Sanctuary Housing Association (202301971)

Background

1. The resident lives in a supported living property which came with a warden call service. She submitted a termination form to the landlord and explained that as the service could not be adapted to her hypersensitive hearing, she could not use it and considered that she would no longer be charged for the service. During this time, she also reported that the communal door was not opening and closing properly. She later complained that the landlord had not removed the warden call charge from her service charges, had not repaired the communal door, and the rent had unreasonably increased.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Request to have the warden call charge removed from her service charges.
   2. Reported communal door repairs.
   3. Concern about its rent increase.
3. We have also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to have the warden call charge removed from her service charges.
   2. Reasonable redress for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reported communal repairs.
   3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concern about its rent increase is outside of our jurisdiction.
   4. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord failed to reasonably consider and adequately respond to the resident’s request to remove the warden call charge from her service charges.
6. The landlord took approximately 8 months to repair the communal door. It acknowledged its failing and offered the resident a reasonable and proportionate remedy, in line with our remedies guidance.
7. We do not investigate complaints about the increase of rent. As the resident’s complaint centres on her concerns that the landlord increased her rent by more than the government 7%, the complaint is ultimately about the increase of rent and so we will not investigate it. Other agencies are more likely to be best placed to consider this matter, given their powers and expertise.
8. The landlord offered reasonable compensation for its delayed stage 2 response. However, it failed to acknowledge and reasonably remedy the time and trouble the resident incurred by its failure to progress her stage 1 complaint in line with its policy timescale. It also failed to provide details of how to escalate her complaint within its stage 1 response.

Putting things right

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.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

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

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.

9. In the resident’s complaints, she specifically said that she had signed a termination of contract for the warden call service. She also explained in her escalated complaint that as the service could not be adapted to her needs, she was unable to use it. She considered that this meant she should not be charged for it.
10. In response, the landlord said that it could not remove the warden call charge because the resident’s flat came with the service and that she had been aware of this when she moved in. While this is acknowledged, the landlord does have ability to remove services and their associated costs under its tenancy agreement with the resident. It would need to consider whether doing so was fair and reasonable in the circumstances. In particular, as the cost of such a service would usually be spread across all of the residents within a block and/or estate to ensure it was affordable for all. Therefore, it is noted that the landlord may not remove a service for one resident because of the impact it may have on others, even when the resident does not directly benefit from it.
11. As such, we would expect to see that the landlord considered the resident’s current circumstances and her comments. However, its response to her did not address them. Nor is there evidence that it considered any other relevant matters as we highlighted above. Therefore, its response was inadequate, as it did not demonstrate that it was based on a fair, reasonable and meaningful review of the resident’s request. This caused her distress and inconvenience as her request was not reasonably answered.
12. Taking into consideration the failings highlighted, we have ordered the landlord to carry out a review of the resident’s request to remove the warden call service charge. We have also ordered it to pay her £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused for failing to respond to her request appropriately. This is in line with our remedies guidance.

13. The landlord’s records show that the communal door needed a new sensor so it could open and close properly. The landlord took approximately 8 months to fit it. During this period, the resident chased it for updates. She also expressed that she was concerned about the health and safety implications having a door that did not always open fully or close properly would have on her and her neighbours. It is unclear whether the landlord kept the resident reasonably updated or responded to her concerns during that time.
14. The landlord acknowledged the delay from when the resident first reported the issue in March 2023 until it fitted the new sensor in November 2023. It offered her £100 compensation for the 8-month delay. Taking into consideration the time, trouble and distress caused, the landlord’s compensation was reasonable, proportionate and in line with our remedies guidance.
15. The evidence shows that after the landlord issued its stage 2 response, there were issues with the sensor, which meant that the door was not still not closing and opening properly. While noted, our investigation is limited to how the landlord handled the matter up until its stage 2 response. This is because the evidence shows that the repair issue following the stage 2 response differed from the one that we investigated. Therefore, the landlord has not been given a chance to investigate its handling of the issue with the sensor through its complaint process.
16. The resident may wish to raise a new complaint with the landlord if she has any concerns with how it handled her subsequent reported repairs after the it issued its stage 2 response. If she remains dissatisfied with its final response, she may refer the matter to us.

17. The resident complained that the landlord increased her rent by 14%, which was more than the government’s limit for social rent increases. In response, the landlord explained that its rent increase was 7% which was in line with the government’s limit.
18. It was reasonable that the landlord provided a response to the resident’s concern. However, we cannot investigate or comment further on whether the rent increase was within the government’s limit. This is because matters of rent increases are outside of our jurisdiction. The resident may wish to raise the matter with the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) (FTT) or the courts.

19. The resident first raised a complaint about the warden call charge with the landlord on 13 April 2023. However, the landlord failed to acknowledge it or progress her complaint at that time. This was not in line with its complaint policy, which states that it will acknowledge all complaints within 5 working days. As a result, the resident incurred time and trouble as she contacted us to progress her complaint. This could have been reasonably avoided if the landlord had responded appropriately. That there is no evidence it did so amounts to a complaint handling failing.
20. When we contacted the landlord to progress the resident’s complaint on 26 April 2023, we explained that part of her complaint included her concerns that it did not respond to her original complaint on 13 April 2023. However, the landlord failed to address this in its response. As such, it did not fully investigate the resident’s complaint and its own complaint handling. Therefore, it missed an opportunity to identify the failings we have highlighted in this investigation and put them right.
21. Following our contact, the landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint and said that it would respond to the resident within 10 working days. However, it issued its response on 26 May 2023. This was approximately 21 working days later. This was not in line with its 10-working-day response timescale. That was a further complaint handling failing.
22. The landlord acknowledged that its stage 1 response did not provide the resident with the necessary information to escalate her complaint. It explained that it would feed this back to the relevant officer and department. While this was reasonable, the evidence suggests that this failing may have delayed the resident’s ability to escalate her complaint by approximately 2 months. This is because when the landlord re-issued its stage 1 complaint response with the escalation details, the resident escalated her complaint the same day. Therefore, while unclear, the delay may have been avoided if the landlord had appropriately included the correct information in its original stage 1 response.
23. The landlord also failed to progress the resident’s escalated complaint and did so only with our intervention. This meant that it took approximately 4 months to respond to her July 2023 escalated complaint. This was significantly outside of its 20-working-day response timescale for stage 2 complaints. It acknowledged this failing and offered the resident £150 compensation. Taking into consideration the length of the delay and the time and trouble incurred by the resident contacting us for support, the level of compensation for this failure alone was reasonable and in line with our remedies guidance.
24. However, we have made an order for the landlord to pay the resident a further £50 compensation in recognition of the other failings we have identified in this investigation. The increased amount is in line with our remedies guidance.

Learning

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

25. The landlord’s general record keeping was reasonable. However, it may wish to complete our eLearning on knowledge and information management, which it can find on the Centre for Learning section of our website. This may further strengthen its record keeping practices.

Communication

26. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint and to escalate her stage 2 complaint prior to our intervention. This demonstrates that the landlord may need to strengthen its complaint handling and communication practices. Therefore, it may wish to complete our eLearning on complaint handling and communication, which it can find on the Centre for Learning section of our website.