Sanctuary Housing Association (202303177)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303177

Sanctuary Housing Association

30 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:
   1. The resident’s reports about the repair to the communal pedestrian gate.
   2. The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident has a shared ownership lease with the landlord, a housing association. The property is a first-floor flat. There are no vulnerabilities recorded by the landlord. The resident has use of the cycle store(s) within the block serving the flats for the storage of bicycles.

Scope of investigation

3. The Ombudsman notes the resident’s concerns that there have been historical failures regarding the landlord’s overall handling of repairs. However, this investigation focusses on the repair to the communal pedestrian gate. This is because we have not seen evidence that the resident’s concerns about the other repairs have been investigated by the landlord under its internal complaints process. This is also the case for the damage she said was caused to the main entrance way.
4. The resident is therefore advised to raise these matters directly with the landlord if she has not already done so.  This is in accordance with paragraph 42 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme.

Policies and procedural documents

5. Under the lease:
   1. The resident agrees to pay the service charge in accordance with clause 7 of the lease.
   2. The landlord shall maintain, repair, redecorate, renew and (in the event in the landlord’s reasonable opinion such works are required) improve the block communal areas, subject to clause 5.5 and to payment of the specified rent or the ground rent (as the case may be) and service charge.
6. The landlord aims to complete routine repairs within 45 calendar days, according to the information published on the landlord’s website about repairs.
7. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints procedure. It will aim to acknowledge complaints received within 3 working days and respond to:
   1. Stage 1 complaints within 10 working days.
   2. Stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
8. The landlord may extend the timeframe to respond to a complaint by 10 working days for complex cases or where there is a need for a longer timeframe to provide a resident with a full response. In such cases it will contact the resident to discuss this and explain the reasons for the extension and confirm any extension to the above timescales in writing.

Summary

9. In March 2022, the landlord received reports that the communal car park gate was not working.
10. The landlord communicated in several emails between June and September 2022. A summary of the internal discussions is noted below:
    1. It was waiting for the materials needed for the repair as of 1 July 2022.
    2. The fob reader needed to be replaced but it was unable to locate it.
    3. It found the location for the fob reader in August 2022 but it was unable to gain access.
    4. It (or contractors) attended on 16 September 2022 but could not gain access to the storeroom cupboard.
11. The resident submitted a formal complaint to the landlord on 25 September 2022. She said:
    1. The pedestrian gate into the communal carpark had not been working since March 2022. It was reported by residents and she also discussed the matter with the housing team in April 2022.
    2. As a result of the outstanding repair, she could only gain access to the carpark through the main door which did not have accessible buttons. She found it difficult and dangerous when she had her child on her bike seat as the doors closed on her.
    3. The landlord should carry out the repairs and update the residents.
    4. The landlord should refund residents a percentage of service charge for the period the gate was not working.
12. The landlord wrote to the resident on 27 September 2022 and apologised for the inconvenience caused to her and other residents. It said:
    1. It was aware that the repair to the pedestrian gate and replacement had not been completed.
    2. It said it had met with residents on site in May 2022 and had allocated the works to external contractors, but they had encountered access problems when they attended on 16 September 2022.
    3. To ensure the works were completed without further delays it had provided the contractors with the contact details of a housing officer to arrange access.
    4. Its complaints team would contact her regarding her complaint.
13. The landlord noted on 5 October 2022 that it had sent an acknowledgement letter to the resident and advised her that it would respond to her complaint by 10 October 2022.
14. The landlord noted on 1 November 2022 that the repairs to the communal gate remained outstanding. It said this was due to works being duplicated to another contractor. In its internal email to staff it said this should not have happened as another contractor had attended and compromised works previously carried out by the approved contractor.
15. The resident chased up the progress of the repair on 28 November 2022.
16. On 29 November 2022 the landlord advised the resident that its contractors were waiting for the materials required for the repair. It apologised for the delay in responding to her complaint and for the lack of update on the repair.
17. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 11 December 2022. It apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint and said:
    1. It noted there had been several orders raised for the repairs to the pedestrian gate.
    2. It said the last order was raised on 2 November 2022 and assigned to its contractor who was waiting for the parts.
    3. It would continue to monitor the repair and send her a final response as soon as an appointment was made to complete the repairs.
18. The resident responded on 11 December 2022 that the response was confusing, as the repair had been completed earlier that week. She asked why the landlord was not aware of this information. She requested the escalation of her complaint to stage 2 as she was unhappy with the time taken to carry out the repairs.
19. The resident asked for an update on her stage 2 complaint on 7 February 2023.
20. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 13 March 2023. It advised her that it would respond to the complaint within 20 working days.
21. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 12 April 2023. It said:
    1. A works order was raised to its contractor to supply and install a replacement fob reader but a quote was not received until 18 May 2022.
    2. Its contractor fitted a new fob reader in May 2022, but they needed more materials as they were unable to programme the reader. The repair required specific parts which were not in stock and needed to be ordered so the delays were outside its control.
    3. There were further delays due to access issues and duplication of works caused by a miscommunication in recording a repair against the wrong gate. A new fob reader was therefore required and the repair was completed on 6 December 2022.
    4. It apologised for the incorrect information provided in the stage 1 response and for the delay in responding to her complaints.
    5. It acknowledged that the time taken to complete the repair and the communication with her was not to the expected standard. As a result it had  discussed its findings with the repairs team and reminded them of the importance of ensuring repairs are undertaken within a satisfactorily timescale and that the resident is kept informed of any delays.
    6. It also apologised for the poor communication in respect of the repair and the time and trouble she had taken in bringing her concerns to its attention.
    7. Regarding her request for reimbursement of service charges, it would be difficult to determine the exact contribution to the service and maintenance of this gate. It offered £100 as a gesture of goodwill for reimbursement of the service charges and £175 for the poor handling of the complaint.

Summary of actions after the complaints process had been exhausted.

22. On 17 November 2023, the resident wrote to this Service and said:
    1. She would like an overall review of the landlord’s processes into the handling of repairs due to a history of delays and failures when responding to repair requests.
    2. She was inconvenienced for 9 months so the compensation offered was not sufficient.
    3. The main entrance way was damaged as people had to bring bikes through 3 doors instead of 1 gate.

Assessment and findings

23. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
    1. Be fair
    2. Put things right
    3. Learn from outcomes
24. This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified

The resident’s report about the repair to the communal pedestrian gate.

25. The Ombudsman notes from the evidence that the landlord was put on notice of the repair to the pedestrian gate in March 2022. However, it failed to complete the repair within the timescales published on its website as the repair was not completed until December 2022. This was approximately 9 months after it was reported. The landlord cited several reasons for the delay, such as a delay in receiving parts, access issues and duplication of works, but it is clear that the main factor that contributed to the delay was poor communication within its organisation and with the contractors.
26. The landlord’s policy notes that it will carry out responsive repairs promptly and in one visit where possible and regularly update residents on the progress of their repair through proactive communication. We have seen from the evidence that a lack of collaborative working and clear communication created a series of events where the contractors were unable to gain access, works were duplicated and works previously completed were undone. This led to further delays and frustration to the resident as also admitted by the landlord.
27. From the evidence seen by this Service, the resident chased the landlord for an update on the repair from September 2022 until December 2022. She expressed the inconvenience being caused to her and her young child as a result of the delay in completing the works to the pedestrian gate. In its overall response to the complaint, the landlord acknowledged that it got things wrong and that the time taken to complete the repairs was not in adherence to its expected standards.
28. The landlord acted fairly by apologising to her for the level of service she had experienced and for the poor communication and time and trouble she incurred as a result of the delays. There is also evidence of learning as the landlord acknowledged the failures at each stage and sought ways to address them. It advised the resident that it had shared feedback from its handling of the repair with its repairs team with the aim of improving service delivery to its residents. It also offered compensation in the amount £100 in response to the resident’s request to be reimbursed for service charges paid while the gate was not accessible.
29. Whilst the landlord’s attempts at redress are acknowledged, they did not put things right and it would have been appropriate for the landlord to also offer the resident compensation for the inconvenience and time and trouble caused to her. Failure to do so amounts to service failure in the Ombudsman’s opinion. For this reason, an order has been made to address this.

The associated complaint

30. The landlord’s response to the resident’s stage 1 complaint was very delayed. The complaint was received on 25 September 2022, but the response was sent on 11 December 2022.  This was over 55 working days which fell far outside the timescales (10 working days) stated in its complaints policy. Although it apologised to the resident on 29 November 2022 for the delay, in response to her request for an update, it failed to agree an extension of the complaint response with her as noted in its policy. This was not appropriate and would have caused the resident frustration and uncertainty.
31. The landlord also referred to the stage 1 response as an interim response and it incorrectly advised the resident that its contractors were still waiting for materials when the works had already been completed. This indicates that the complaint was not thoroughly investigated. The landlord recovered from this in the stage 2 response and it apologised for the incorrect information given. However, it failed to learn from its previous error as there was also a delay of approximately 3 months in responding to the complaint. It apologised to the resident for the delay in escalating the complaint when it was received on 11 December 2022. It also offered £175 in total, for failures identified in its handling of the complaint. However, the amount offered does not fully reflect the level of inconvenience and time and trouble incurred by the resident.
32. Aside from the delays with the complaint handling, the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be reimbursed for service charges was not appropriate. It said it was unable to determine the exact contribution to the service and maintenance, but its service charge policy states that it would investigate disagreements about service charges or services it receives and provide a full response. If it was unable to resolve the matter it should have referred her to the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) to pursue the complaint as stated in its policy. This is not appropriate and would have caused the resident some frustration. In light of the above, there is evidence of service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Determination (decision)

33. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the repairs to the communal pedestrian gate.
34. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

35. The repairs to the communal pedestrian gate was significantly delayed. This was partly due to the poor communication within the landlord’s organisation and with its contractors. The landlord learned from this error but it did not offer compensation for the poor communication and time and trouble incurred by the resident.
36. The stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses were very delayed. The landlord acknowledged this as a service failure and it apologised to the resident. The amount of compensation offered however, was not proportionate to the level of inconvenience incurred by the resident. Also, the landlord failed to conduct a full investigation into the resident’s request for the reimbursement of service charges paid whilst the communal pedestrian gate was not working.

Orders and recommendations

37. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
    1. pay the resident an additional amount of £200 broken down as:
       1. £100 for the inconvenience and time and trouble incurred by the resident due to the poor communication and the delay in respect of the repair.
       2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the failures identified in the complaint handling.