Sanctuary Housing Association (202205114)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205114

Sanctuary Housing Association

30 January 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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for drainage repairs to be completed.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
  2. On 11 April 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to report a drainage problem on the kitchen sink. The landlord’s contractors attended the property on 15 April and identified a blocked and split gully where the kitchen waste water discharges. Contractors temporarily cleared the blocked gully and informed the resident that further works were required to replace it.
  3. The resident raised an official complaint on 5 May 2022 regarding the outstanding repairs and the lack of communication by the landlord about the status of the works. He said he had attempted to contact the landlord on numerous occasions with no success.
  4. The landlord issued a written response on 12 May 2022, where it apologised and updated the resident about the status of the works. It explained that it received the required quote from contractors on 6 May 2022 and informed the resident of the specificities of the repairs. The landlord said that the quote had already been approved by the manager, and that works had been raised with contractors on the same day the response was sent. It stated that the target date for completion was 9 June 2022. The landlord acknowledged its failure to communicate with the resident on any progress made and apologised. It offered £150 compensation broken down as follows:
    1. £100 for time, trouble and inconvenience caused;
    2. £50 for poor communication.
  5. The resident escalated the complaint on 13 May 2022 as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and the time it was taking to complete the repairs. He emphasised the stress and anxiety that the issue was having on him. The landlord issued a final response on 14 June 2022. It acknowledged the complaint, presented a summary of events and reiterated its apologies for the lack of communication and the impact on him. The landlord maintained its previous offer of £150 compensation. It also explained he could refer the complaint to this Service if he remained dissatisfied.
  6. The resident contacted this Service on 10 June 2022 as he remained unhappy with how he had been treated by the landlord throughout the completion of the repairs.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for keeping in good repair the structure and exterior of the property, including drains and external pipes. The landlord is also responsible to keep in proper working order any installations for water sanitation and the supply of water, including sinks, waste and water pipes.
  2. The landlord’s repairs manual sets out several different types of repairs according to their level of severity. The landlord has not documented what type of repair it considered the resident’s report to be, but nothing in the evidence indicates it was an emergency (i.e. risk to life or property), and so the completion of the repair within its ‘appointed’, timeframe of 28 days would be reasonable.
  3. Contractors attended the property for a first appointment four days after the problem was reported. Following the clearing of the blocked gully, they informed the resident that they would need to contact the landlord regarding further works. In some instances, disrepairs cannot be addressed on the first appointment and further visits to the property might be required. In this case, contractors cleared the gully, but identified further work was needed. They explained this to the resident. These were reasonable actions as they were within the relevant timeframe, and broadly set out to the resident what to expect.
  4. Further repairs were completed on 17 May 2022, eight days over its repair timeframe from when the issue was reported. While this would undoubtedly have added to the resident’s frustration, the delay was not excessive, and the landlord explained the reasons for this delay in its complaint response, specifically that there had been a delay receiving the contractor’s quote of works.
  5. The resident complained about the lack of information he received after contractors first visited the property. Landlords are expected to keep residents updated on the state of the repairs. In this case it would have been helpful if the landlord had informed the resident about the need to wait for and approve a quote from contractors. The resident has said that he unsuccessfully chased the landlord for an update on numerous occasions. The evidence shows that, prior to the resident’s complaint, the landlord contacted him on 3 and 5 May 2022 to inform him that contractors were being chased for an update. Given the short period of time that had passed, the landlord acted reasonably by apologising and reassuring the resident that it was actively attempting to expedite the matter.
  6. In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged the complaint and explained the reason for the delays. It apologised for its failure to communicate effectively with the resident and to provide updates on the state of the repairs. The landlord satisfactorily attempted to put things right by offering a goodwill gesture of £150 to the resident. In the circumstances of a relatively short delay completing the repair, and no evidence of a significant or long-term impact, the apologies, explanations, and compensation offered by the landlord were reasonable remedies to its shortcomings.
  7. In his complaint to the landlord the resident explained that he had experienced poor service from it previously, which he felt was being repeated again in this case. This investigation centres only on the specific repairs and complaint set out in this report, and the determination is only for this one specific complaint in isolation from any previous complaints or experiences of the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendation

  1. This determination is based partly on the compensation offered to the resident by the landlord. If it has not yet done so, the landlord should ensure the compensation is now paid.