Sanctuary Housing Association (202224287)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202224287

Sanctuary Housing Association

10 April 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for repairs to:
    1. The hot water system.
    2. The front door.

 

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a provider of social housing. The property is a 3-bed ground floor flat with a front door that opens onto the street (not an internal communal area). She lives there with 4 children and one grandchild.
  2. There are no vulnerabilities recorded on the landlord’s system, but it is aware that the resident has health issues.
  3. The resident told the landlord on 30 November 2022 that the police had broken her front door, and it was a case of mistaken identity. The landlord attended as an emergency repair and made the door safe. It needed to be replaced and the landlord organised for it to be measured and quoted for on 6 December 2022. The landlord received the quote 5 working days later and on 11 January 2023 the landlord approved the quote and raised the order.
  4. The resident experienced several attempted burglaries and contacted the landlord on 14 and 15 December 2022 to report the door was not secure. It attended to these emergency repairs and on 16 December 2022 it also fitted plywood boards to the door. There was not enough material, so a further order was raised to return to fit boards to the other side. This did not happen.
  5. The resident was concerned that the door was contributing to heat loss in her property and said that the new boarding had not solved the problem. In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response it offered a discretionary payment of £150 to assist with the cost of heating. The new replacement door was delayed beyond the 8-week timeframe the resident had been given and was fitted on 12 April 2023.
  6. The resident reported a loss of hot water to the landlord on 10 January 2023. The landlord’s contractor tried to fix the issue but had to raise follow on works and a plumbing survey. The resident was unhappy with the service the landlord was providing around the front door and the heating system and made a formal complaint on 11 January 2023. She said the issues with the heating system had been going on for years and that it was affecting her physical and mental health.
  7. When the resident reported a continued loss of hot water on 17 January 2023, the landlord attended on the same day and more follow-on works were raised. These were completed on 19 January and 8 February 2023. A plumbing survey was completed, and it recommended a bigger cylinder was fitted to suit the size and needs of the family. The landlord agreed and it was fitted on 20 April 2023.
  8. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 24 January 2023. It accepted that there were delays in fixing the hot water system, apologised, and offered £240 compensation. The resident was not satisfied with the response or the compensation amount. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response upheld the complaint on both matters. It increased the compensation offer to £740 which included payments for time, trouble and inconvenience, a discretionary payment for energy costs, loss of hot water, and future impact payment. The resident remained dissatisfied and contacted the Ombudsman to consider her case.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has expressed how the events impacted her and her household’s physical and mental health and asked for compensation for this. While the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s position, the Ombudsman does not have the power to determine a causal link between the acts and omissions of a landlord and a resident’s health. Such a determination is more appropriate for the courts. The resident has the option to seek further legal advice or a personal injury claim through an insurer. However, the overall distress and inconvenience caused to the resident has been considered in this investigation.
  2. The resident reports that she has experienced repair issues with the heating and hot water system over the last 9 years and that her back gate has not been fixed properly. This investigation is limited to considering the landlord’s handling of the front door repairs and replacement reported in November 2022, and the loss of hot water reported in January 2023. This is because, under the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we cannot investigate issues that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable timeframe of normally within 6 months of the matter arising.
  3. The landlord’s records show that the resident made a previous complaint about the heating and hot water system in November 2021. The Ombudsman cannot consider complaints that are brought to them more than 12 months after they exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.
  4. In the resident’s contact with the Ombudsman, as part of the outcome she was seeking, she has requested a new back gate, awning for the garden and consideration for a wet room. These requests do not form part of this complaint and cannot be considered as part of this investigation. The Ombudsman has advised the resident to raise these requests separately with the landlord.

The hot water system

  1. The landlord is obliged under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, and in accordance with the tenancy agreement, to complete repairs within a reasonable timeframe. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy confirms that in England, emergency repairs will be attended to within 24 hours and ‘appointed repairs’ within 28 days.
  2. The resident reported a loss of hot water on 10 January 2023. The landlord’s initial response was correct. It classified the repair as an emergency because there was no hot water. It accepted responsibility to fix the issue and attended the same day. The landlord made a “well-being team” referral because of the resident’s health conditions. The “well-being team” managed the repair by monitoring progress, chasing when necessary, and proactively updating the resident. The referral was customer focused and in line with the landlord’s repairs and maintenance procedure to consider resident’s needs.
  3. The landlord’s contractor could not fix the problem and requested a plumbing survey for the property. A quote was received on 13 January 2023 and approved by the landlord on 23 January 2023. The contractor provided the quote in a reasonable timeframe, but the landlord took 7 working days to approve the quote and raise the order. Given the resident’s circumstances, that the landlord was aware of, this was not reasonable. Furthermore, the plumbing survey was not completed until the 17 February 2023. The Ombudsman accepts that the delay to the survey did not prevent the heating system being fixed. The landlord gave the job to one of its contractors as its internal plumbing team were too busy. This was reasonable of the landlord and the evidence provided showed that this was because it accepted it was an urgent priority.
  4. The plumbing survey was completed on the 17 February 2023 and on 22 February 2023 the landlord received a quote for replacing the existing cylinder with a larger 300 litre cylinder. The contractor said that although the current cylinder was correct for the type of installation, it may not be enough for the household to have consecutive showers and heat in between. The landlord approved the quote on 8 March 2023. This was a fair and reasonable decision by the landlord. It was not legally bound to increase the cylinder size, but it took the household’s make up and situation into account. It was customer focused and solution driven.
  5. The resident had to call again to report no hot water on 17 January 2023. The landlord classified this as an emergency repair and attended the same day. Follow-on works for a faulty hot water programmer were booked for 19 January 2023. On the 19 January 2023 further follow-on works to check the off-peak immersion were booked for 8 February 2023. This was good practice from the landlord, to provide the booked appointments to the follow-on works in a timely manner. Its repairs and maintenance procedure states that a second appointment may be necessary, following an emergency repair, to complete all the works. Although in this case there were 2 further appointments the landlord acted reasonably and fairly in accepting the investigations and work the contractor recommended. The landlord acted appropriately in trying to fully resolve the issue.
  6. On 8 February 2023 the landlord fixed the heating system. This meant the property had been without a fully functioning hot water system for 30 days.
  7. On that day the landlord contacted the resident to check that the work had been completed and her heating system was working. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states that it will regularly update customers on the progress of their repair through proactive communication. The evidence provided to the Ombudsman shows that the landlord did this and in doing so acted appropriately. The resident confirmed the work was complete and the system was working. She was however unhappy with how long it took. She also said she had misinterpreted the role of the “well-being team” and suggested the landlord may need to change its marketing of the service. The landlord acted appropriately and offered advice on how to make a complaint, explained the role of the “well-being team’ and confirmed it had put her comments in the suggestion box.
  8. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 24 January 2023 acknowledged there had been delays in repairing the system and apologised. It offered her compensation of £240. Made up of:
    1. £90 for the loss of hot water between 10 January and 8 February 2023 (date of work to check off peak immersion).
    2. £150 for time, trouble, and inconvenience.
  9. £90 was in line with the landlord’s published compensation figures of £3 per day per household for loss of water. This was an appropriate offer. The £150 was offered for time, trouble and inconvenience from the middle banding of its time, trouble and inconvenience of service failure payment. In the Ombudsman’s assessment, this offer of compensation was not fair and should have been within the landlord’s higher banding of £151-400 for high effort / high impact. The landlord was aware of the resident’s situation and should have been quicker to approve quotes. The inconvenience of not having a fully functioning hot water system was higher for this resident than it may have been for others without health concerns and needs.
  10. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 14 February 2023 increased the compensation offer for time, trouble, and inconvenience to £400. It was not clear how much of this was for the loss of hot water issue and how much was for the front door issue. In the Ombudsman’s assessment, compensation of £200 for time, trouble and inconvenience would be appropriate for the loss of hot water complaint. The landlord should make it clearer in its responses and separate out the compensation for each substantive complaint. It should also confirm in its complaints policy and procedure whether its compensation figures are for an overall customer complaint (which may have many individual complaints within it) or per each complaint issue. The Ombudsman, in line with its own remedies’ guidance, suggest that the compensation figures published are for each individual complaint issue.
  11. In summary, the landlord responded appropriately to the report of loss of hot water and considered the resident’s health issues in its actions and responses. It fixed the system in a reasonable time frame, given the follow-on works that were required. It replaced the cylinder for a larger one to suit the household’s needs. It acknowledged its failings and offered fair remedies in its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord has therefore offered reasonable redress to the resident, prior to this investigation, which in the Ombudsman opinion resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

The front door  

  1. On 30 November 2022 the resident reported to the landlord that the police had broken her front door in a case of mistaken identity. The landlord’s initial response was correct. It classified the repair as an emergency because the property was not secure and as per paragraph 5.3.4 of the landlord’s repairs and maintenance procedure, emergency repairs include “insecure external door that inhibits the safety of the tenants and property.” It accepted responsibility to fix the door and attended within 24 hours to make the door safe. It was reasonable of the landlord to have relied on the determination and expertise of the contractor who secured the door, when they advised the door was now secure.
  2. The landlord’s out of hours service advised that the door needed replacing and a follow-on job was raised to measure and quote for a new door. Evidence was provided to the Ombudsman that showed it was treated as an urgent priority job. This was not a classification within the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy, but the policy gives flexibility towards the needs of vulnerable service users. This was appropriate given the type of job, the location of the property (door facing a busy location) and the make-up of the household.
  3. The resident called the landlord on 3 December 2022 as the door was letting noise and the cold in and she wanted to know what was happening. The landlord confirmed that the current door was secure, and a job had been raised to measure for a new door. The landlord discussed the anticipated timescale to complete the work. This was an appropriate response from the Landlord. It managed the resident’s expectations about how long it might take for the new door to be fitted.
  4. The contractor sent the replacement door quote to the landlord on 12 December 2022, 5 working days after their visit. It was not until 11 January 2023 that it was sent to the right person and approved. This was not appropriate. 20 working days were lost waiting for the quote to be approved. This increased the already expected long wait for the resident. When the quote was chased on 21 December 2023 all repair managers were on annual leave. The landlord should have ensured that a system was in place to manage quote approvals (that includes cover for staff absences). It should ensure that it has a robust system in place to make sure quotes go to the people with the correct approval rates and that there is a strict timeframe for dealing with them.
  5. On 14 and 15 December 2022, the resident reported attempted burglaries, and that the front door was insecure. The landlord responded appropriately by responding to it as an emergency repair and attended both times to check the door. The management of these reports was appropriate, and the resident was kept updated. After speaking to the resident, the landlord referred her to the “well-being team” to ensure the replacement door job was tracked and the resident updated. This was good practice from the landlord to ensure replacement works, which tend to have longer completion times, do not get lost.
  6. The resident and the contractor were both concerned about the security of the door and the resident spoke to a manager on 15 December 2022. The landlord attended on 16 December 2022 and boarded one side of the door with plywood. The manager agreed to raise a complaint for her. A further job was raised to complete boarding to the other side of the front door. This did not happen, despite the resident mentioning it in her complaint. It was not appropriate that the boarding to the front door was not completed and that a complaint was not raised. The landlord’s failings caused the resident to experience distress and inconvenience. The landlord knew the door had outstanding works required and did not complete them in a reasonable timeframe. The landlord also knew the situation of the household and that it had experienced attempted burglaries that they said had frightened them. By not completing the works the landlord acted inappropriately and unsympathetically. Furthermore, by not raising a complaint at this time the landlord delayed the actions it could take to put things right and improve its relationship with the resident.
  7. When the contractor and the resident reported concerns about the security of the door, the landlord alerted it’s decant team. The decant team declined the request as a temporary fix could be arranged. The landlord called the resident to discuss the door, and the call made by the manager and subsequent boarding of the door, as detailed above, occurred. It was appropriate of the landlord to call the resident to understand the impact the situation was having on her, and the evidence showed that the landlord listened. Alerting the decant team was a reasonable action, that showed the landlord was considering different options it could take.
  8. On 23 January 2023 the landlord informed the resident of an 8 week wait for the door to be ready, but this was later extended by 4 weeks. The landlord asked the contractor to consider the vulnerability of the resident and whether they could do anything to speed up the process. The delay was out of the landlord’s control, and it kept the resident informed, either by calling, texting or responding to her contact. It accounted for the resident’s situation and tried to move the replacement forward. For the most part the landlord acted appropriately in a difficult situation. It would have been beneficial for the landlord to have chased the contractor and then contacted the resident at the halfway point between 23 January 2023 and 9 March 2023. It would have been customer focused and would have helped to manage expectations.
  9. The landlord received a notification from the contractor that the door fitting was forecast to be completed on 28 March 2023. The resident was not informed by the landlord, or the contractor, and the work was not completed. The Ombudsman accepts that mistakes happen, but the failure to inform the resident further delayed the door replacement by 16 days, which was not appropriate. With the correct processes in place this was an avoidable situation. It was completed on 12 April 2023.
  10. In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 14 February 2023, it acknowledged the delays and apologised. It recognised the resident’s view that the door had increased the amount of energy she was buying, as heat was escaping out the door. It offered specifically for the front door complaint:
    1. £100 future impact payment (up to end of March 2023 when the door should be replaced).
    2. £150 discretionary payment to assist with heat loss.
    3. £400 for time, trouble, and inconvenience (for both the loss of hot water and the front door).
  11. In the Ombudsman view this was not enough. The failings were:
    1. The landlord did not complete the boarding to the other side of the front door as agreed. It did not acknowledge this failing in its complaint responses or attempt to put things right.
    2. The landlord did not approve the replacement door quote for 20 working days which was an unreasonable delay.
    3. It behaved inappropriately by not making sure the resident was aware of the appointment on 28 March 2023, further delaying the door replacement.
  12. In summary, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the front door repairs and replacement, for the reasons listed above. The redress offered does not reflect the adverse emotional and physical impact the resident would have been going through, worrying about her family. The redress also only compensated up to the end of March 2023 and the door did not get replaced until 12 April 2023.
  13. The landlord took a reasonable approach in response to the resident’s request to be compensated for her increased energy usage and cost. It offered a discretionary payment and when the resident said it was not enough, the landlord offered to reconsider the figure if the resident provided evidence of the increased cost. However, the compensation for future impact and time, trouble and inconvenience were not enough, and an order has been made.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the hot water system.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the front door repairs and replacement.

Orders

Orders

  1. The landlord to, in addition to what has already been offered, pay the resident:
    1. £200 for distress and inconvenience in relation to the front door repairs and replacement.
  2. If not already done so, the landlord to pay the resident the £740 compensation offered in the stage 2 complaint response.
  3. This should be a distinct payment and not used to offset any rent arrears or other amount owed.
  4. The landlord must show it has complied with this order within 4 weeks of this report.
  5. Within 12 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should review its quote approvals process and ensure it is robust, to make sure similar failings causing delays do not happen in the future. The review should decide if it needs to be amended. A written review must be shared with the Ombudsman.