Sanctuary Housing Association (202218853)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218853

Sanctuary Housing Association

29 January 2025


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 reports of a leak from the above property, and the associated repairs.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s:
    1. Complaint handling.
    2. Record Keeping

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a 2-bedroom flat.
  2. The resident reported a leak from the flat above her property, which was coming into her bathroom and kitchen. She raised a complaint at this time. The resident stated that she reported this on 6 September 2022. However, the landlord has recorded the leak as first being reported on 7 September 2022. The landlord first attended on the 7 September 2022 and the leak was repaired on 9 September 2022.
  3. On 14 September 2022, the resident advised the landlord that she had not had light or heating for 7 days, due to the leak. She stated that the leak caused considerable damage to her bathroom and kitchen, and their contents. She also advised that she had a health condition which could be made worse by the leak.
  4. On 15 September 2022, the landlord recorded that it was attending the property, although the Ombudsman has not seen further details regarding this appointment. On 27 September 2022, the landlord noted that the bathroom had been replastered and the kitchen had been partially replastered. It noted the bathroom light was not working. On 30 September 2022, the landlord confirmed that the bathroom light had been fixed.
  5. The stage 1 complaint response was issued on 9 December 2022. It stated that a contractor attended within 24 hours of the leak being reported and that an emergency appointment to trace the leak was completed on 9 September 2022. It confirmed that as of 6 December 2022, all works relating to the leak, had been completed. The landlord stated that for any personal damages claim, the resident would need to submit supporting evidence. It offered £200 for time, trouble, and inconvenience.
  6. On 5 January 2023, the resident advised the landlord that she was unhappy with the response, as her bathroom floor had not been replaced. On 16 January 2023, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s further concerns. On 23 January 2023, it issued a revised stage 1 response. It confirmed that it would contact the resident regarding the remaining works. It increased its compensation offer to £500.
  7. On 5 January 2023 the resident contacted the landlord as she was unhappy with the quality of the repairs works and the length of time taken to complete the repairs. She advised the situation had made her unwell. She did not accept the £500 compensation offer.
  8. On 6 September 2022, the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said that an inspection had been conducted and a schedule of works had been agreed. It advised the works would be completed within 6 weeks of the stage 2 response being issued. The Ombudsman is unaware if this schedule of works related to damage from the leak, or damage from a separate complaint regarding mould. The resident’s mould complaint was being managed by her solicitor. The landlord advised it could not compensate for delays and inconvenience due to an ongoing complaint from the solicitor. It made an offer of compensation of £1,385. The award consisted of £250 for complaint handling, £500 offered at stage 1, £100 for repeat contacts from resident and £525 for damaged items.
  9. The resident has raised further concerns about poor paintwork following the damage from leaks. The resident has also raised a number of other concerns which are detailed in the scope of the investigation.

Assessment and findings

Scope

  1. The resident has advised that she is unhappy regarding an ongoing mould complaint for her wider property. The Ombudsman has been advised this was subject to a court order and that the complaint has since been dealt with by a solicitor. The landlord also confirmed in its stage 2 response that the damp and mould issue was not part of this complaint. At the time of writing this report, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the complaint regarding wider mould concerns has been through the landlord’s internal complaints process. As per paragraph 42a of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, we may not consider complaints which have been made prior to exhausting a landlord’s complaints procedure. As such, the complaint regarding wider mould concerns is out with the scope of this investigation.
  2. The resident has advised Housing Ombudsman she has other complaints with the landlord. These include concerns about staff behaviour and about how reports of anti-social behaviour, made by the resident, have been managed. At the time of writing the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that these issues have been through the landlord’s internal complaints process. As such, in accordance with paragraph 42a, the Ombudsman considers this to be out of scope. However, we will recommend that the landlord contacts the resident to discuss any outstanding concerns. It should consider whether a new complaint needs to be raised for any matters that have not already gone through the landlord’s internal complaint’s procedure.

The landlord’s handling of reports of a leak from the above property, and the associated repairs.

  1. The Ombudsman has conflicting information on when the leak was first reported. Although the resident stated that she first reported this on 6 September 2022, the Ombudsman has not been provided with evidence to demonstrate this. As such we have accepted the 7 September 2022 as the date the leak was reported.
  2. The landlord should have attended within 24 hours of it being reported, as per its repairs policy. The repairs notes confirm that the leak was attended to on that day, although they provide limited information on what action was taken at that time. The stage 2 response states the leak was made safe on the first visit. The resident states that the repairs staff member advised her that the ceiling needed to come down. The resident said that she needed to move items from her kitchen and agreed to a second visit on 8 September 2022. She reports the landlord made a second visit on 7 September in which the leak was stopped, but that her ceilings subsequently collapsed. The landlord attended within 24 hours, as per its repairs policy. However, the landlord’s record keeping makes it difficult to fully assess what actions were taken and whether these were sufficient to prevent further damage from the leak.
  3. The landlord provided 3 repairs notes for 8 September 2022. These suggest that the leak needed to be traced and identified works that may be needed to the flat above to prevent further damage. The notes also indicated that an electrician would attend the resident’s flat that day, however there are no records to confirm what action was taken at that time. In its stage 2 response, the landlord confirmed that the leak was repaired on this day.
  4. The resident reported that she was left with no bathroom light, heating, or extractor fan, and that the bathroom was unusable. The Ombudsman accepts that the leak was fixed on 8 September 2022. However, due to the record keeping, we cannot see what actions the landlord was taking to ensure the bathroom repairs were underway, and that the affected rooms were in a useable state. We are unable to conclude that the landlord took the appropriate actions, and we accept the resident’s reports that the usability of the bathroom was affected. This is likely to have caused inconvenience to the resident. However, there is no evidence to suggest that either party has reported that the functionality of the shower or toilet were affected. We also consider that temporary lighting would have ensured the bathroom was useable while the repairs were ongoing.
  5. A note on 15 September 2022 states that the resident was in contact regarding the damage repairs. The landlord stated that it would go out that day but there are no further records to confirm if this went ahead, and what actions were taken.
  6. An internal email on 27 September 2022 advised that a contractor had boarded and replastered the bathroom, but that the bathroom light needed to be replaced. The landlord should have considered what impact this had on the usability of the bathroom and whether an urgent appointment was required. The Ombudsman would also expect the landlord to be in communication with the resident, so that it could discuss the impact and update the resident on the repairs. The landlord’s records confirmed the light was working as of 30 September 2022.
  7. On the note for the 30 September 2022, the landlord noted that the radiator in the bathroom was working, but that it was full of ‘muck’. It stated that this needed to be raised as a separate repair. There is no evidence to support that a repair was raised, and at the time of writing we have not seen evidence that this repair was completed. However, we also note that the resident has not raised this since. It is likely that the repair has been completed, however, the landlord should contact the resident and ensure this has been done.
  8. The landlord updated the resident on 3 October 2022, confirming that an inspection had taken place, and that outstanding works were being reviewed. The resident’s MP contacted the landlord on 9 October 2022 to raise the resident’s concerns regarding her outstanding repairs. The landlord responded to the MP on 28 October 2022 confirming that the matter was being dealt with but that it could not correspond further until the complaint was investigated. The resident’s MP contacted again on 22 November 2022 and received the same response from the landlord. Regardless of an ongoing complaint, the Ombudsman would expect to see regular updates to the resident in relation to ongoing repairs. The Ombudsman considers that not providing an update to the resident for over 6 weeks may have been detrimental and resulted in the resident feeling the need to continue to reach out to her MP and eventually the Housing Ombudsman.
  9. The landlord provided an update on 23 November 2022 that the works were still being scheduled. It said it would confirm the start date with the resident once it was known. The landlord’s repairs policy states that routine appointments will be completed within 20 working days. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence to support why the appointment was not completed in the recommended time scales. We have also not seen evidence to demonstrate that the landlord was following up the appointments internally or escalating to ensure the repairs were completed as quickly as possible.
  10. The stage 1 response stated that all work had been completed. The landlord attempted to complete a post works inspection on 15 December 2022 however the resident was unwell at that time. On 5 January 2023, the resident advised that the works had not been completed as the bathroom floor had not been replaced. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord attempted to do a post works inspection, and if it had gained access, it may have noticed that work was incomplete. We recognise that the resident was unwell and as such it was reasonable that access was not provided. However, we consider the landlord took the appropriate action in attempting to conduct a post works inspection.
  11. On becoming aware that works remained outstanding, the landlord should have assessed the repair for urgency and informed the resident of a timescale for the repair. The landlord contacted the resident on 16 January 2023 to apologise that the repair was outstanding and confirmed it would follow this up as a matter of urgency. The landlord contacted again on 23 January 2023 to advise that they would contact the resident that week to provide a start date for the bathroom floor works. It also increased its compensation. The landlord took action to address the residents outstanding concerns and considered further compensation by way of apology. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord acted appropriately at this time.
  12. The Ombudsman has not seen any records confirming when the bathroom flooring works were completed, although the landlord wrote in its stage 2 response that the bathroom floor was not replaced until “much later”. The lack of records means the Ombudsman is unable to assess what repair took place, and how long it took to complete.
  13. The landlord’s stage 2 response stated that a schedule of works had been agreed, and that these works would be completed in 16 weeks. The Ombudsman understands that the schedule of works was created due to mould concerns, which were separate to this complaint. In not being specific about what the schedule of works included, the landlord has left a potential question as to whether all works relating to the leak damage have been completed. The Ombudsman has noted throughout the report that the completion of works has been difficult to assess, due to the landlord’s record keeping. However we are aware that the resident accepted the compensation for the leak damage and associated repairs. We have also not seen evidence that any further repairs specific to leak damage, have been raised by the resident, since the stage 2 response was issued. As such we have concluded that the repairs to the leak and related damage, have been completed.
  14. The Ombudsman has detailed in the report that there were substantial delays and a lack of communication from the landlord throughout the handling of the leak repairs. We consider that there was limited evidence to support that the landlord was taking all action necessary to ensure the repairs were completed within the agreed timescales. We further consider that the landlord failed to engage with the resident to consider the impact of the outstanding repairs, specifically when considering the usability of the bathroom and the kitchen.
  15. Due to the failings, the Ombudsman considers that it was appropriate for the landlord to offer compensation. The Ombudsman is aware that the resident requested compensation for damaged items in the property, and that the landlord requested supporting evidence from the resident. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of the damages, however we have seen a list of items the resident reported as damaged, totalling £519.50. The Ombudsman would not usually consider making awards for specific damages, as it can be difficult to quantify and evidence. However, it is evident that the landlord considered the resident’s circumstances and made an award for damage to items of £525.
  16. The landlord also recognised that the resident had to contact it a number of times to resolve the issue, and it offered £100 for this. It upheld the offer from the revised stage 1 response of £500. The total offer made for the handling of the repairs from the leak was £1,125. The Ombudsman considers the landlord looked at the failings in the complaint and made a reasonable offer of compensation to address this. As such there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of reports of a leak and the associated repairs.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that a stage 1 complaint will be addressed within 10 working days. The landlord took 66 working days which is considerably out with the timescales in its complaints policy.
  2. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord provided some updates during the time the stage 1 was outstanding. However, we have not seen evidence that supports why there was a delay to the stage 1 response. It appeared the landlord was attempting to get dates for the repair organised prior to providing its complaints response. The Housing Ombudsman code, paragraph 6.6 states that the response must be issued “when the answer to the complaint is known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue are completed.” The landlord should have issued the response as soon as it was aware what it needed to do to rectify the resident’s concerns.
  3. The stage 2 response should have been issued within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated, as per the landlord’s complaints policy. This took 170 working days, which was significantly out with the timescales. The Ombudsman is aware that during that time the landlord received several other complaints, including a letter of claim, and that this impacted on the response times. However, the landlord should have been clear on what this complaint was about and treated the complaint separately. This would have prevented further delays, and ensured the resident was clear on what the complaint response would address and what it would not.
  4. The Ombudsman recognises that multiple issues have been raised by the resident, which has at times confused the complaint. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord should have taken every action possible to ensure that it sought clarity with the resident and raised new stage 1 complaints where appropriate. The Ombudsman has seen some communication to the resident confirming that, for example, wider damp and mould issues, were not being investigated under this complaint. However, the Ombudsman considers that further clarity may have been beneficial, to ensure the resident understood what would be investigated, and what needed to be raised separately.
  5. Although complaint handling failures have been recognised, the landlord offered £250 in compensation. The Ombudsman would not consider an award above this amount for complaint handling, as per its remedies guidance. As such there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling. However, a recommendation will be made that the landlord contacts the resident to confirm what complaints are outstanding, and where they are at in the complaints process. If these have not been raised as a formal complaint the landlord should consider whether a new complaint needs to be opened.

Record Keeping

  1. The Ombudsman has identified several areas throughout the investigation, in which it was unable to make a complete assessment, due to a lack of records. As such there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s:
    1. Handling or reports of a leak from the property above and the associated repairs.
    2. Complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to review the record keeping in this case. It should pay particular attention to how it keeps records when multiple complaints are ongoing, to ensure that repairs specific to a complaint are being logged. The landlord should identify any actions it needs to take to improve its record keeping in the future, such as staff training or policy changes. The Ombudsman will also accept a report of actions the landlord has taken already as we appreciate the age of the complaint means changes may have already been implemented. The landlord is ordered to send evidence of compliance with this order, within 6 weeks of this report.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman understands the payment of £1385 has already been made to the resident. If it has not, this should be re-offered.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord contact the resident to discuss her outstanding concerns. Where appropriate the landlord should open a new complaint for any matters not already going through the internal complaints process. If complaints are already open, the landlord should update the resident on these.