Sanctuary Housing Association (202113020)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113020

Sanctuary Housing Association

 21 February 2023

 

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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the kitchen taps of the property and her complaint about the conduct of the contractor undertaking the repair.

Background and summary of events

  1. The property is a one bedroom first floor flat. The resident entered into an Assured Shorthold Tenancy Agreement with the landlord on 20 July 2021. The resident suffers from a number of medical conditions.
  2. The resident advised the landlord that there was a problem with her kitchen hot water tap on 3 or 4 August 2021 and she had turned off the water supply. A contractor attended on 5 August 2021.
  3. On 6 August 2021 the resident complained that the tap had broken again and could not be turned off. The resident had turned off the water supply again. A contractor arrived within an hour. The resident complains that he communicated in an inappropriate manner with her during the visit.
  4. The resident’s complaint was officially recorded by the landlord on 6 August 2021. The resident’s complaint was that the contractor’s communications with her had been dismissive and inappropriate. The landlord acknowledged this to the resident on 9 August 2021.
  5. On 16 August 2021 the resident reported a slow leak from the kitchen taps.
  6. The landlord provided a stage one complaint response on 7 September 2021. The landlord apologised for any issues the resident had experienced and advised her that it had spoken to the relevant supervisor and the contractor would not attend the resident’s property again, as she had asked. It offered the resident £50.00 for the delays in a response and £25.00 for inconvenience.
  7. On 10 September 2021 a contractor attended to undertake additional works which included works on the kitchen taps again. The resident emailed the landlord on 10 September 2021 telling the landlord that a contractor who attended that day had touched her inappropriately and she wanted the complaint escalated. The resident later clarified on 30 September 2021, in response to further communications with the landlord, that this complaint was about a contractor who attended to repair the toilet on 10 September 2021 and not the contractor who had attended on 6 August 2021 regarding the tap.
  8. On 13 September 2021 the resident asked for the complaint to be escalated and the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint. On 20 September 2021 the landlord attended the resident’s property to discuss the complaint of sexual harassment she had raised. The resident and the landlord had a discussion about the resident’s complaint on 30 September 2021.
  9. The landlord issued a stage two complaint response on 8 October 2021. The landlord apologised for any upset caused by the attendance of the operative for the taps. It observed that it had attended within 24 hours. It noted that it appreciated being made aware where a customer feels that a member of staff has behaved inappropriately and this helps the landlord to identify training needs or whether more formal action is required. It noted that it could not disclose any specific actions it was taken. The landlord went on to apologise for the delay in the stage one response and any inconvenience this caused. It noted that there had been confusion regarding the resident’s complaints about the behaviour of two different contractors. It confirmed that the resident’s complaint about the second contractor was not part of the relevant complaints investigation, but noted that the landlord had responded separately about the allegation made on 10 September 2021. The landlord concluded that it’s position was that it had acted appropriately in attempting to resolve the tap repair. Regarding the behaviour of the contractor, it stated that it could not share the outcome but it assured the resident the complaint had been taken seriously and the matter investigated. It offered the resident £150 compensation for the initial delay in the complaint being dealt with and for the inconvenience of having no water.

Assessment and findings

  1. The Ombudsman notes that the resident has referred to a number of other concerns – including a broken intercom system and other outstanding works – in her communications with this service and the landlord. The resident has also submitted evidence about the condition of the property when she moved in. The Ombudsman understands that the resident has multiple complaints against the landlord. The Ombudsman confirms that in this Determination they have only considered the landlord’s handling of the issues arising from the repair of the kitchen taps.
  2. There are two key elements to the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the kitchen taps of the property. Firstly, the resident has said that she is unhappy with the time that it took the landlord to undertake repairs works. She complains that she was without water while the works were outstanding and was unable to shower for a week – which had a significant impact on her mental and physical health. Secondly, the resident is unhappy about the conduct of two contractors who attended on different occasions and the way that the landlord handled her complaints about this. She submits that one contractor was dismissive towards her and the second sexually harassed her.

Time to repair taps

  1. The evidence shows that the resident first reported a problem on 3 or 4 August 2021 with the kitchen tap being stuck open. A contractor attended the next day. When the resident reported a problem again the following day a contractor attended within an hour.
  2. The Ombudsman acknowledges that this was a distressing experience for the resident. The resident has referred to being without water for an extended period of time, however it is not clear how this related to the kitchen taps. Whilst the resident needed to turn the water off at the stop, there is no indication that the water from the kitchen taps was not draining effectively and it appears that the resident could have turned the water on for a short period as there was not a flood risk. It also does not appear that the matter persisted for an extended period.
  3. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord responded to the stuck tap within a reasonable timeframe. It is fortunate and helpful that the resident was able to turn the water off at the stop point. Given that there was no immediate flood risk but the matter was serious, the landlord was reasonable to respond to the first report within a 24 hour period. The second attendance was within an hour. The records show that the landlord recorded and treated the matter as urgent.
  4. With respect to the second issue of a slow leak which the resident reported on 16 August 2021, the Ombudsman is satisfied that that the landlord was reasonable to treat this as non urgent. There is no indication that this required the water to be turned off or that there was a risk of a flood. It appears that parts were required to be ordered for this and the repair was undertaken on 10 September 2021. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman does not consider this to be a service failing.

Conduct of contractors 

  1. The resident has complained about the conduct of the contractor who attended for the initial repair of the stuck tap – she complains that he spoke to her in a dismissive manner. She has also complained about the conduct of the contractor who fixed the slow leaking tap on 10 September 2021 – she complains that he touched her inappropriately. The second complaint occurred after the landlord had provided a stage one complaint response.
  2. There is some confusion about whether the complaint about the second contractor’s behaviour has gone through the landlord’s complaints handling process. The complaint was made after the stage one complaint response. In the second stage complaint response the landlord takes the position that the second allegation was not part of the complaints investigation. It notes that there was direct correspondence sent to the resident from the landlord about the second allegation.
  3. Whilst there was reference to the second allegation in the second stage complaints response, the Ombudsman does not consider that it has properly gone through the landlord’s complaints handling process. The Ombudsman is not able to consider a complaint that the landlord has not had the opportunity to investigate and manage through the full process of its complaints handling procedures. The Ombudsman therefore does not make a finding with respect to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s second allegation about the conduct of the second contractor.
  4. With respect to the handling of the first allegation, the landlord has provided evidence that it undertook an investigation into the resident’s allegations of misconduct in accordance with its procedures for complaints made against staff. This evidence indicates that it took reasonable steps to investigate the matter and to come to a considered view. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the evidence indicates that the landlord did not dismiss the resident’s complaint and took reasonable steps to investigate it.
  5. The landlord has taken the position that there was a delay in providing its stage one complaint. It offered the resident £150.00 compensation for this in its second stage response, after having offered £75 at stage one.
  6. Whilst the Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord has offered compensation for the delay in providing the stage one complaint response, the Ombudsman does not consider that this was necessary. The landlord investigated the matter and responded to the resident within one month. The landlord could have taken further steps to communicate to the resident about the ongoing timeframe for the investigation. However, in the circumstances, taking into account that the conduct of the contractor had to be investigated and reviewed, the Ombudsman considers that its handling of the complaint was reasonable.
  7. The Ombudsman understands that this has been a distressing experience for the resident, who is vulnerable. However, the Ombudsman finds that there has not been a service failing by the landlord with respect to its handling of the resident’s complaint about the conduct of the first contractor.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with section 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there has been no maladministration by the landlord with respect to its handling of repairs to the kitchen taps of the property and the resident’s complaint about the conduct of the contractor undertaking the repair.

Reasons

  1. The landlord attended in a reasonable time to undertake the repairs.
  2. The evidence demonstrates that the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s complaint about the contractor’s conduct and came to a considered view. In the circumstances, the landlord took a reasonable amount of time to undertake the investigation and provide the resident with its complaint response.