Sanctuary Housing Association (202300480)

Background

1. The resident is an assured tenant of the property, a 3-bedroom house. She lives with her partner and children. Both the resident and her partner communicated with the landlord about the complaint. For this report, unless it is otherwise necessary to distinguish between them, all communications from the resident and her partner are referred to as coming from the resident.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of roof leaks and repairs.
   2. Associated formal complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. The landlord has offered reasonable redress for its handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of roof leaks and repairs.
   2. Associated formal complaint.

Summary of reasons

Roof leaks and repairs

4. The landlord acknowledged its failure to carry out timely repairs, its poor communication, and the trouble, upset, and inconvenience caused. It offered proportionate redress and took steps to improve its systems, policies, procedures, and provided staff training.

Handling of the complaint

5. The landlord accepted its failure to respond to the complaint within timescales, its poor communication, and incorrectly closed complaints. It offered proportionate redress and took steps to improve its complaint handling processes.

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction. 

Recommendations 

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.  

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

6. The landlord has fully accepted its service failures in its complaint responses. It has sincerely apologised and offered compensation. There is nothing further we can usefully add to that. The landlord has provided sufficient information for us to investigate the complaint and reach a decision.
7. The landlord’s actions demonstrate that it took the complaint seriously, openly acknowledged areas for improvement, and took action to rectify the identified failings. This is in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. Therefore, the question before us is whether these failures amount to maladministration and, if so, whether proper redress was offered to put things right.
8. The resident has been candid and open about the impact on her as a long covid sufferer responsible for a vulnerable child. She had to chase and explain the situation repeatedly to the landlord, and it consistently missed its repairs policy timeframes. It also did not give prompt updates to explain its delays or lack of action. There is no doubt that it has been very difficult for the resident, and the landlord’s failures added to her stress, upset, trouble, and inconvenience.
9. However, in identifying whether there has been maladministration, we consider both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. We will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
10. Our own remedies guidance indicates that an award of £1,200 compensation might be appropriate where there was a significant failure/s which adversely affected the resident and the redress needed to put things right is substantial. That is the case here. Having considered the full circumstances of the case, including the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, we find that this sum was proportionate to the failings identified. Additionally, the landlord has recognised the role it played in the damage caused to personal belongings and offered compensation towards this. Therefore, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident for its handling of her reports of roof leaks and repairs.
11. A recommendation is made for the landlord to pay the £1,200 offered for its failures (if it has not already done so). The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid to the resident, as it recognised genuine elements of service failure by the landlord.

What we have not looked at

12. The resident told us that her family’s health was impacted by the landlord’s failure to carry out prompt repairs. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. However, we have considered whether the landlord should pay compensation for more general distress and inconvenience.
13. We do not consider or comment on how a landlord should deal with individual members of staff’s disciplinary proceedings. We cannot order the landlord to take disciplinary action against individual staff members, or order remedies from individual staff such as personal apologies. We therefore do not consider complaints which concern terms of employment or other personnel issues. Instead, we have considered whether the landlord adequately investigated and responded to the complaint, and took proportionate action based on the information available to it.
14. We do not ordinarily order the landlord to reimburse residents for damage to belongings. It is not within our remit to establish when or how the belongings were damaged. The cost of damaged belongings arising from the landlord’s actions are more appropriately claimed via its insurance. Therefore, this is not addressed further in this report. Instead, we have considered whether the landlord followed its policies and procedures in its handling of the resident’s reports. She may wish to consider seeking advice on making an insurance claim via the landlord’s insurer.
15. The resident has told us about ongoing issues she has with the landlord. She has also questioned the suitability of the property for letting, citing the voids checklist provided to her when she moved in. We are only able to consider issues which have first been raised with the landlord and addressed through its complaints process. If the resident is unhappy about other matters, she should first make a formal complaint to the landlord (if she has not done so already). If this completes the landlord’s complaint process, the resident may refer it to us then.

16. The landlord did not handle the resident’s complaint in line with its policy. It was first closed when she had escalated it and later the responses were delayed without explanations. She was told the complaint was escalated, only to receive no response or update and then sent another notice of escalation. This only added to her confusion. She first raised her complaint in September 2022 and received the landlord’s stage 2 response in January 2024, 16 months later. Her upset and frustration are understandable.
17. Prompt responses allow both the resident and landlord to draw a line under an issue. We do not generally investigate live issues, nor do we apply hindsight when investigating complaints. As the complaint was kept outstanding, later and ongoing issues became inextricably linked for the resident. Given the recurring nature of the situation and her concerns about health and safety, the delays were particularly unhelpful.
18. The landlord kept the complaint responses on hold at times to deal with the underlying issue. This was contrary to our Complaint Handling Code, which says a complaint response should not be delayed while carrying out actions required to address the underlying issue.
19. However, the landlord has fully acknowledged its complaint handling failures such as timeframes not met, delayed responses, lack of response to emails, the resident repeatedly needing to chase, and the incorrect closure of complaints. It has taken steps to ensure it does not repeat those mistakes, introducing new systems and complaint framework. It has also offered £250 compensation for the trouble, upset, and inconvenience caused by those failures. This is in line with our remedies guidance and dispute resolution principles. Therefore, a finding of reasonable redress is made.
20. A recommendation is made for the landlord to pay the £250 offered for its failures (if it has not already done so). The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid to the resident, as it recognised genuine elements of service failure by the landlord.