Sanctuary Housing Association (202121641)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202121641

Sanctuary Housing Association

13 July 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 landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of an overflow pipe leak.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
  2. On 15 August 2021, the resident reported that an overflow pipe was leaking into his garden. He stated that it had been a recurring issue for three years, and as the leaking pipe was by the neighbour’s wall, “it was logical to assume” her property was the source of the leak. On 25 August, he raised a stage one complaint, as he was dissatisfied that he had sent three emails in relation to the pipe, and not heard a response from it for over a week and a half. Throughout September 2021 and October 2021, he had chased for an update in relation to his stage one complaint, and the progress of the repairs to the overflow pipe leak. Due to lack of response, he escalated his complaint to stage two on 26 October 2021.
  3. Its final stage complaint response arrived on 21 November 2021. It advised the resident that its contractors were unable to successfully repair the overflow pipe and stop the leak, because his neighbour was refusing to grant it access to attend her property, and it was unable to contact her via mobile.  It sent a Housing Officer to attempt to contact the neighbour, and apologised that the leak remained unresolved. It also provided him repair logs that demonstrated that throughout September and October, it unsuccessfully attempted to gain access to the neighbour’s property.
  4. In December 2021, the landlord offered the resident £75 compensation for failing to provide a stage one response. In January 2022, he accepted the offer, but was unhappy that he had to repeatedly chase for an update, and felt that it was “passing the buck” in regard to his concerns about the overflow pipe leak. He brought his complaint to this Service, as he was dissatisfied with the level of service he received in relation to the overflow pipe leak. He also had complaints about how it handled repairs to his back door, anti- social behaviour, central heating system, and noise which he brought to this Service to investigate. It reported to this Service in May 2022 that it arranged an appointment with the resident and his neighbour for 19 May 2022, to carry out works to the overflow pipe leak.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. While the resident reports that he previously raised the issue of an overflow pipe leak in 2018, the scope of this investigation is limited to considering the landlord’s handling of his reports about this in 2021. This is because, under the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service cannot investigate complaints about issues that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period of normally within six months of the matters arising, and his complaint about this was made in August 2022. This Service also cannot look into the issues he raised in relation to his back door, heating system, ASB and noise, as they have not exhausted the landlord’s complaint process.

Handling of the resident’s reports of an overflow pipe leak

  1. Under the landlord’s repairs and maintenance group procedure, it is obliged to ensure that non-emergency repairs are completed within 28 calendar days of the appointment time originally agreed with the resident. It also has a responsibility under its repairs and maintenance group policy to “provide a repairs and maintenance service that meets the high standards expected by service users” and to “regularly update customers on the progress of their repair through proactive communication.”
  2. Therefore, the resident had a reasonable expectation under the landlord’s repairs and maintenance group policy that he would receive regular updates regarding the progression of repairs to the overflow pipe leak. It failed to meet his expectation, however, as it was left to the resident to proactively communicate to it, to receive an update in relation to the overflow pipe leak. It should have adhered to its obligation under its repairs and maintenance group policy, and kept him regularly informed of its progress, by communicating to him in a timely manner.
  3. That said, the landlord did take appropriate steps by acknowledging its poor communication and apologising for it. However, it should also take the opportunity to learn from outcomes. So, it has been recommended below that it review its staff’s and contractors’ training needs in relation to non-urgent repair communication.
  4. Under the landlord’s tenancy handbook, residents are responsible for giving it and its contractors access to their home, so essential works can be carried out. This is also in accordance with its tenancy agreements with residents. The neighbour refused to give it access to her home, and it was unsuccessful in contacting her via mobile to arrange an appointment.  This Service appreciates that the neighbour refusing access was a mitigation factor which contributed to the timescales mentioned above, under its repairs and maintenance group procedure, being exceeded by approximately nine months. It also appreciates that it did attempt to enter her premises, and contact her on multiple occasions throughout September and November 2021.
  5. However, as she was potentially in breach of her tenancy agreement, it should have taken all reasonable steps to gain access to her property, such as writing to her, reminding her of her obligations under the tenancy agreement, and giving her written warnings. While it cannot gain entry to her property without consent, or a court order, it could have requested a court order, or referred the matter to its legal team or solicitors to consider legal action for access. Considering all of its options in regard to how it could gain access to her property would have alleviated the resident’s concerns that it was “passing the buck.”
  6. Under the landlord’s compensation guidance, it can consider offering compensation for time, trouble and inconvenience due to its action or inaction. It failed to offer any compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused to him by the delays in the overflow pipe leak, and the time and trouble he incurred chasing for an update. It ought to have offered compensation that was in line with its compensation guidance‘s recommendation, which is £151 for inconvenience having a high impact on him and requiring a high effort from him.
  7. Therefore, due to the longevity of the delays, its failure to provide and maintain regular communication with him, and failure to put things right to the resident, in relation to how it handled his reports of an overflow pipe leak, it has been ordered below that it pay the resident £200 compensation, in recognition of any distress and inconvenience caused to him by its failures in handling his reports of an overflow pipe leak.

Complaint handling

  1. Under the landlord’s complaints – housing and support policy, it has a responsibility to respond to all stage complaints within 20 days. It also has a responsibility under its complaints – housing and support procedure, to keep in close in contact with the resident, and “inform them of every opportunity of progress.”
  2. The resident raised a stage one complaint on 25 August 2021. He, therefore, had a reasonable expectation under its complaints policy that he would be provided a response within the timescales mentioned above. It did not meet his expectations, when it failed to provide a stage one complaint response to him. It also failed to adhere to its responsibility under the complaints procedure, by informing him of the delay in its complaint handling.
  3. However, the landlord put things right for the resident, by offering £75 compensation, for its failure to provide a stage one response. The compensation offered was proportionate, as it was in line with this Service’s own remedies guidance. The delay in its complaint handling was not excessive, nor did it severely impact the resident. Therefore, it has been recommended that it pay the resident the £75 compensation that it previously awarded him, if it has not already done so. It should also review its staff’s training needs in relation to their application of its complaints policy to seek to prevent its complaint handling delays from occurring again.

 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of an overflow pipe leak.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint in relation to its complaint handling satisfactorily.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £200 compensation within four weeks, in recognition of any distress and inconvenience caused to him by its failures in its handling of his reports of an overflow pipe leak.
  2. The landlord is recommended to:
    1. Pay the resident the £75 compensation that it previously awarded him, if it has not already done so.
    2. Review its staff’s training needs in relation to their application of its complaints policy to seek to prevent its complaint handling delays from occurring again.
    3. Review its staff’s and contractors’ training needs in relation to non-urgent repair communication.
  1.  The landlord shall contact this Service within four weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above orders and whether it will follow the above recommendations.