Sanctuary Housing Association (202307213)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307213

Sanctuary Housing Association

15 October 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 response to the resident’s:
    1. Reports of a repair to a soil stack.
    2. Requests for information about the service charges relating to the repair.
    3. Concerns about the level of service charges relating to the repair.
    4. Associated complaint.

Jurisdiction

  1. The Ombudsman’s remit in relation to complaints are set out by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which sets out that the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which in its opinion concern the level of service charge. The appropriate body that has jurisdiction to consider complaints about the level of the service charge is the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber – Residential Property), which can determine the appropriate level and amount of service charges recoverable by a landlord; decide if the charges were reasonably incurred; by whom they are payable, and when. This means that it is not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to decide on matters such as service charges in the same way as the courts, including if service charges are value for money.
  2. Therefore, after carefully considering all the evidence, we have determined that the following aspect of the complaint is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction: the landlord’s response to the resident’s concern about the level of service charge costs for the repair. Paragraph 42.f of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where we consider it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
  3. However, the Ombudsman can assess whether the landlord followed proper procedure, and responded reasonably to the concerns the resident raised, taking account of all the circumstances of the case, which this assessment goes on to do, below.

Background

  1. The resident has a lease with the landlord. The property is a flat in a purpose-built block. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
  2. On 8 July 2021 the resident raised a repair to a cracked stack access cap. In late July 2021 a drainage contractor noted a localised structural repair required into the stack pipework to prevent the foul waste from leaking. These works were approved in early August 2021.
  3. When the resident chased the repair at that month, the landlord told him that a repair had been raised for 9 and 10 September 2021. It explained it was still working its way through a backlog of repairs after lockdown. The resident then questioned why this job would take 2 days and also why the email subject line included the word “blockage” as there was no blockage. The landlord said it would bring this to the attention of the surveyor. The resident also raised concerns at that time that residents were not getting value for money in relation to repairs.
  4. In mid-September 2021 the resident told the landlord that the repair was still outstanding. The landlord said it would send its surveyor to inspect. The evidence from the invoices shows that inspections of the stack access pipe took place on 27 October and 21 December 2021.
  5. The resident continued to regularly chase up this repair. Some 10 months later, on 7 October 2022 the resident asked the landlord for a detailed breakdown of its maintenance and day-to-day repair costs for the block. In particular, he asked for any costs relating to 2 cast iron soil waste pipes. Five days later, the landlord provided a summary invoice list. The resident then asked for a detailed breakdown of 22 highlighted invoices, which the landlord provided on 27 October 2022.
  6. In early November 2022 the resident queried 8 invoices. The landlord provided a response to his queries and, just over a week later, provided further clarification.
  7. On 25 November 2022 the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord about its failure to repair the cracked stack access pipe along with his concern that there was a wasteful use of service charge monies.
  8. On 25 November 2022 the landlord identified that repairs to two seals in the soil stack. One that was cracked and leaking and another that needed replacing. It noted these were custom made and it required an estimate for that.
  9. On 15 December 2022 the landlord told the resident that parts had been ordered for the repair and the repair would be completed on 17 January 2023. It added that any refund for a service charge would have to be approved by the housing manager. It apologised for any inconvenience caused and said it aimed to issue the stage one complaint response within 10 working days.
  10. On 17 January 2023 a temporary repair was made to the soil stack. The invoice for that work from the contractor noted that it required a custom-made seal. One week later, the resident chased a response to his complaint.
  11. On 28 April 2023 the landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident. This said that it was made aware of the leaking waste pipe on 16 November 2022 and immediately the repair with its contractor. It said the contractor attended on 25 November 2022, but they were unable to carry out the repair as additional work was required. It said the contractor completed this work on 17 January 2023. The landlord apologised for the delay in carrying out this repair and offered compensation of £200. It said it was unable to consider repairs that were outside the 6-month period prior to the complaint being made.
  12. On 30 April 2023 the resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint saying it had not addressed the issues he had raised fully.
  13. On 31 May 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. The main points were:
    1. The landlord apologised for the delay in issuing the stage one complaint response.
    2. It said it would not consider disputes about service charges as he was able to make an application to the First Tier Tribunal to look into that further. 
    3. It explained it could find no repairs regarding a soil stack reported by the resident in the 6 months prior to his complaint being recorded. It acknowledged it had provided a response and offered compensation in the stage one complaint response. However, it said as this repair did not affect the resident directly and he had not reported anything within 6 months prior to his complaint being made, it would not review this issue further.
    4. It apologised that it had not told him about the First Tier Tribunal earlier.
    5. The landlord re-offered the compensation of £200.
  14. On 13 June 2023 the landlord issued a further complaint response. It acknowledged that the resident had contacted it about the repair in the 6 months leading up to his complaint and apologised for any inconvenience caused. The landlord also apologised for its miscommunication with regards to the number of times the resident had contacted it with regards to the repair to the soil stack. The landlord noted that the repair had been completed on 17 January 2023 and, although the resident believed that this was a temporary repair, he had not provided evidence to show there was a problem with it.
  15. The landlord increased its offer of compensation to £600 made up of: £150 for its handling of the complaint at stage one (increased from £50); £400 for the inconvenience of having to chase the repair (increased from £150) and £50 for its miscommunication in its response dated 31 May 2023.
  16. When the resident approached the Ombudsman, he said there had been no real acknowledgement by the landlord that the repair was a health and safety issue which put residents (and especially children) at risk of illness. He also said that a permanent repair was still outstanding. 

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a repair to a soil stack

  1. Under the lease the landlord is responsible for the drains and sewers. Its website confirms that the landlord is responsible for shared drains, gutters and outside pipes.
  2. The landlord’s website gives its timescale for repairs including 45 days for routine repairs. This also says that some maintenance works might take longer, due to their complexity and cost. Where that is the case, it will discuss this with the resident and explain what it is doing to resolve the issues. This may involve completing temporary repairs whilst it plans for longer term improvements.
  3. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (the HHSRS) is concerned with avoiding or minimizing potential hazards. The landlord has a responsibility to keep a property free from category one hazards, including infection. In particular this includes drainage and the discharge of untreated foul waste onto paths and gardens. The HHSRS gives preventative measures including the use of appropriate materials for pipework/storage tanks/fittings.
  4. The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of the repair was not appropriate. While we acknowledge at the time of the resident’s initial report in July 2021 the landlord had competing priorities after periods of lockdown when only emergency repairs were likely to have been undertaken. However, it took the landlord almost 18 months to make a temporary repair.
  5. The evidence suggests the landlord missed opportunities to resolve this leak sooner. A permanent repair was approved in August 2021. It is not clear if any of this work took place (which involved a structural repair to the stack pipework to prevent the foul waste from leaking and then sealing the leak). Following the inspection in November 2022, the contractor noted that the seal needed replacing and that it was custom-made. It noted a quote for that work would follow. There is no evidence this was followed up.
  6. Where the landlord has accepted it has made errors, it is the Ombudsman’s role to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
  7. In its final complaint response, the landlord apologised and offered £400 to the resident for the inconvenience caused by having to chase the repair. This was in line with its compensation policy which says the landlord may make payments of up to £400 in recognition of time, trouble and inconvenience of a service failure. It explains that amounts from £151 to £400 reflect high effort/high impact.
  8. We therefore consider the landlord’s apology and offer of compensation was a reasonable and proportionate step to take to reflect the inconvenience and frustration caused to the resident by the landlord’s delay in carrying out the repair. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to re-offer this sum to the resident.
  9. While the landlord has offered reasonable financial redress to the resident. There are outstanding questions about the quality of the repair given that the landlord’s expert contractors recommended work that the evidence suggests has not been completed to date. There is no evidence of the landlord following up on that and the Ombudsman would expect landlords to act on accepted recommendations by a suitably qualified surveyors and contractors in a timely manner or give a clear explanation for not acting on any such recommendations.
  10. The Ombudsman has therefore made an order for the landlord to revisit the recommendation by the contractor for a custom-made sealed cap for the stack pipe. It should write to the resident and us with details of any action it will now take. If it decides not to complete further work to replace the cracked access cap, it should write to the resident and us to explain its reasons for that.
  11. The Ombudsman has also made an order for the landlord to review why it took so long for a temporary repair to be completed. This review should also consider how there were apparent missed opportunities to complete a permanent repair after August 2021 and November 2022. This review should be shared with the resident and this Service.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for information about the service charges relating to the repair

  1. The landlord’s disputes about charges guidance says examples of disputes includes dissatisfaction with service charges, due to the level or accounts and appealing against recharges (for example for responsive repairs). The guidance notes that, although there are no formal timescales to respond to queries, it aims to respond within 20 working days. It also notes that residents will be signposted to the First Tier Tribunal where appropriate.
  2. The landlord responded to the resident’s various requests for information within a reasonable timeframe. These requests included a breakdown of costs, invoices and then queries about those invoices. The landlord took a maximum of 5 working days to respond to these requests and queries. No service failing has been identified in relation to the time taken by the landlord to respond.
  3. In its complaint handling, the landlord acknowledged that it had made an error in failing to signpost the resident to the First Tier Tribunal earlier and apologised for that error. We consider this apology to be a reasonable and proportionate step to take to reflect any inconvenience this would have caused the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s associated complaint

  1. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints procedure. It aims to respond within 10 working days at stage 1 and within 20 working days at stage 2.
  2. The landlord’s complaint handling was not appropriate. We identified several failings. There was a significant delay of about 4-and-a-half months in responding to the complaint at stage one and that response did not address all the issues raised by the resident including concern about the service charges. The resident had brought up this matter, so he had a right to expect the landlord to respond to it. Further, the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) notes that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint. By not investigating these concerns, the landlord missed a chance to identify and fix issues at an earlier stage.
  3. Further, details in the stage one and two complaint response were incorrect. The landlord first said that it had become aware of the repair in November 2022, but the evidence provided suggests that it had been aware of it since May 2021, 2 months before the resident reported it in July 2021. It mistakenly said also that it had not had any reports of the repair in the 6 months leading to the complaint and that this matter had not affected the resident directly. These flawed comments would have caused evident frustration to the resident.
  4. The landlord issued a second stage 2 complaint response in June 2023. It is unclear as to what prompted the landlord to look again at the complaint and review the compensation it had previously offered to the resident. The landlord should ensure that a thorough review is completed at stage 2, appropriate compensation offered and learning points identified. The Code is clear that there should only be 2 stages to a complaint procedure because more than two stages make the process unduly long and delays access to the Ombudsman.
  5. The landlord apologised and offered the resident compensation totalling £200 to the resident for its complaint handling errors. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and the landlord’s compensation policy as referenced above, we consider the landlord’s apology and offer of compensation was a reasonable and proportionate step to take to reflect the inconvenience and frustration caused to the resident by its poor complaint handling. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to re-offer this sum to the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to reports of a repair to a soil stack.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord has made satisfactory redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint with respect to its response to:
    1. The request for information about the service charges relating to the repair.
    2. The associated complaint.
  3. In accordance with para 42.f of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman considers that the resident’s complaint about the level of service charges for the repair is out of jurisdiction.

Orders

  1. The landlord should take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report and provide evidence of compliance to the Ombudsman:
    1. A senior manager to apologise in writing to the resident for the errors identified in this report relating to the repair to the soil stack.
    2. Revisit the recommendation by the contractor for a custom-made sealed cap for the stack pipe. It should write to the resident and the Ombudsman with details of any action it will now take. If it decides not to complete further work to replace the cracked access cap, it should write to the resident and us to explain its reasons for that.
    3. Review why it took so long for the repair to be completed. This review should also consider how there were apparent missed opportunities to make permanent repair after August 2021 and November 2022. This review should be shared with the resident and this Service.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord takes the following action:
    1. Re-offers compensation to the resident as follows:
      1. £400 for the impact of having to chase the soil stack repair.
      2. £200 for the impact of its complaint handling failures.
    2. The finding of reasonable redress has been based on the landlord re-offering these sums to the resident.