Sanctuary Housing Association (202215016)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215016

Sanctuary Housing Association

11 June 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:
    1. Drainage repairs at the resident’s property.
    2. The associated complaint.

Scope of investigation

  1. Paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which were not brought to the attention of the member landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. This would normally be within six months of the issues arising.
  2. It is noted that the resident has said that she experienced drainage issues dating back to 2018. In line with the Scheme, above, this investigation has only considered events from December 2021 onwards; this is six months prior to the resident raising her formal complaint on 19 June 2022. The Ombudsman is unable to consider older events as, with the passage of time, it is difficult to establish the facts of the case and it is not possible to make a reliable determination on historical events.
  3. The resident said that she had experienced a negative impact to her health as a result of the drain smell. It is outside the remit of the Ombudsman to ascertain whether or not there was a direct link between any detriment to the resident’s health and any action or failure to act by the landlord. Such matters are better suited for consideration through the courts or an insurance claim. The resident may wish to consider seeking independent legal advice if she wishes to pursue the matter further.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, who was aware that the resident and her child had mental health vulnerabilities.
  2. The resident reported to the landlord, on 28 March 2022, that when she ran her kitchen tap, waste would backflow through her bath and sink. It attended this repair as an emergency. On 19 June 2022, the resident reported that her sinks were draining slowly and there was a strong smell of drains which prevented her from using the bathroom. The landlord attended this the following day.
  3. The resident raised a stage one complaint with the landlord on 19 June 2022. In this, she said that the smell of “bad toxins and sewer” was a recurrent issue, which she had experienced every year since 2018. She said that this had caused her and her children to experience poor sleep and feel nauseous. The resident wanted to move to a different property to resolve the issue.
  4. In the intervening time before the landlord responded, the resident reported a reoccurrence of the drain smell on 20 June 2022, after its first attendance that day and, on 28 June 2022, she said she had been told a surveyor was due to attend but she was still awaiting this. The landlord’s stage one response to her on 29 June 2022, confirmed that it had raised works to descale the waste pipes and it had forwarded her request to move to her housing officer. The landlord did not uphold the complaint as it asserted that it had attended the resident’s reports within reasonable timeframes.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 25 July 2022, detailing the impact the smell had on her household and their health. She reported the smell occurring again on 16 August 2022, which the landlord raised as an emergency repair. In response to another report of the drain smell from the resident on 30 August 2022, the landlord attempted to visit the property to carry out an inspection later that day but was unable to gain access.
  6. The landlord’s final response to the resident on 8 October 2022 acknowledged that it could have managed the jobs better and it had attended too many times. It apologised that its surveyor did not attend and offered the resident £150 compensation for its handling of the drain repairs and £100 compensation for its late final complaint response. The landlord noted that it had been unable to gain access on its last visit and asked the resident to contact it if she experienced any further issues.
  7. The resident informed the Ombudsman on 15 November 2022 that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response because of the time taken to resolve the drain smell.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of drainage repairs at the resident’s property

  1. The landlord’s repairs handbook provides for three priorities of repairs: emergency, appointed and planned. Emergency repairs are those which pose “a serious health and safety threat to people living in or near the property” and the handbook states that these should be made safe within 24 hours with follow-on works arranged if appropriate. Appointed repairs are those which are not an emergency and the handbook states these will be carried out within 28 calendar days.
  2. Where a landlord is aware of the presence of vulnerabilities within a household, it would be expected to consider these and prioritise its response to the resident appropriately. It therefore acted appropriately by responding to her reports within a day as emergency repairs on each occasion and raising follow-on works after her third report of the same issue, which it completed within 25 calendar days. This was in accordance with its specified timeframe for an appointed repair.
  3. When the resident made further reports on 16 and 30 August 2022, the landlord responded reasonably by attending within 24 hours on both occasions. As the landlord was unable to gain access on 30 August 2022, and there was no evidence of subsequent reports of the issue, any persistence of the drain issue was outside of its control. A landlord is a reliant on being alerted to repair issues by the resident and being allowed access to carry out the necessary works to resolve the issue.
  4. While it was undoubtedly unpleasant and distressing for the resident to experience the recurrent drain smell in the property, there was no evidence of a failure by the landlord in its response to her reports, as it responded reasonably in the circumstances.
  5. While the landlord said, in its final complaint response that it could have managed the works better, there was not an excessive number of reports before it took further actions to carry out follow on works to clear the drains on 15 July 2022, and carry out further investigation on 30 August 2022.
  6. The landlord did acknowledge and apologise, in its final response, for its surveyor not attending the property, leading to distress and inconvenience for the resident. The evidence provided to the Ombudsman does not show when this surveyor inspection was advised to the resident, the potential delay to the resolution of the works occurred between 23 June 2022, when the resident expected the surveyor to attend, and 30 August 2022 when it attempted to inspect the property. This was an unreasonable delay to the resolution of the repair; however, this was relatively short. Therefore, the compensation of £150 offered by the landlord was reasonable and proportionate to address the detriment caused to the resident by this delay.
  7. The offer of £150 compensation was in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which provides for awards of £100 to £600 compensation where there has been a failure by the landlord which caused detriment to the resident, but which may not have been permanent.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints procedure provides for a two-stage internal complaints process. At stage one of this, it should provide its response to the resident within ten working days of receiving the complaint. At the final stage of the complaints procedure, the landlord should provide its final response within 20 working days. These timeframes mirror those set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
  2. The Code states that when a landlord is unable to provide a complaint response within the specified timeframes, it should contact the resident to explain why there was a delay and provide a clear timeframe for when it would issue its response. Additionally, when an extension to a final stage complaint exceeds ten working days, the Code states that this extension should be agreed with the resident.
  3. The Code also states that “a complaint response must be sent to the resident when the answer to the complaint is known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue, are completed. Outstanding actions must still be tracked and actioned expeditiously with regular updates provided to the resident.”
  4. The resident raised her stage one complaint with the landlord on 19 June 2022; it responded to this on 29 June 2022. This was after seven working days and was an appropriate timeframe, in accordance with its procedure and the Code.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 25 July 2022 and the landlord responded at the final stage on 8 October 2022; this was after 54 working days. In order to comply with the timeframe specified in its procedure, the landlord should have provided its final response to the resident by 22 August 2022. It is noted that it emailed her on this date to explain that it could not respond yet as it was awaiting further information from its contractor. The landlord proposed to respond by 5 September 2022; this was reasonable as this extension was ten working days.
  6. However, the landlord informed the resident on 30 August 2022 that it would not be able to meet its revised deadline because it was unable to provide its response due to repairs being outstanding. It emailed her on 22 September 2022 to advise that it was still awaiting information from its contractor and would respond by 7 October 2022.
  7. Considering that the landlord’s final response did not cover any events after its unsuccessful attempt on 30 August 2022 to inspect the property, there was no evidence of a valid reason why the landlord could not keep its first revised deadline of 5 September 2022. There was no evidence of any investigation of the issues raised in the complaint after 30 August 2022, other than it confirming with the contractor, on 13 September 2022, that it had not been able to gain access on its last attendance. In accordance with the Code, above, the landlord should have provided its final response once it had enough information to answer the issues in the complaint, which on the face of it would have been on 13 September 2022. The landlord, therefore, delayed unreasonably in providing its final stage complaint response.
  8. The landlord offered £100 compensation to the resident, in its final response, to recognise its delayed response. This offer was broadly in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, available to view online. This provides for awards of £50 to £100 where there has been a failure by the landlord which caused detriment to the resident but was of short duration and did not significantly affect the overall outcome of the complaint. Therefore, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident for its complaint handling failures which reasonably and proportionately recognised the inconvenience caused by its delay.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaints satisfactorily concerning:
    1. Its handling of drainage repairs at the resident’s property.
    2. Its handling of the associated complaint.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Contacts the resident to ascertain whether the drainage smells persist and, if so to carry out an inspection with a view to producing a plan of works to resolve the issue.
    2. Pay the resident the £250 compensation it offered her in its final response, comprised of:
      1. £150 for its handling of the drainage issues.
      2. £100 for its handling of the complaint.
    3. Review its complaint handling processes and put measures in place to ensure that complaints are responded to in accordance with its procedure and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.