  2. The landlord acknowledged this in its stage one and final complaint responses, offering £50 compensation for the delay in its final response. This offer was made in accordance with its compensation guidance, to recognise that a failure had occurred which was of low impact to the resident.
  3. The offer of £50 compensation was also in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. This guidance provides for awards of compensation between £50 and £250 where there has been a failure which impacted the resident but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the outcome for the resident. As there was no evidence that the delayed stage one complaint caused any detriment in terms of the substantive issue, the £50 compensation offered by the landlord was reasonable and in accordance with this Service’s remedies guidance.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in the level of compensation offered by it following the resident’s report of a leak.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the opinion of the Ombudsman, resolves the complaint concerning its handling of the associated complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should:
    1. Pay its previously offered amount of £50 compensation to the resident.