Sanctuary Housing Association (202230688)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202230688

Sanctuary Housing Association

11 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s application of anti-mould treatment solution at the resident’s property.
The landlord’s complaint handling has also been investigated.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord and lives in a three-bedroom semi-detached property. The resident lives with his partner and 3 children. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident or his family.
On 16 November 2022, the neighbour reported damp and black mould in his bathroom, amongst other issues. The landlord arranged appointments to attend at the resident’s property to complete treatment on 28 November 2022 and 6 January 2023. The appointments were rescheduled, and it is uncertain if this was at the request of the resident or landlord. The landlord attended the resident’s property on 2 February 2022. It treated mould in the bathroom spraying an anti-mould treatment solution (‘the solution’).
The resident contacted the landlord on 2 February 2023. He told it he had brushed his teeth and had an “awful taste and discomfort” in his mouth. He believed this was because of its operative spraying the solution earlier that day. The landlord told the resident he “should be fine” as he had rinsed his mouth. It provided him with the name of the solution used at his request. The resident spoke with the manufacturer of the solution who confirmed the solution should not be applied by spraying it. The resident complained to the landlord later on 2 February 2023. He said the landlord had used the solution against the manufacturer’s instructions. He was also concerned the solution had been placed in a different container, against the landlord’s chemical safety advice.
The landlord completed an investigation into alleged misuse of the solution between 3 and 7 February 2023. It confirmed its operative had failed to remove the resident’s belongings before applying the solution in his bathroom. It also found the operative failed to act in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions by spraying the solution. The landlord’s Head of Health and Safety spoke with the resident twice between 3 and 9 February 2023. It confirmed to him it had breached the manufacturer’s recommended application. It also assured the resident it believed its operative had cleaned the bottle used to hold the solution. The resident asked it to provide a written response.
The landlord told the resident it would provide a response to his complaint by 24 February 2022. As the landlord had not responded by 9 March 2023 the resident asked it to escalate his complaint. On 9 March 2023 it told him it would provide a stage 2 complaint response by 6 April 2023. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 6 April 2023. It stated the following:
1. It apologised for the “upset caused by its operative on 2 February 2023”. It said it could not confirm what further action it would take with its operative, in accordance with General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
2. It assured the resident it had taken his complaint seriously. It said its Head of Health and Safety had previously acknowledged it did not apply the solution correctly. It said it had followed this up with its maintenance team.
3. It offered compensation of £100. This was made up of £50 for time and trouble to raise the issues and £50 for the delay in responding to the complaint.
On 6 April 2023, the resident raised his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of the same day. He said the compensation was a “complete joke.” He said it did not consider the distress, alarm, inconvenience, risk to his and his family’s health or damage to his toothbrush. He said he had developed a “sore throat” for two days. The landlord provided a further response on 3 May 2022. It stated the following:
1. As the resident had talked about personal injury, he could provide further information to it to raise with its public liability insurance.
2. It offered a further £50 in compensation for its delay in responding and further inconvenience. It paid total compensation of £150 to the resident on 4 May 2023.
The resident escalated his concerns to the Ombudsman on 11 April 2023. He stated the following:
1. The landlord followed to correctly follow its complaints procedure and there was “minimal contact” about his concerns.
2. The landlord left him feeling like it “does not care what has happened.” He said he did not feel the compensation offer was “reasonable or a fair offer.” He said it did not consider “the level of distress, inconvenience and risk” to his family.
The landlord issued a further stage 2 complaint response on 27 September 2023 and referenced this complaint along with two different complaints. The resolution provided in the response of 27 September 2023 does not relate to the outcome of the complaint being assessed here.

Assessment and findings

The resident said that he has suffered health issues because of the landlord’s incorrect application of application of anti-mould treatment solution at the resident’s property. Whilst we do not doubt the resident’s comments, this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim against the landlord if he considers that his health has been affected by its actions or inaction. This is a legal process, and the resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if he wants to pursue this option. However, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience that the resident experienced because of the landlord’s handling of the situation involving his property.

The landlord’s application of anti-mould treatment solution at the resident’s property.

The landlord’s Hazardous Substances Policy recognises its “legal and moral duty to protect safety, health and welfare of all residents affected by an act or omission in its day-to-day operations.” The policy relates to the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) Regulations 2002. The policy confirms its responsibilities as follows:
1. Its Head of Health and Safety is responsible in ensuring changes to COSHH legislation are reflected in its procedure. They will also provide support and advice on relevant regulations and legislation and ensure procedure is reviewed.
2. The landlord’s employees are responsible for following procedure and reporting all accidents with or without injury. They must also report any concerns or defects with procedure immediately.
The policy also states to prevent and control exposure to substances the work environment must be controlled, including ventilation as an example. When an accident occurs the landlord must provide information to all that need it, including emergency services. It should also “mitigate the effects of the event” and “restore the situation to normal.”
There is evidence of the landlord completing a safety data sheet for the mould treatment solution on 1 November 2018. It also completed a COSHH report for the mould treatment solution in January 2020. Both reported the solution as “low risk” and if in contact with skin to wash for 10 minutes or longer. It said if ingested the mouth should be washed and if swallowed a poison centre or doctor should be contacted. The instructions state the solution should be applied to affected areas using a sponge, cloth, or brush.
The landlord told the resident to wash his mouth when he reported he had ingested the solution. It also provided him with details of the solution at his request. Both actions were in accordance with its Hazardous Substances Policy. The landlord acted appropriately in completing an investigation into the “untoward event” from 3 February 2023. It established its operative had sprayed the solution instead of applying it directly by sponge, cloth, or brush. It is of concern there is no evidence of the operative reporting contamination of the resident’s property and the risk was only mitigated because of the resident reporting the issue. Its operative failed to act in accordance with its Hazardous Substances Policy as follows:
1. It failed to apply the solution in accordance with the solutions application instructions.
2. It failed to remove the resident’s personal property before completing any treatment work.
3. It failed to report contamination of the resident’s personal items after it had treated the property.
As a result of its investigation up to 7 February 2023 it was able to arrange further training for the operative responsible. It also ensured its maintenance team were aware of the correct process to apply the solution. These were both appropriate in ensuring there was no reoccurrence of the same issue. This is pertinent as there was potential of wider risk to the resident and his family’s health in this case. The landlord mitigated the risk of other residents or employees facing harm due to inappropriate application of the solution.
The resident raised concerns on 3 February 2023 of cross contamination between the solution and the remnant of another product used in the repurposed spray bottle. The landlord told him on the same day the spray bottle “would have been thoroughly washed” before it placed anything in it. It was not certain this was the case until 7 February 2023 when it spoke to the operative responsible. It should not have given its thoughts until it was certain and was able to understand the risk of any cross-contamination.
The resident asked on 14 February 2023 if the landlord would raise the issue with the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). The landlord determined internally on 23 March 2023 it would not do this as it was a “low level” incident. It was its prerogative to determine this. However, it failed to explain its decision to the resident. This left this question unanswered and prolonged its response.
It was appropriate for the Head of Health and Safety to contact the resident about the issue. They appropriately assured the resident it did not use a large proportion of toxic chemicals that could cause cross contamination. They also confirmed on the balance of probabilities the spray bottle had been washed out. The Head of Health and Safety found the solution must be decanted to dilute it in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. They chose not to address the resident’s concerns that the solution should not be decanted. This was because they believed the response would be inflammatory to him. There is no evidence following this, the landlord provided information to the resident about this. It should have done so to fully address his concerns, to ensure it was treating his concerns seriously.
On 3 February 2023, the resident confirmed he had developed a “sore throat”. He told the landlord all other family members were unaffected and had no symptoms. Between 4 February and 2 May 2023, it failed to discuss his health. This was despite him telling it about his “sore throat” again on 14 February, 6 March and 11 April 2023. Evidence shows internally on 6 February and 6 March the landlord’s insurance team provided advice “not to engage” with the resident “about his health or alleged injury”. It said if the resident raised this to refer it to the insurance team. There is no evidence of the landlord referring the resident’s concerns of 14 February, 6 March and 11 April 2023. Furthermore, its failure to respond about his health showed a distinct lack of empathy to the resident. While there may have been concerns about staff members compromising the outcome any potential insurance claim, it was not required that it demand that it staff not engage at all on this aspect of the case. The landlord did advise the resident on raising a claim to its public liability insurance on 3 May 2023. However, it should have done this much sooner than it did to allow the resident to gather evidence and consider his response.
In the landlord’s investigation from 7 February 2023, it identified it had failed to ask the resident or moved any of his personal belongings before spraying the solution. In failing to do this it failed to “control the environment.” It would have been able to mitigate the impact of incorrectly spraying the solution had it taken this step. It did ensure the operative was aware of the importance of moving personal belongings in future.
Following this the landlord failed to consider the potential contamination of the resident’s belongings. It was aware as part of its investigation it had failed to move the belongings and his toothbrush was contaminated. On 11 April 2023 he told it his (electric) toothbrush needed replacing. He also told it he needed to be reimbursed for cost of cleaning products as the whole bathroom needed cleaning. There is no evidence the landlord investigated or acted on either of these points. This was not in accordance with its Hazardous Substances Policy of “restoring the situation to normal.” It should have arranged to clean the resident’s bathroom and dispose of any contaminated belongings. It should have replaced any belongings it disposed of at its own cost. It failed to consider its Compensation Policy in this regard which states it can offer compensation for “damage to or loss of belongings.” The policy also allows for a “like for like” replacement or “damage to decoration.”
The landlord offered compensation of £50 relating to the substantive issue. It said this was for the “time and trouble to raise the complaint.” This was not proportionate to the detriment the landlord’s failures caused. The landlord treated the issues as “minor” in accordance with its Compensation Policy, whereas it would have been more appropriate to classify the detriment as moderate, given the nature of the resident’s reports. There is no evidence it considered offering the resident compensation for the impact of the failures shown above. The landlord’s Compensation Policy allows for consideration to detriment or distress caused to a resident. It can also offer compensation to reflect its apologies, which it could have used in the resident’s case.
In summary the landlord failed to act in accordance with its Hazardous Substances Policy on 2 February 2023 in incorrectly applying the solution. It created risk to the resident and his family in doing so. The risk was only mitigated by the resident’s reporting of the issue. Its action to ensure there was no further reoccurrence of the issue was appropriate. However, its actions toward the resident were not appropriate. It failed to consider or acknowledge the resident’s reports about the impact to his health or the overall detriment to him. It was delayed in providing advice on making a personal injury claim. It failed to consider the damage to the resident’s property or cleaning costs he incurred allowable within its Compensation Policy. It also failed to return the resident to the position he was in before it incorrectly sprayed the solution.
As a result of the above failures the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s application of anti-mould treatment solution at the resident’s property. A compensation amount of £250 has been ordered, to include the amount already offered during the complaints process. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there has been a failure with some impact or detriment to the resident.

Complaint handling.

The landlord’s Complaints Policy aims to ensure it “act responsibly and fairly when things go wrong,” “put things right for customers” and “learn from complaints to improve services.”
The Complaints Policy confirms the landlord will acknowledge stage 1 complaint in 3 working days and provide its response in 10 working days. It will provide its stage 2 response to escalated complaints in 20 working days. Where complaints need a longer timeframe, the landlord can extend its response time by 10 working days. It will contact the resident to explain its reasoning and confirm any extension in writing.
The resident raised his initial complaint on 2 February 2023. There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged the complaint in 3 working days. Its Head of Health and Safety did contact the resident on 7 and 9 February 2023. However, this was not its formal complaint response. The resident told the landlord in the call of 9 February 2023 he wanted a written complaint response. The landlord told him its complaints team would be in touch. The landlord provided its acknowledgement to the resident’s complaint on 10 February 2023. This was equivalent to 6 working days which was outside the landlord’s timescale for formal acknowledgement.
The landlord’s complaint acknowledgement of 10 February 2023 said it would respond by 24 February 2023. This was equivalent to 10 working days from its acknowledgement date. However, the proposed response date of 24 February 2023 would be equivalent to 16 working days from the date the landlord received the resident’s complaint (2 February 2023). The information provided by the landlord was not in accordance with its Complaints Policy of responding in 10 working days. This caused confusion and uncertainty to the resident.
The landlord did not respond to the resident by 24 February 2023 as it had promised in its complaint acknowledgement. The resident raised with the landlord its lack of response. He highlighted the “distress and anxiety” this had caused to him. He said the landlord “misled” him providing “unrealistic timeframes and it failed to follow its Complaints Policy.” Its failure to respond on 24 February 2023 meant it failed to meet its 10-working day response time and failed to meet its promise to reply by the same date.
The resident chased his complaint response on 1 and 6 March 2023. Exasperated without getting a further response from the landlord he raised a new complaint on 8 March 2023 about his lack of response. There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged this new complaint with the resident or provided an individual response to it. This added to the resident’s concerns the landlord was not taking him seriously.
The resident asked for the landlord to escalate his complaint on 27 February 2023 stating he wished to raise his concerns to the Ombudsman. The landlord did not respond to this request. He raised an escalation request again on 9 March 2023. The landlord accepted his escalation request and acknowledged it with him on the same day. It told him it would provide its response in 20 working days.
From 6 February 2023 the evidence shows there was a breakdown in communication between the landlord’s complaints team and insurance team. The insurance team had provided information on 6 February 2023 about what information the landlord could provide in its stage 1 complaint response. The insurance team repeated this on 8 March 2023, but no further action was taken. The insurance team also informed the complaints team to treat the escalated complaint as such. However, on 31 March the insurance team asked for a copy of the stage 1 complaint response sent to the resident. The complaints team had not completed a stage 1 response. From the evidence it is clear the breakdown in communication between the landlord’s internal teams caused a stage 1 complaint response not to be sent. This meant the landlord did not act in accordance with its Complaints Policy. It also further prolonged the complaints process for the resident, causing him further uncertainty, inconvenience, and distress.
The resident raised concerns on 22 and 23 March 2023 that the landlord’s complaint response would exceed 20 working days. It acknowledged his concerns on 23 March 2023, and it said it would “look into it.” It did not provide a further response until 3 April 2023. It told the resident it had 20 working days after it had provided its acknowledgement to provide its stage 2 response. This information is not in accordance with the Complaints Policy. The policy states, the landlord, “aims to respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated”. This caused further uncertainty and confusion to the resident. This caused additional delay to the landlord’s complaint response.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 6 April 2023. From the resident’s initial escalation request date of 27 February 2023, this was equivalent to 28 working days. This exceeded the landlord’s timescale for response in its policy by 8 working days.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response stated it had acknowledged his complaint on 13 February 2023. This was inaccurate as it had acknowledged his stage 1 complaint on 10 February 2023 and his stage 2 complaint on 9 March 2023. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response failed to address a number of raised issues, as follows:
1. It failed to address or apologise for the delays in its complaint’s response. It also failed to acknowledge why it had not provided a stage 1 response and did not explain or apologise for the confusion with its complaints process.
2. It failed to consider the cost to the resident in replacing items in his bathroom allegedly contaminated by the solution.
3. Although it apologised for “upset caused” it failed to acknowledge the detriment caused to the resident and his family. It failed to advise him on making a personal injury claim.
At the end of the landlord’s complaint response there was ambiguity over the next steps the resident could take. The response said the resident could raise concerns with the response to the landlord. It also said he could raise his concerns with the Ombudsman. The resident raised further concerns on 6 April 2023 about the above missing points in the landlord’s complaint response. The landlord told him on the same day it would provide a further response in the next 10 working days. It is uncertain what stage the landlord was investigating the further concerns raised. This caused uncertainty and confusion to the resident. The resident chased the further response on 11, 14, 27 April and 2 May 2023 but received no response from the landlord. This added to his concerns it was not treating him seriously.
The landlord provided its further complaint response on 3 May 2023. This was equivalent to 18 working days. This failed to meet the 10-day response timescale the landlord had previously promised. The landlord appropriately provided details in this response on how to make a personal injury claim. It also apologised for the delay in its response. However, it failed to address the further concerns the stage 2 response of 6 April 2023 had missed and which the resident alerted it to on the same day. Its failure to consider all the points raised caused the resident to believe the landlord was not listening to him or treating him seriously.
The landlord offered £100 compensation relating to its complaint handling. This was £50 for the delay in providing its 6 April response and £50 for its delay in providing its 3 May 2023 response. As £50 was awarded for each the landlord has considered the issues as “minor” in accordance with its Compensation Policy. However, the delays and inconvenience caused were more significant than “minor.” The landlord should have considered compensation between £76 and £150 for “delays in giving its response and poor-quality correspondence.”
A landlords complaint process enables them to learn from issues and identify trends so it can take preventative action and learn from this. The landlord failed to adhere to its own Complaints Policy in failing to provide a stage 1 complaint response. It failed to adhere to its policy in its stage two complaint response time and its communication with the resident. It failed to provide a response to all the resident’s concerns despite being informed of these on more than one occasion. Its complaints process was confusing, and it failed to acknowledge this at any point. A determination of service failure has therefore been determined. To reflect the resident’s distress and inconvenience due to the landlord’s failures relating to its complaints handling, £200 compensation has been ordered, with this figure inclusive of the amount offered by the landlord during the complaints process. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance in relation to cases where service failure has occurred, and the landlords offer of action and compensation is not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s application of anti-mould treatment solution at the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord shall carry out the following orders and must provide evidence of compliance within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. The landlord must provide an apology to the resident for the failures highlighted in this report.
2. The landlord must pay the resident a total of £450 compensation. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises of:
  1. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord for its inappropriate application of anti-mould solution at the resident’s property.
  2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s inefficient complaint handling.
  3. The amounts above include the £150 already awarded to the resident by the landlord during its internal complaint’s procedure for the above issues.
3. The landlord is ordered to review the learning from this case to ensure that its complaint handling practices fully align with the principles of the Housing Ombudsman complaint handling code.