Sanctuary Housing Association (202205737)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205737

Sanctuary Housing Association

30 March 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of:

i. A leak from the resident’s bathroom into her kitchen,

ii. The associated repairs following a ceiling collapse,

iii. The resident’s decant from the property.

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a house where the resident lives with her adult son.
The landlord has said that it had no listed vulnerabilities for the resident and was not aware of any household vulnerabilities until the resident was moved into temporary accommodation (decanted). The resident has said that she has limited mobility and medical conditions.

Scope of investigation

In her communication with the landlord and this Service, the resident has advised that she experienced a number of health-related issues following the collapse of her kitchen ceiling in June 2022. This included headaches and a cough as well as an impact on her mental health and wellbeing. She has also advised that her arm was injured as a result of the ceiling collapse.
Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. Since the complaint, the landlord referred the matter to its insurer and the resident has been discussing the matter with a solicitor, which is the correct course of action for matters involving personal injury. As such, this report will focus on the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repair issues and whether its response was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

Summary of events

The landlord’s records show that on 7 August 2020 the resident initially reported that water was escaping when she used her bathing facilities which caused her skirting board to become wet and water to enter the kitchen ceiling below. Works to the bathroom floor, including rendering and re-tiling, were completed by 16 December 2020. The records show that there were no further reports of leaks from the bathroom into the kitchen until 24 January 2022.
On 24 January 2022, the resident reported that each time she used her bathing facilities, water came through the bathroom floor and the kitchen ceiling below. An operative attended on the same day; they found that tiling above the bath needed to be renewed to stop water passing into the kitchen ceiling, and an area of the kitchen ceiling needed to be replaced.
The repair records suggest that a further appointment took place on 18 February 2022. The landlord’s records show that the work previously identified was referred to an external contractor on this date due to the amount of work required. The landlord’s records further suggest that the work order was referred to the landlord’s major works team for approval on 15 March 2022.
The landlord’s records show that the resident called the landlord to pursue an update on 16 April 2022 and was informed that the works were going through the approval process.
The resident initially asked for a formal complaint to be raised on 3 May 2022:
1. She advised that she had been reporting the issue of water leaking from her bathroom for several years. Whilst repairs were carried out historically, the leak would stop for a short time and then start again. She expressed dissatisfaction that she had been advised that major works would be needed in February 2022 and was told that contractors would be in touch but had received no contact.
2. She had pursued the repair with the landlord on a number of occasions but was informed that she would need to wait and that it was seeking approval for the works. She expressed concern that the kitchen ceiling now had a hole, the gaps continued to get bigger and that her ceiling may collapse.
3. She advised that a plumber attended that day, who reiterated the previous findings. They advised that the tiles needed replacing but advised that they could not complete the work. She was dissatisfied that plumbers had been sent on two occasions when the landlord knew that they would not be able to complete the work.
4. She also expressed dissatisfaction at the length of time she had been waiting for the repair to be carried out and asked the landlord to provide dates for the kitchen and bathroom repairs as a matter of urgency.
The resident sent photos of the water leak into her kitchen and the damage caused to the kitchen ceiling, walls, skirting board and a chair to the landlord on 4 and 5 May 2022. She advised that the cracks on the kitchen ceiling had grown and that an area of the ceiling was bulging. There was also bubbling and exposed brickwork due to water damage and her skirting board was rotten. She asked that this be inspected. The landlord responded at the time to confirm that the matter had been referred to its repairs team.
On 10 May 2022, the landlord emailed the resident to say that it had raised a job for its contractors to attend and that they would be in touch to book an appointment. It recommended that the resident made contact if the leak continued to reoccur. The landlord’s records suggest that an appointment took place on 17 May 2022 to inspect the kitchen ceiling.
The resident emailed the landlord on 24 May 2022 to advise that a contractor had attended but the job related to the kitchen rather than both the kitchen and bathroom. She advised that she was still waiting to be contacted and she was now using pots on her kitchen table to hold the water pouring from the bathroom whenever she used her bathing facilities. She noted that she had previously raised a complaint and had been told on 4 May 2022 that the repair had been escalated but was dissatisfied that this had yet to be resolved. She was also concerned that the landlord had advised her to make contact if the situation got “worse” as the issue was ongoing and she was concerned that the ceiling would collapse.
The resident sent further photos to the landlord on 27 May 2022 which showed water coming through the kitchen ceiling. The landlord responded on 29 May 2022 to confirm that the enquiry had already been forwarded to its repairs team who would be in touch with an appointment. It explained that it was working through a backlog of repairs due to the impact of Covid-19 and that if the matter increased in urgency, the resident should contact its repairs team. The resident continued to chase a date for the works on 30 May 2022.
On 11 June 2022, the resident’s kitchen ceiling collapsed. An out of hours operative attended and deemed the property uninhabitable due to signs of rot along the structural ceiling beams as a result of the prolonged water leak. The landlord’s records show that the landlord arranged to temporarily move (decant) the resident, but the resident asked for a booking from 12 June 2022 as she wanted to stay in the property overnight. She advised that she would stay out of the rooms that were deemed unsafe.
The landlord booked the resident into a hotel on 12 June 2022. Later that day, the resident advised that she had returned home as only one room had been booked for her and her adult son which was not appropriate. She also advised that the hotel was not suitable due to her mobility issues. The landlord arranged for the resident and her son to be decanted into a different hotel on 13 June 2022. This was originally booked until 27 June 2022, but extended to 1 July 2022. The landlord advised that it would aim to find an apartment with cooking and laundry facilities following this.
On 13 June 2022, the property was inspected and the extent of works were established.
On 1 July 2022, the landlord booked the resident into a different hotel. It had attempted to find an apartment for the resident but there were none available and no further availability in the initial hotel.
The resident raised a further formal complaint via the landlord’s website on 7 July 2022:
1. She summarised her previous complaint and detailed a record of events.
2. She was dissatisfied with the level of communication from the landlord and the length of time taken to approve and complete works. She advised that she had been told by a contractor that works would not be approved due to the costs involved. She advised that by April 2022 the situation had worsened and there was often a puddle of water in her kitchen. She had pursued the works but was advised by the landlord that it was not sure when works would be approved.
3. She said that she had previously made a formal complaint and was told that the matter had been escalated internally. She was then informed that if the matter got worse, to contact the landlord. She said that she had found this confusing as she believed that the issue was bad at the time. She advised that there had been some confusion over appointments and that an operative had inspected the kitchen ceiling on 17 May 2022 but no one had arranged to check the bathroom.
4. She advised that she had called the landlord on 29 May 2022 but no one she spoke to knew what was happening. She was advised on 30 May 2022 that the contractors would call her to book an appointment but never received a call. She spoke to a member of staff who was reassuring and advised that the works were due to be completed by 23 June 2022. However, on 11 June 2022 the ceiling had collapsed onto her.
5. On 16 June 2022, during the decant, she met with operatives at the property and was informed works would take six weeks to complete. She was dissatisfied that she had been repeatedly informed that the works were pending approval but had not been informed when works would begin, how long these would take or how long she would need to remain in temporary accommodation.
6. She advised that the issues and distress caused had impacted her health. She also advised that staying in a hotel was not suitable as she felt trapped. She wanted the repairs to be completed, to be given a start date for the works and a date on which she would be able to return home. She also asked that the landlord’s decant team found her temporary accommodation near her home so that she could access her local swimming pool, which had been recommended by her doctor to help with arthritis.
On 12 July 2022, the landlord re-booked the resident into the hotel she had stayed in previously. This was booked until 12 August 2022.
The landlord issued an “interim” stage one complaint response on 19 July 2022. It noted that the resident had experienced an on-going leak from her bathroom for some time and the kitchen ceiling needed repairs as it had fallen following the leak. It confirmed that the kitchen ceiling repair had been approved and that it was waiting for a date for the works. It confirmed that the contractor would provide a start date for the bathroom and ceiling. Once it had this, it would be able to provide a full response. It confirmed that it would push for an urgent start date and would contact the resident again before 8 August 2022. It confirmed that if the resident was dissatisfied with its response, she could ask for the complaint to be escalated to stage two of its complaints process.
The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 20 July 2022 as she had been told on numerous occasions that the works had been approved and that the landlord would chase the contractors for a start date. She had previously believed that everything was under control until her ceiling collapsed. She said that she had not been able to work since the ceiling collapse due to stress, anxiety and feeling physically and mentally unwell. She added that she needed to continue to pay bills at her property despite not living there which was having a financial impact. She expressed additional concern that she would still be in temporary accommodation in September; as she worked as a supply teacher, she needed to be settled and able to function at this time.
The landlord called the resident on 25 July 2022 to advise that the works were awaiting approval. Works were approved on 28 July 2022 and started on 3 August 2022. On 5 August 2022, the hotel stay was extended until 19 August 2022.
The landlord issued its final complaint response to the resident on 18 August 2022 and explained the following:
1. It confirmed that the works had started on 3 August 2022 and were expected to be completed by 19 August 2022. It acknowledged that the approval of the works had taken longer than expected.
2. It noted that the resident had expressed concern that she had needed to pay bills at the property whilst she was not living there. It explained that it paid for the temporary accommodation and any discretionary expenses but the resident would be responsible for paying rent and utility bills at the property.
3. It advised that following the resident’s initial reports of the issue in 2020, works were carried out and no further issues were reported until January 2022. It explained that it was not able to investigate matters that were more than 6 months old and had based its investigation on events from 24 January 2022.
4. It acknowledged that the length of time taken to complete the repair and its communication was not to the standard it would expect. It had reminded its repairs team of the importance of ensuring that repairs were undertaken within a satisfactory timescale and that the resident was informed of any delays.
5. It apologised for the time taken to complete the repairs and the length of time the resident had needed to reside in temporary accommodation. It offered £800 compensation in recognition of the delays. This was comprised of £400 for the time, trouble and inconvenience from raising the repair in January 2022 and no works being undertaken until the resident was moved into temporary accommodation, and £400 for time, trouble and inconvenience for the length of time taken to carry out the repairs to the property following the decant.
The resident returned to the property on 19 August 2022 and raised concerns regarding a gap between her bath and the wall, which had previously been tiled. She expressed dissatisfaction that the works had not yet been completed and asked that the work to lay the floor covering in her bathroom was put on hold until the tiling was completed. She also advised the landlord that she could not accept its offer of compensation as this did not take into account the trauma and distress she had experienced as a result of the ceiling collapse and needing to live in temporary accommodation. She also attached photos of what happened on the day the ceiling collapsed and a sick note from her GP. The landlord referred the resident’s concerns to its liability insurer at the time.
The landlord’s records show that a surveyor had visited, and the resident was informed that additional tiling works had been agreed on 2 September 2022. The resident continued to pursue the works on 26 September 2022 and was informed that the landlord would follow-up internally. In its communication with this Service, the landlord advised that it had received a quote to fit new vinyl flooring and for a purpose–made plastic shelf to be fitted to the end of the bath area. It confirmed that this had been raised to its contractor on 9 November 2022. This was outstanding as of 14 November 2022 when the landlord provided information to this Service.
The resident referred her complaint to this Service as she was dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered by the landlord given the trauma she had experienced. She did not feel that the landlord had considered the impact that the ceiling collapse or the need to stay in temporary accommodation had on her. She advised that she had needed to miss work due to the issues experienced and that the circumstances had an impact on her health and wellbeing.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s repairs policy confirms that the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure of the property and installations for the supply of water. It would also be responsible for large cracks or repairs to plaster, ceilings and walls.
The policy provides expected timescales for different types of repairs. Emergency repairs, where there is an immediate risk to the health and safety of residents or the structure of the property, including a water leak coming through the ceiling, should be made safe within 24 hours of a report. Appointed repairs, which include all routine and non-emergency repairs such as a minor plumbing leak, should be completed within 28 days. The landlord’s website confirms that some maintenance works (major and planned repairs) might take longer, due to their complexity and cost. Where this is the case, the landlord must keep the resident informed of the progress of their repair and provide an expected completion date.
The landlord’s decant guidance states that residents may be required to be decanted from their existing property into alternative accommodation where unplanned or emergency repairs need to take place and the resident is unable to stay in the property during the works. The landlord would be responsible for seeking suitable alternative accommodation and making reasonable efforts to ensure that the accommodation meets an individual household’s requirements. It would also be expected to provide regular updates to the resident while decanted to manage their expectations. The resident would be responsible for maintaining rent payments while decanted and the landlord would reimburse the resident for costs that have been reasonably incurred as a result of the decant.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that it has a two-stage formal complaints process. Where a complaint cannot be resolved at the first point of contact, or where complaints are made in writing, these should be acknowledged within five working days. A stage one complaint response should be issued within ten working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint to stage two. At stage two, the landlord should respond within 20 working days.
If, at any stage, there is likely to be a delay, the landlord would be expected to discuss this with the resident and agree an extension to the timescale for response. If appropriate, staff would provide an interim response to the customer explaining their findings so far, and confirming when a full response will be provided.

The landlord’s handling of the leak from the resident’s bathroom into her kitchen, the associated repairs following a ceiling collapse and the resident’s decant from the property.

In this case, it is not disputed that there were delays in completing work to the resident’s property following her report of water ingress from her bathroom into her kitchen whenever she used her bathing facilities on 24 January 2022. The landlord has acknowledged and apologised for the time taken to complete repairs and the length of time the resident needed to remain in temporary accommodation. It has also acknowledged that its communication was not to its expected standard and the time, trouble and inconvenience caused to the resident both before, and after, the ceiling collapse in June 2022.
The resident remains dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered by the landlord given the impact that the ceiling collapse or the need to stay in temporary accommodation had on her. She has also raised concern that the ceiling collapse could have been avoided given the number of times she had reported the repair issues and that the landlord’s communication was poor.
In her communication with the landlord and this Service, the resident advised that she had reported the same repair issue for several years. There is no evidence of reports of leaks from the bathroom logged between December 2020, when remedial works were carried out to the tiling, and January 2022. As such, it was reasonable for the landlord to assume that the issue had been resolved at the time and that there were no further issues during this period.
The landlord initially acted appropriately following the resident’s report on 24 January 2022 by arranging for the property to be inspected in line with its emergency timescales. A further appointment was carried out on 18 February 2022 to assess the extent of works required. This was a reasonable timeframe in line with the landlord’s routine repair timescales. Following this, the resident needed to spend significant time and trouble pursuing updates from the landlord on several occasions and received limited information regarding the repair which was likely to have caused inconvenience. The landlord has acted appropriately by acknowledging this and offering compensation.
It is also of concern that between the resident’s report on 24 January 2022 and the day of the ceiling collapse on 11 June 2022 (a total of 138 calendar days), works had not progressed and no temporary remedial action had been taken to either lessen the impact on the resident or prevent ongoing water damage to the property despite her repeated contact. While it is noted that the leak into the kitchen was not continuous and only occurred when the resident and her son used bathing facilities, there is no evidence to suggest that the resident had access to alternative bathing facilities. As such, there were limited steps she could have taken to prevent the water ingress into the kitchen ceiling herself, which was likely to cause concern.
In addition, there is no evidence to suggest that the potential risk to the resident was adequately assessed at any stage prior to the ceiling collapse. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have completed temporary repairs at an early stage to prevent ongoing water damage to the property. If this was not possible, it should have considered whether the resident needed to be decanted at an earlier stage, to avoid the need to use the bathing facilities within the property. Had the landlord acted in accordance with its repair obligations and remedied the leak from the bathroom within a reasonable timescale or taken steps to “make safe” by carrying out temporary repairs, the ongoing damage caused to the resident’s property, including the kitchen ceiling, may have been prevented. The landlord therefore missed opportunities to prevent significant distress and inconvenience being caused to the resident.
Following the resident’s reports that her kitchen ceiling had collapsed on 11 June 2022, the landlord acted appropriately by arranging for an operative to attend within its emergency timescales. Ultimately, the operative established that the property was uninhabitable as a result of the damage to the structural beams of the property and that the resident would need to be decanted while remedial works took place.
In her communication with this Service, the resident has advised that she was not immediately decanted by the landlord, so she had to live in one room of the property which caused distress and inconvenience. The Ombudsman does not doubt the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the ceiling collapse. However, the evidence shows that the landlord acted appropriately by attempting to arrange for the resident to be decanted from the property on the day of the ceiling collapse. Its records show that she wished to remain in the property that night, but would stay out of the affected rooms. Following this, the landlord arranged for the resident to be decanted into a hotel from 12 June 2022. It is noted that the resident refused this accommodation and returned home on the same day due to the suitability of the hotel.
In its communication with this Service, the landlord has advised that it was not aware of any household vulnerabilities or the resident’s mobility issues prior to the offer of temporary accommodation being made. In addition, its internal records show that the resident’s son was not listed as a household member at the time so it needed to check internally to see whether her son would be able to stay in the hotel with her. While it would have been preferrable for the landlord to have enquired about any vulnerabilities and adjustments required prior to offering accommodation, the landlord had demonstrated that it acted reasonably by taking steps to find alternative accommodation that was suitable for the resident’s needs once it was made aware of her circumstances. The records show that the resident was decanted to a different hotel from 13 June 2022 and was provided with two separate rooms for her and her son.
The resident was decanted from the property between 13 June 2022 and 19 August 2022, approximately 67 days. It should be noted that some level of inconvenience is to be expected when a resident is decanted due to being away from their home and limitations on the facilities available in some circumstances. The landlord’s records show that it had attempted to find an apartment for the resident at her request on a number of occasions, however, none were available in the local area. Ultimately, this was out of the landlord’s control and there were limited further steps it could have taken at this stage to better accommodate her. The landlord’s records show that it had kept in contact with the resident while she was decanted, however, the lack of update on when the works would begin was likely to be frustrating. The landlord acted appropriately within its complaint response by apologising for the length of time the resident needed to remain in temporary accommodation and the length of time taken for works to be approved.
For completeness, the Ombudsman has also considered events following the landlord’s stage two complaint response. Following her return to the property on 19 August 2022, the resident raised concern that an area between her bath and the wall that had previously been tiled now had a gap. She asked that the work to lay the bathroom floor covering were put on hold until the issue was resolved. The landlord agreed to complete additional works to cover the gap and install the floor covering, however, these were still outstanding as of 14 November 2022, approximately 87 calendar days later. The landlord’s records indicate that the resident needed to spend additional time and trouble pursuing the repair in September 2022. The delay in completing this work was likely to have caused additional inconvenience and frustration to the resident on top of that which she experienced as a result of its earlier actions.
The resident has advised that she was not able to work due to the impact the ceiling collapse and move to temporary accommodation had on her health and wellbeing. She also raised concern that she needed to pay her rent and utility bills at her property while in temporary accommodation. It is noted that the landlord did not specifically address the resident’s concerns about her loss of earnings within its complaint response, which will be considered in more detail below as part of its complaint handling. The landlord’s compensation guidance states that it would not compensate residents for loss of earnings. As such, the landlord would not be obliged to compensate the resident for time off work. The resident may wish to include the impact on her mental health and wellbeing as part of her liability claim to the landlord if she wishes.
The landlord acted appropriately by confirming that it was obligated to pay for the cost of the temporary accommodation and other reasonable costs the resident had incurred, such as for food and travel during this time but that she would be responsible for paying rent for her property while she was decanted. This is in line with the landlord’s decant policy. It is noted that the resident was reimbursed for additional costs separately, outside of the formal complaints process. Should the resident have further concerns related to the costs she had incurred during the decant, she may wish to contact the landlord in the first instance so that it can attempt to resolve any ongoing concerns.
The landlord also advised that the resident would remain responsible for paying her utility bills while being decanted. The landlord’s decant guidance does not specifically refer to who would be responsible for utility bills while a resident is decanted. It is in line with best practice for the landlord to cover any costs that are reasonably incurred by a resident while decanted. While it would be the resident’s responsibility to pay her utility bills in line with her tenancy agreement, it would not be reasonable to expect the resident to pay for any increased or additional energy usage during this time because of major works being carried out. As such, if the resident believes that her utility bills were higher during the decanted period as a result of the major works being carried out at the property, it is recommended that she provides evidence in the form of energy statements to the landlord for it to consider.
The Ombudsman agrees that the length of time it has taken the landlord to resolve the issues is significant and does warrant financial compensation in recognition of the considerable distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of its failings. The landlord’s offer of £800 compensation goes some way to acknowledge the delays, time and trouble and distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident. However, it is the Ombudsman’s view that additional compensation is warranted in view of the total impact on the resident, including the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failure to initially consider temporary repairs and the additional delay in fully completing the remedial works in the resident’s bathroom. Given the resident was impacted by this matter for around 10 months and the resident had repeatedly warned of the potential consequences of the repair being left outstanding, the compensation offer of £800 was insufficient and an order for additional compensation has been made below.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

The resident initially asked for a formal complaint to be raised on 3 May 2022, however, at the time this was not treated as such by the landlord. The resident needed to raise a further complaint with the landlord on 7 July 2022 due to its lack of response. The landlord issued an “interim” stage one complaint response on 18 July 2022. The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 20 July 2022. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 18 August 2022, which was within a reasonable timeframe in line with its policies.
While the landlord’s “interim” stage one complaint response was within eight working days of the new complaint, the response was issued 53 working days from the resident’s initial request and significantly outside of the landlord’s published timescales. There is no evidence to suggest that the complaint on 3 May 2022 was a first request for service as the resident initially reported her concerns on 24 January 2022. As such, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to manage the complaint in line with its formal complaints process at the time. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code which states that a landlord must accept a complaint unless there is a valid reason not to do so.
The landlord’s records show that the resident was in regular contact with the landlord during this time, however, while there is a call note to suggest that the resident was happy with the actions taken on 4 May 2022, there is no evidence to suggest that she agreed for her complaint to be closed. There is also no evidence to suggest that the resident was informed as to the reasons why her complaint had not been formally considered. The records show that the landlord had a further opportunity to consider the resident’s complaint formally on 24 May 2022, when the resident advised that she had previously made a complaint. This should have prompted the landlord to check whether a complaint had been raised and ensure that this was raised at the time if not.
Furthermore, the landlord’s response on 18 July 2022 noted that it was an “interim response” and a full response would be provided at a later date. It also confirmed that the resident could escalate the complaint to stage two of its internal process if she remained dissatisfied. This contradicts the landlord’s own complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. The Code states that landlords must only escalate a complaint to stage two once it has completed stage one. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have acted in line with its complaint policy by either issuing a stage one complaint response or an interim response with a view to provide a full stage one complaint response at a later date. This is to ensure that residents have adequate opportunity to challenge the landlord’s position if needed. As such, the landlord failed to provide an adequate stage one complaint response to the complaint.
In addition, this response failed to acknowledge any service failures or apologise to the resident for the delayed response which would have been appropriate. The resident was not significantly disadvantaged by this as she was able to escalate her complaint for consideration by a different member of staff, however, the delay, and lack of consideration of her complaint at this stage were likely to have caused inconvenience.
Furthermore, the Code states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate. Within her escalation on 20 July 2022, the resident raised specific concerns related to her loss of earnings due to the stress and impact the ceiling collapse and decant had on her. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have acknowledged the resident’s concerns and confirmed its position in order to resolve the complaint more fully at this stage.
In considering the landlord’s handling of a complaint, the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord had taken sufficient learning from any identified failures. While the landlord acknowledged the time, trouble, inconvenience and distress caused to the resident as a result of water ingress from her bathroom and the subsequent ceiling collapse, it has not satisfactorily demonstrated that it had taken points of learning from the resident’s complaint. The landlord would have been expected to have conducted a thorough review of its handling of the case given the impact on the resident and the potential for its failings to be repeated. The commitments it made within its complaint responses, to improve repairs delivery and communication, were not sufficient and did not demonstrate that it had understood the severity of its failings.
In summary, the resident needed to spend considerable time and trouble pursuing her complaint with the landlord and experienced a delay which was likely to cause inconvenience. The landlord failed to acknowledge any failures in its handling of the complaint within its responses. As such, the landlord is ordered to pay additional compensation to the resident (as set out below) in recognition of the time and trouble spent and the inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the identified complaint handling failings. The landlord is also ordered to carry out a management review of the resident’s case in order to identify points of learning and steps it would take to prevent such circumstances reoccurring in the future.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of a leak from the resident’s bathroom into her kitchen, the associated repairs following a ceiling collapse and the resident’s decant from the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord missed opportunities to prevent unreasonable time trouble and inconvenience to the resident. It has somewhat acknowledged its failings and the impact this had on the resident, however, the level of compensation offered was not proportionate given the extent of its failings in this case.
The landlord did not handle the resident’s initial complaint request in line with its complaints policy which led to a significant delay in addressing the resident’s concerns. The landlord failed to provide an adequate stage one complaint response to the resident and failed to address aspects of the complaint within its responses. In addition, the landlord has not demonstrated that it had identified points of learning from the complaint which would have been appropriate given the impact on the resident and the potential for its failings to be repeated.

Orders

Within four weeks, the landlord to write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
Within four weeks, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £1400, comprised of:

i. £1200 in recognition of the delays, time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings. This includes the landlord’s previous offer of £800 if this has not yet been paid.

ii. £200 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Within eight weeks, the landlord is to complete a management review of the resident’s case to establish what went wrong and identify points of learning in order to prevent similar situations occurring in the future with particular reference to repairs timescales for leaks from above. A copy of the review should be sent to the Ombudsman.
The landlord should reply to this Service within the timescale set out above to demonstrate compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

It is recommended that:
1. The landlord contacts the resident and updates its records regarding any household vulnerabilities so that these can be taken into account in the future.
2. The landlord considers reimbursing the resident for any additional energy costs incurred while she was decanted from the property and advises the resident what evidence it needs to assess this claim.
3. The landlord reviews its decant guidance to include information about who would be responsible for utility, and other bills, at the primary property while a resident is decanted.
4. The landlord considers carrying out staff training for complaint handlers to ensure that the correct process is followed when a resident asks for a complaint to be raised. It should also ensure that it satisfactorily addresses each aspect of a complaint and considers the learning outcomes from each complaint.
The landlord should reply to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report to confirm its intentions in regards to the above recommendations.