Sanctuary Housing Association (202209120)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209120

Sanctuary Housing Association

17 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 response to the resident’s reports regarding her:
    1. toilet (including the quality of repair works, record keeping, communication, and level of compensation);
    2. windows.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant at the property of the landlord. The landlord is a housing association. The resident’s property has one bathroom.
  2. The resident first reported that her windows needed replacing on 6 April 2021. The landlord arranged for its contractor to attend on 17 July 2021. The landlord subsequently requested a quote for repair works from its contractor, which was received on 1 December 2021. The landlord approved the quote on 5 January 2022, and the windows were replaced on 25 April 2022.
  3. The resident also reported a sewage smell in her bathroom on 22 December 2021. Despite the landlord’s contractor attending the resident’s property on 12 and 26 January 2022, they could not determine the reason for the sewage smell. The contractor therefore recommended that a joint visit with a plumber was necessary in order to insert a CCTV camera into the resident’s toilet to conduct a survey.
  4. During works carried out on 26 April 2022 the resident’s toilet was left unusable. She was subsequently decanted from the property between 29 April 2022 and 31 May 2022. The landlord’s contractor was able to complete the CCTV survey on 14 May 2022, and repairs were completed on 31 May 2022.
  5. The resident raised a formal complaint as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s lack of communication and the delay in repairing her toilet. The landlord issued a stage one response acknowledging there had been four failed appointments and delays in repairing her toilet. The landlord further apologised and offered £440 compensation, namely £40 for the four failed appointments and £400 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  6. The resident requested an escalation of her complaint as she was dissatisfied with the compensation offered by the landlord. The resident further complained about the delay by the landlord in replacing her windows.
  7. The landlord, in its stage two response, acknowledged the delay in repairing the toilet and in replacing the windows in the resident’s property. The landlord offered an additional £75 compensation for its delay in issuing its stage one response and offered a further £25 compensation in recognition of its poor record keeping. 
  8. The resident referred her complaint to this service as she was dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered by the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Ombudsman notes that the resident has also raised concerns about various other maintenance issues she has experience since she moved into the property in February 2021. Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman cannot investigate complaints which have not completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. It is not evident that the resident has raised formal complaints in relation to these concerns, nor that the landlord has provided formal complaint responses. As such, these concerns will not be considered as part of this investigation.

Toilet repairs

  1. The landlord’s maintenance policy notes that the landlord is responsible for keeping items such as baths and toilets in good condition. The policy also notes that such repairs are considered routine repairs and should be completed within 20 working days. In this case, it is not disputed that the landlord was responsible for repairing the resident’s toilet.
  2. Following the resident initially reporting the sewage smell on 22 December 2021, the landlord appropriately arranged an inspection on 12 January 2022, which was in line with its policy. It should be noted that it can take more than one attempt to resolve certain issues as it can be difficult to identify the cause of the issue at the outset, and, in some cases, different repairs may need to be attempted before the matter is resolved. This would not necessarily constitute a service failure by the landlord. Given that its initial attempts to determine the cause of the smell were unsuccessful, it was reasonable for it to arrange a further CCTV investigation.
  3. In such circumstances, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a resident informed of the timeframe for the investigation. In this case, however, it is not evident the landlord effectively communicated with the resident, and that she had to chase updates on a number of occasions.
  4. There were also a number of unsuccessful appointments, which included instances on 14 April 2022, 26 April 2022, 5 May 2022 and 12 May 2022 where there were issues with the camera being of the incorrect size or being faulty. While an isolated incident may be acceptable, the number of failed appointments in this case was unreasonable and would have caused distress and inconvenience for the resident.
  5. Following one attempt on 26 April 2022, the resident’s toilet was left blocked and unusable. While the landlord appropriately arranged for the resident to be decanted, this was not until 29 April 2022, which left her without a useable toilet for three days. In such circumstances, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to consider an urgent temporary solution, such as a portable toilet, however, it is not evident any such temporary solution was considered or offered. The lack of toilet, even for a short period, would once again have caused the resident further distress and inconvenience.
  6. Given the above service failures, it was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged the impact this had on the resident and apologised in its formal responses. The landlord offered compensation of £40 for the four failed appointments and £400 in recognition of the delays in repairing the resident’s toilet and the inconvenience and time and trouble caused to the resident, and £25 for its poor record-keeping. The Ombudsman also notes that while decanted, the landlord also provided the resident with a meal allowance, totalling £591.50.
  7. The landlord offer of compensation was in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance and was proportionate to the impact on the resident. It also demonstrated the landlord’s commitment to putting things right. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this compensation amounted to reasonable redress in the circumstances.
  8. The Ombudsman has also identified that the landlord’s complaints policy states that stage one response should be issued within ten working days from the complaint request. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord responded outside of its timescale policy, namely after 20 working days; however, in this instance, the delay was not significant, and the landlord offered £75 in recognition of the delay, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, is considered appropriate.

Window repairs

  1. According to the landlord’s handbook, the landlord is responsible for window repairs. The landlord aims to complete all routine repairs within 28 days. However, the landlord’s maintenance policy clarifies that some repairs require specialist parts to be ordered or for specialist contractors to be called in. If these situations occur, the landlord will inform the resident of the repairs progress and provide an update on when the work will be completed.
  2. In this case, it is not disputed that there had been delays by the landlord in replacing the windows. The resident first reported that her windows needed replacing on 6 April 2021, and works were completed in April 2022, namely one year after the resident’s report.
  3. While it is not clear from the landlord’s records, it appears that after the resident reported in or around April 2021 that her windows needed replacing, the landlord’s contractors attended only in July 2021. When the resident reports a repair, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to inspect the resident’s property within a reasonable timeframe, or otherwise keep the resident informed of any delays. The landlord ultimately took three months to inspect the resident’s windows, without any updates. This was unreasonable in the circumstances and contributed towards the delay in replacing the resident’s windows.
  4. Furthermore, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contacts and repairs, yet the evidence has not been comprehensive in this case. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
  5. Following the contractors’ attendance in July 2021, the landlord acted reasonably by requesting quotes from different contractors. Once again, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep the resident informed of its progress, however, the resident had to chase the landlord on 27 July 2021 and 15 November 2021 to get updates on the status of the windows replacement. The Ombudsman notes the landlord was proactive in chasing its contractors for quotes throughout August 2021 to October 2021, however, it nevertheless failed to measure the resident’s expectations accordingly. Additionally, having received a quote on 1 December 2021, the landlord took another month to approve the quote, without an explanation for this delay.
  6. After the landlord approved the quote and raised a work order with its contractor, the windows were not replaced for a further four months. While it is noted that the landlord appropriately clarified in its stage two response that the delay was due to a shortage of materials, the landlord failed to update the resident during the delay, resulting in further time and trouble in her pursuing the matter.
  7. In its formal responses, the landlord appropriately acknowledged and apologised for these delays. It also acknowledged the shortcomings with its records and offered £25 compensation in recognition of the impact this had on its service delivery. Given the unreasonable delays to its initial inspection and the long periods without reasonable updates, the landlord’s apology and offer of compensation are not reflective of the impact on the resident. In the circumstances, the above failures amounted to maladministration, for which additional compensation is appropriate. An order for a further £150 compensation has been made to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress for its response regarding the resident’s toilet which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord for its response regarding the resident’s windows.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay £150 to the resident in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused because of its delay in replacing her windows.
  2. This amount must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is to reiterate its previous offer of £540 compensation, if this is yet to have been accepted.
  2. The landlord is recommended to carry out a formal review of its record keeping practices to ensure that it keeps correspondence relating to complaints for a reasonable length of time and is able to provide such information to this service upon request.