Sanctuary Housing Association (202223152)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223152

Sanctuary Housing Association

15 February 2024


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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property.
    2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a kitchen replacement.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of landlord at the property since 1993. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The landlord confirmed they had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
  2. Following a report from the resident that the front canopy was damaged on 10 October 2019, the landlord’s contractor attended on 25 October 2019 and made the area safe and took a sample for testing. A survey of the resident’s kitchen was completed in December 2019. A full kitchen replacement was confirmed to start on 30 March 2020, but did not start due to the Covid lockdown. In April 2021 the resident raised a repair to a drain which had caused the pathway to the property to crack. A repair was completed in May 2022. The resident reported in July 2021 that the guttering to the property required a repair. The resident told the landlord on 30 September 2021 that a contractor had attend that day but had advised it may need replacing. The landlord raised works to remove the asbestos, replace the facia, soffits and guttering in March 2022. Due to the area containing asbestos the work was not able to be carried out at an appointment on 24 June 2022. The resident reported a crack to the toilet on 7 June 2022 which had caused a leak. The landlord initially raised the work as a rechargeable repair, but following an inspection it confirmed this was a standard repair. The repair was completed on 6 October 2022, and further work was raised to repair the flooring that had been damaged during the leak. 
  3. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 6 October 2022. She raised the following:
    1. A kitchen replacement had been booked to start in March 2020. She had followed up, but had not received a response on when this was to be completed.
    2. The facia boards were cracked, broken and rotten and the gutters were not fit for purpose. There was asbestos broken above the front door and a contractor had placed duct tape over this as a temporary repair.
    3. A drain outside had collapsed. A contractor had attended but nothing had happened since. The pathway to the front of the property was cracked as a result of this.
    4. A contractor had attended to repair the toilet that day and she was unhappy with the quality of the work. The contractor had not completed the repair to the floor. The floor tiles had been taken up and the floor was urine soaked.
  4. The landlord responded to the resident under the initial stage of its complaint process on 14 October 2022. It said it had arranged for a surveyor to attend the property 25 October 2022. It also said an asbestos surveyor was booked to attend the property on 24 October 2022 and another the following day for the work to the facias and soffits. The landlord confirmed it would contact the resident again within 10 working days. The scheduled work on 24 and 25 October 2022 to remove the asbestos and repair the facias and soffits was not completed due to scaffolding being required. The landlord told the resident on 11 November 20222 that a kitchen replacement was not on the planned programme for that year or the next year. It said repairs would be raised if required.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 10 November 2022. She was not satisfied with the landlord’s response on the replacement kitchen. She said she had previously picked out the kitchen with the planning team and had a works start date. The resident said the kitchen floor was a health hazard and she was concerned it contained asbestos. She was also unhappy with the toilet repair and said this had been ongoing for 6 months. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint escalation and confirmed a response would be provided by 16 December 2022.
  6. The landlord responded at the final stage of its complaint process on 8 December 2022.  It said the following:
    1. It acknowledged and apologised that the resident had contacted the landlord in April 2021, February 2022, May 2022, and June 2022 about the status of her kitchen replacement and it had not provided her with a response.
    2. Following an inspection of the resident’s kitchen on 16 November 2022, the requested works had been raised to the planning team who had confirmed it had no programmes in place regarding any work for the kitchen.
    3. A contractor had attended to the drain repair in May 2022 and noted the work as completed. A further quote was sent for approval following the resident chasing the repair in September 2021. It acknowledged that no further action had been taken on this and said it had now raised this with the repairs team to inspect the pathway.
    4. A standard repair appointment for the toilet had been booked following an inspection on 30 June 2022. The landlord said it had inspected the repair because the resident was unhappy with being recharged for this. Following this inspection a standard repair had been booked. This subsequent appointment had been cancelled due to the operative being unwell. It acknowledged the resident had needed to chase for an update after the repair was started on 19 July 2022, and that further works had been required following an reassessment of the works in September 2022 and again following an appointment on 6 October 2022. The landlord said an appointment had been booked for the repair to be completed on 13 January 2023.  
    5. The work to the porch area, which included asbestos removal, had been identified following an asbestos survey in October 2019. The landlord acknowledged that no further action had taken place until the work was raised in March 2022. It said the delay in starting the work was due to communication issues with one of the contractors not being able to contact the resident. The landlord said the repair work was not completed in October 2022 because a scaffolding tower was required. It said it would be in touch to arrange a completion date.
    6. The landlord offered the resident compensation of £670 in recognition of the inconvenience she had experienced. This was broken down as £350 for time, trouble, and inconvenience caused due to its actions or inaction, £100 for poor communication, £20 for missed appointments and £200 for future impact.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her complaint. She contacted this Service in December 2022 and requested an investigation. The resident confirmed to this service that the repair to the toilet and flooring was completed on 8 March 2023. The landlord confirmed to this Service in February 2023 that all repair work was now completed. The resident advised this service in February 2023 that the work to the outside drain and pathway remained outstanding.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

  1. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. The landlord confirmed during its complaints process that it did not investigate concerns that are over 6 months old. However, it confirmed at stage 2 of the process that it had taken historical events into consideration due to the concerns being ongoing. Taking this into account and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focussed on the period from October 2019 onwards.
  2. It is essential for landlords to break down any offers of compensation so that a resident can understand to what extent it has acknowledged the impact of each individual failure. The landlord offered the resident £670 compensation in its final complaint response. This was broken down as £350 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused, £100 for poor communication, £20 for missed repair appointments, and £200 for future impact. It was not clear in the breakdown provided, how much of the £650 was attributed to each complaint issue. Therefore, for the purpose of the investigation this has been attributed equally, with £325 considered to be for each complaint aspect.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property.

  1. Under the terms of the tenancy, and in accordance with Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the landlord is obliged to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the resident’s home. Under the terms of the tenancy agreement the landlord was responsible for keeping the property in a good state of repair including the drains, gutters and external pipes, outside walls, inside walls windows, doors, ceilings, pathways, floors, toilets, and kitchen units.
  2. The landlord’s repair policy states that the landlord will attend to and make safe emergency repairs within 24 hours and appointed repairs within 28 calendar days. The policy also says the landlord will carry out repairs promptly and in one visit, where possible and regularly update customers on the progress of a repair through proactive communication.
  3. The landlord’s compensation policy says that the landlord can consider offering compensation for time, trouble, and inconvenience, and unreasonable delay to the provision of services. It can offer compensation of up to £400 in recognition of time, trouble, and inconvenience of a service failure on a scale depending on the effort and impact levels. It states that missed appointments can be compensated at £10 where it is clear that a resident was not informed of any changes with reasonable notice.
  4. The resident had first raised the repairs to the porch canopy area on 10 October 2019. The landlord attend the property on 29 October 2019 and made the area safe. It then raised further work on 14 November 2019 to remove asbestos and replace the porch ceiling. The landlord acknowledged in its final complaint response that it had no further updates on this work until it raised a gutter and soffit replacement in March 2022. The work to the repair of the porch, including the asbestos removal had been outstanding for over 3 years by the end of the complaint process. The repair to the guttering and soffits had been outstanding for over 8 months. The resident confirmed to this Service that the work was completed in October 2023, which was a further delay of 10 months.
  5. This repair was significantly in excess of the 28-day timeframe for appointed repairs in the landlord’s repairs policy. This caused the resident the significant inconvenience and distress of living with the outstanding repair for an excessive amount of time. There is no evidence that the asbestos was disturbed during this period of delay and there was work done to ‘make safe’ the area at the initial point. However, the presence of asbestos at a property understandably causes distress to a household and it is a concern here that this issue was not taken more seriously.
  6. The landlord said in its final response that the delay had been partly the result of a difficulty in sourcing scaffolding. While it is accepted that specialist equipment can be needed, the timeframe here was excessive. The landlord also said its contractor had experienced difficulty in contacting the resident for an appointment. The landlord’s records noted the contractor had reported difficulties with contacting the resident between July and August 2022. However, the resident had advised the landlord she had not received any missed calls and followed up with the landlord to let it know she had not received contact. It was accepted that this miscommunication had caused a short delay. However, it is apparent that further delays both prior and after this, contributed significantly to the overall failure here to complete the repair within an appropriate timeframe.
  7. The landlord raised a repair job to the resident’s toilet on 7 June 2022 following the resident’s report that the toilet had cracked and was leaking on flushing. It was noted that the resident was containing the leak with towels. The repair to the crack and leak to the toilet was not completed until 6 October 2022, which was 4 months after the resident had reported the repair. The landlord had here delayed excessively in resolving the issue. It was evident that an initial delay to the repair was the result of the landlord categorising the repair as rechargeable to the resident, as it had been reported following the resident fitting a new toilet seat. The resident had explained to the landlord that the leak was due to the age of the toilet and the lack of enamel.
  8. The landlord raised the repair work as a standard repair following an inspection on 30 June 2022. This initial error by the landlord delayed the raising of the work by 3 weeks. The toilet was the only one within the property and as such the resident experienced the inconvenience of having to continue to use this despite the ongoing leak. Also, while the resident had advised the leak was contained with towels, the delay in attending to the repair had resulted in further damage to the flooring around the toilet which was not repaired during the appointment on 6 October 2022.
  9. The landlord said in its final response that the repair to the flooring around the toilet in the bathroom was unable to take place on 6 October 2022 because the floor needed to dry out. This was a reasonable explanation, although it was acknowledged that another appointment may have caused the resident further inconvenience. However, the landlord confirmed in its complaint response that the work was only approved on 29 November 2022 and an appointment had been booked to complete the work on 13 January 2023.
  10. Furthermore, the resident confirmed to this Service that the work to the flooring in the bathroom was not completed until March 2023. The completion of the full repair to the toilet took in excess of 9 months. This repair took too long and was not completed in line with the landlord’s repair policy. The resident had to facilitate further appointments due to the repairs required to the flooring, following the continued leak while she awaited the toilet repair. This caused the resident significant inconvenience.
  11. The resident reported a broken drain which had caused the footpath to the property to crack on 29 April 2021. The landlord’s records noted that the resident had contacted the landlord on 27 July 2021 and on 30 September 2021 to follow up on further work required. The landlord noted in its complaint response that quotations had been sent for approval following this. The resident said in her complaint that she had not been updated since and that the pathway was a trip hazard. In its final complaint response, the landlord said it had requested an inspection of the pathway for any required works.
  12. This repair had remained outstanding at the time of the resident’s complaint for 19 Months. The resident confirmed to this Service that this repair remained outstanding at the time of this report. The landlord had here failed to complete the repair within a reasonable timeframe. It was also evident that the resident had to take the time and trouble to follow up on actions required following the contractor visits.
  13. The resident had made the landlord aware that the cracks to the pathway had been a trip hazard. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (the HHSRS) offers landlords a risk-based tool to enable them to consider potential hazards. Landlords have a responsibility to keep properties free from hazards, which includes falls on level surfaces.
  14. A landlord is obliged, in accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the Decent Homes Standard, and the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, to ensure that a property is free from category one hazards. The landlord should have fully investigated the concerns about the cracks to the pathway from the broken drain, to establish the risk level to the resident. It was a concern that the landlord had not taken action to repair this, following the resident’s complaint.
  15. It was evident that the landlord had failed to keep the resident updated on the progress of the repairs. The landlord’s records noted the resident had chased the landlord for an update on the repair to the toilet on 10 occasions between 7 June 2022 and 2 September 2022. The resident had also chased the repair to the guttering, porch and soffits in June 2022 and the repairs to the footpath and drain in July and September 2021. The landlord had here failed to follow its repairs policy and had not been proactive in communicating with the resident on the progress of the repairs.
  16. As a result, the resident incurred the distress and inconvenience of not knowing when the repairs would take place and also incurred the inconvenience of taking the time to follow up with the landlord to find out the status of the repair. This also resulted in the resident raising the issues as a complaint. It was noted that following the resident’s complaint, the landlord did provide updates to the resident on the status of the toilet repair. This was appropriate and demonstrated that the landlord had taken learning from its complaint investigation.
  17. In its final response, the landlord had offered the resident compensation of £100 in total for poor communication, £50 of which has been attributed to this aspect of the complaint. This compensation was not enough to account for the poor communication on each of the repair issues over a prolonged period of time. This was not proportionate in consideration of inconvenience caused to the resident by repeatedly following up with the landlord over a period of 17 months.
  18. The landlord offered the resident £20 compensation for missed appointments. It was evident hat this was in relation to an appointment for an inspection of the toilet repair on 15 July 2022, which had been cancelled. A further inspection appointment was missed on 25 October 2022. The compensation offered here was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s compensation policy.
  19. To provide a fair response, landlords are expected to resolve complaints by addressing both the main issue raised and any inconvenience that has happened. When a landlord agrees that it failed to provide a service, the expectation is for the landlord to offer redress. The landlord acknowledged in its final complaint response that it had not provided the resident with the service it should have. The landlord’s offer of £325 of compensation attributed to this aspect of the complaint was not enough to put things right for the resident.
  20. In summary, the resident experienced excessive delays in the repairs to her property, and poor communication on the progress of the repairs. The removal of the asbestos remained outstanding for over 3 years, the toilet leaked for over 4 months which had resulted in a urine socked floor that was not repaired for a further 5 months, and the potential trip hazard to the pathway of the property remained outstanding. This had caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience. Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property. The landlord had acknowledged its failure here and attempted to put things right through an offer of compensation. The offer of compensation made was not sufficient to acknowledge the full extent of the delays to the completion of the work and did not account for part of the work remaining outstanding.
  21. Furthermore, the landlord set out in its complaint response that it would attend to the outstanding repairs in order to out things right. However, it had not followed through on this action in an acceptable timeframe. This demonstrated that it had failed to learn from the outcomes of its complaint investigation.
  22. A total amount of £900 compensation is considered appropriate to account for the prolonged significant impact on the resident. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for cases where the landlord’s failures have had a serious, detrimental, and long-term impact on the resident. A further order has been included for the landlord to arrange to inspect the property and complete a full assessment of the outstanding work to the drain and pathway required.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a kitchen replacement.

  1. The landlord’s repair handbook says that planned repairs are carried out as a programme of works and might take longer than 28 days. It says that each year the landlord carries out an extensive programme of improvement works including replacing kitchens. It says if a property is included in an improvement programme, the landlord will contact the resident at least 2 months prior to the start of the work and discuss choices such as fittings and colours.
  2. The landlord’s capital reinvestment policy states that the landlord aims to provide a capital reinvestment service that ensures that properties meet, and are maintained, to the Decent Homes Standard 2018. It says its Property Services Delivery team review regions and prioritise the works generated aligning to confirmed budgets.
  3. The resident’s kitchen had been assessed as requiring a replacement in 2020. This replacement was not completed by the landlord until October 2023. It was evident that the landlord had confirmed to the resident on 11 March 2020 that work to replace her kitchen was to start on 30 March 2020. This followed a kitchen survey at the property on 4 December 2019 after which the plans for the full replacement had been sent to the resident. The resident told the landlord that the work did not take place due to the lockdown restrictions. It is acknowledged that during the Covid pandemic in 2020, there had been restrictions on the work the landlord was able to complete. However, it appeared that the landlord had not followed up on the cancelled work. The landlord had here failed to keep the resident updated on the status of the work. As a result, the resident was left unsure of when of or if the work was due to start.
  4. It was evident that the landlord failed to communicate effectively with the resident after she followed up on the status of the work on 29 April 2019. The landlord acknowledged it its complaint response that it had failed to respond to her until she had followed up again on 16 February 2022. The landlord acknowledged that the resident had also chased the landlord for an update in May 2022 and June 2022. This demonstrated a poor level of customer service. The resident had to take the time and trouble to follow up on her concerns on several occasions. The landlord had offered the resident compensation of £100 in total for poor communication, £50 of which has been attributed to this aspect of the complaint. This compensation was not enough to account for the poor customer service the resident continued to experience for a time period in excess of 2 years.
  5. The landlord said in its final complaint response that it informed the resident in February 2022 that it had looked through its records and could not see that a new kitchen was due at the property until 2025. It was concerning that the landlord did not have a record of the kitchen survey and plans for the replacement kitchen it had issued to the resident in December 2019. The landlord had here failed to maintain adequate records, which had impacted its own ability to carry out a thorough and accurate investigation into the resident’s concerns about her kitchen replacement.
  6. The landlord confirmed in its final response that it did not have a programme in place at that time regarding any works to the resident’s kitchen. While the landlord’s tenant handbook stated that works such as kitchen replacements are considered under works improvement programmes, the landlord had failed to acknowledge that the resident had already had the kitchen replacement confirmed in 2020. The response provided by the landlord was not appropriate. The landlord had not referred to the previous work planned and did not make it clear to the resident if this had been cancelled or not. It was unreasonable for the landlord to not take into consideration that it had already confirmed the work to the resident previously. This caused the resident further distress and frustration.
  7. In its final response, the landlord advised the resident to contact the repairs team if she required any repairs to the kitchen. The resident had raised concerns about the condition of flooring in the kitchen, which included the possibility it may have contained asbestos, in her complaint on 6 October 2022. The flooring had been removed in advance of the complete kitchen renewal in 2020. The landlord confirmed that it had inspected the property on 16 November 2022 and works had been raised to the planning team, who had subsequently confirmed no works programmes to replace the kitchen had been in place. However, this did not confirm if the resident’s concerns about the flooring had been addressed.
  8. The resident confirmed to this service that the flooring remained in a poor condition until the kitchen was replaced in October 2023. The landlord had an obligation under both the terms of the tenancy agreement and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to ensure the property was in a reasonable state of repair in the interim. No evidence was provided which demonstrated that the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the flooring in the kitchen, despite the concerns that it may have contained asbestos.
  9. The landlord offered the resident compensation for poor communication,time, trouble, inconvenience caused by its actions or inaction and future impact. £325 of this had been attributed to this aspect of the resident’s complaint. This level of compensation did not go far enough to account for the landlord’s failure to acknowledge that the resident’s kitchen replacement had already been approved. It did not account for the frustration and distress caused to the resident who had to continually chase up the work over an extensive period of time.
  10. In conclusion, the resident experienced an excessive delay in the landlord’s response to her concerns about a replacement kitchen. The landlord failed to keep the resident updated on the status of the work or provide the resident with a fair response once she had raised her concerns. It also failed to carry out the replacement kitchen it had confirmed within a timely manner. As such, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a kitchen replacement. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident a further amount of compensation of £650 to account for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a kitchen replacement.

Orders and recommendations

Orders.

  1. The landlord is ordered to write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
  2. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £1570 in compensation. This amount includes the £670 of compensation offered during the complaint process. Compensation not already paid, should be paid directly to the resident, and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises of:
    1. £900 for the significant distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property.
    2. £650 for the significant distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a kitchen replacement.
    3. £20 as previously offered for missed appointments.
  3. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to arrange to inspect the property and complete an assessment of any outstanding work required to the drain and pathway. The landlord is to provide the resident with a reasonable timeframe for any outstanding repairs identified, in line with its repair policy.
  4. The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation.

  1. The landlord should conduct a full review of the case, in relation to record keeping, taking into consideration the recommendations in the Spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management report, published by this Service in May 2023.