Sanctuary Housing Association (202310474)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202310474

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 the replacement of the front door.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the associated complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord. The resident and her children have health issues which the landlord is aware of.
4. On 26 March 2023, the resident reported to the landlord that her front door had been damaged because of a burglary. The landlord attended the same day to make the door safe.
5. The resident contacted the landlord on 28 March 2023 to request that it fit a UPVC door with a metal frame. The resident contacted the landlord again the next day. She said it had taken measurements of her door but had not made her home secure. She said the reason the property had been broken into was due to the original door not being secure when she moved in. She said the landlord was aware of this but had not done anything. The landlord’s call records show that on 28 March 2023, it offered to install a security screen to the door. It also offered to move the resident to temporary accommodation until the door was replaced, given her worries about security. The landlord said that the resident declined both these offers.
6. On 30 March 2023, the landlord contacted the resident to say it was obliged to fit a wooden door, as her road was part of a conservation area. The landlord’s call records state that the resident said she would not allow a wooden door to be fitted. The landlord advised her that any obstruction to a wooden door being fitted could be construed as a breach of tenancy. The resident requested that the landlord fit a composite door with a 5-point lever lock if it was not willing to install a UPVC door.
7. The resident contacted the landlord on 31 March 2023 to request that it install a metal door frame as the police had recommended this for security. She provided photos of doors of other properties within the conservation area which she said were owned by the landlord and which had UPVC or composite doors.
8. On 17 April 2023, the resident contacted the landlord again. She said she had not heard from it in 3 weeks and her contents insurance was now void as her current door was broken. She said she felt unsafe in her home.
9. The landlord contacted the local authority on 18 April 2023 to ask it to confirm whether the resident’s property was in the conservation area. The local authority confirmed on 20 April 2023 that it was.
10. On 4 May 2023, the landlord called the resident to say that an appointment had been booked for 10 May 2023, in relation to the door. On a later call the same day, it advised the resident that there would be 2 locks on the new door, and it would also fit a bolt on the inside. It said the resident could install a third lock on the new door if she wanted to do so, but this would be her responsibility to install.
11. On 24 May 2023, the resident submitted a stage one complaint to the landlord. She said:
    1. Her current door was still not secure.
    2. The landlord had come out twice to take measurements and told her it had ordered a door.
    3. She had sent over 15 emails and the door had still not been replaced.
    4. On the day the door was due to be installed, the landlord’s operative told her a door had not been ordered and they would get one from a local supplier. The operative had returned to say that the supplier had no doors in stock.
    5. Her mental health had suffered due to the situation and her children no longer wanted to sleep at home.
12. The landlord issued a stage one complaint response to the resident on 25 May 2023. It said the door had not been replaced within the landlord’s timeframe for doing so. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. It said that the works had now been booked in for 29 May 2023. It offered the resident £250 compensation for the time and trouble caused by the delay in the works being completed.
13. On 30 May 2023, the resident submitted a further stage one complaint. The door had been due to be replaced the previous day, however no-one attended.
14. The landlord issued a further stage one complaint response on 2 June 2023. It apologised that the door had not been replaced. It said it had raised the works with the relevant team who would contact the resident directly. It offered her £250 compensation for time and trouble caused by the works not being completed.
15. On 23 June 2023, the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint procedure.
16. The landlord contacted the resident on 1 August 2023. It said it had reopened her complaint. It said that a quote for the replacement of her door was awaiting approval. Once the approval had been given, its repairs team would contact her to arrange to install the door. It offered her a further £50 compensation.
17. The resident contacted the Service on 12 September 2023. She said her door had not been replaced and she had not had a stage 2 complaint response. On 19 September 2023, the landlord escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 2 of its complaint procedure at the request of the Ombudsman.
18. On 11 October 2023, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said:
    1. It was required to fit a wooden door as the property was in a conservation area. The resident had initially refused to agree to this as she felt a wooden door would not be secure.
    2. Its operatives had attended on 10 May 2023 to remeasure the door in-line with its procedures. It said the door had been ordered and was due to be installed on 29 May 2023. However there had been a delay as the door had not been available from its suppliers. It apologised for the serious inconvenience caused to the resident as she had had to wait in all day.
    3. Its suppliers continued to have problems in providing a door, so it had asked for a quote from an external contractor. The quote it received was not approved, so it had reordered a door through its internal processes. The door would take 6-10 weeks to be delivered.
    4. It had attended in August 2023 at the resident’s request to ensure that her current door was safe and had ensured that the door still locked and had fitted a bolt to make it more secure.
    5. It accepted that the situation had caused major inconvenience to the resident and offered her further compensation of £200.
19. The resident responded to the landlord on 11 October 2023. She said it had not attended in August 2023 to make the door more secure, as it said it had in its stage 2 response. She said the only time the member of staff in question had attended was on 10 May 2023. On 17 October 2023, she requested that the landlord consider her complaint again.
20. On 31 October 2023, the landlord responded to the resident. It said it would clarify the date its staff member had last attended but had not been able to do so as yet. It said it was not able to advise what date the door and frame would be replaced as it was still awaiting delivery. It said it was checking on a weekly basis with its suppliers as to the progress of the order of the door.
21. The landlord contacted the resident on 7 November 2023. It said the door had been delivered and would be installed the following day, 8 November 2023. It confirmed it would fit an additional sliding bolt, but that the resident would be responsible for any further security features. It said that the resident was correct that the last visit of the member of staff in question had in fact been in May 2023. It apologised and offered her a further £50 compensation.
22. The resident contacted the landlord on 8 November 2023. She said that its operatives had left a mess in her house as they had only used dustsheets by the door. There was dust in the hallway and the kitchen and up the stairs. One of her children had asthma and one was disabled. The landlord responded the same day to say that its operatives had been working in wet and windy conditions. It said it would ensure the property was left clean and tidy before they left. The resident contacted the landlord again to say its operatives had left without cleaning the property, she asked that the landlord reimburse her for a professional clean.
23. On 8 November 2023, the resident submitted a further complaint to the landlord. She had not been able to re-enter the property after going to pick up her children as the door had not been fitted properly. She and her children had to wait in the car for hours for a locksmith to let them in.
24. The resident submitted a further complaint to the landlord on 12 January 2024 about the mess caused by the installation of the door and being locked out as she had not received a response to her complaint of 8 November 2023. She contacted the landlord again on 21 February 2024 as she had still not received a response.
25. On 26 February 2024, the landlord issued a final complaint response. It apologised for the further inconvenience caused to the resident. It said that its operative had had to force entry via a window to allow the resident back into the property. It confirmed this window had now been repaired. It offered to increase its offer of compensation made on 11 October 2023 from £250 to £450. It also offered a further £50 compensation for the delay in it issuing its complaint response.
26. The resident told the Service on 16 April 2024, that the window had not been repaired. She explained she had submitted a separate wider complaint to the landlord about all the windows in her property.

Assessment

Scope of investigation

27. The repairs to the resident’s window are outside of the scope of this investigation. This is because the Ombudsman is not able to consider complaints that are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaint procedure. This is so that landlords have the opportunity to respond to complaints and resolve issues before the Ombudsman becomes formally involved. As noted above, the resident has told the Service that she has submitted a separate wider complaint to the landlord about all the windows in her property. She may be able to refer her complaint to the Ombudsman if she remains dissatisfied once it has exhausted the landlord’s complaints process.
28. The resident has mentioned in her complaint that her health and the health of her children were affected by the landlord’s handling of the repairs. The Service does not doubt the resident’s comments about her health. We acknowledge that this has been a difficult time for her and her family. However, it is beyond the Ombudsman’s remit to consider whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions or inaction and the resident’s health. The Service can consider any distress and inconvenience caused by any errors by the landlord as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her health and the health of her children.

Policies and procedures

29. The landlord is responsible for keeping the outside and the structure of the property in good repair. Its repairs policy states that it will attend to emergency repairs such as an insecure external door affecting the safety of the residents and property, within 24 hours of the issue being reported to it.
30. The resident’s property lies within a conservation area. The local authority’s guidance states that most buildings in the area have painted timber doors. The guidance states that when doors need to be replaced, the existing style and materials must be matched wherever possible.
31. The landlord’s complaints process has 2 stages. Its complaints policy states that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.

The landlord’s handling of the replacement of the front door

32. The landlord acted appropriately in attending the resident’s property to make the door safe on 26 March 2023. This was in line with the timescales in the landlord’s repairs policy which states that it should attend to an insecure external door within 24 hours.
33. It was reasonable that on 28 March 2023, the landlord offered to fit a security screen and to temporarily move the resident until the door was replaced, given her worries that the door was not secure. This demonstrated a practical approach by the landlord as it showed it was listening to the resident and was offering solutions to try and allay her concerns. The Ombudsman is not questioning the resident’s reasons for deciding not to accept a temporary move, but it was reasonable for the landlord to offer this as an option, which the resident was not obliged to accept.
34. The resident said that the landlord was aware the door was not safe prior to the burglary. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence to show this issue was raised with the landlord prior to the resident’s property being broken into. Nor has it seen evidence that there were any defects with the door which were reported to the landlord. There are no general obligations on landlords to provide security doors, even after a break in. As noted above, the landlord confirmed to the resident that the new door would have 2 multi-locks. It was reasonable that the landlord agreed to fit an internal bolt, given the resident had raised worries about her safety with it on several occasions. It was understandable that the resident asked for a third lock given her concerns about security. However, the landlord was not obliged to install one as its obligations were to maintain the property, not to improve it and a third lock would be regarded as an improvement. It was correct to advise the resident that she could fit a third lock at her own expense if she wished to.
35. The landlord advised the resident that it could not fit a UPVC door as her property was within a conservation area. It was appropriate that the landlord sought further advice from the local authority to confirm this, after the resident had sent it photos showing a range of non-wooden doors in neighbouring streets. Once it had received confirmation from the local authority that the property was within the conservation area, it was reasonable for the landlord to decide that it should source a wooden replacement door, in line with the local authority’s guidelines. The Ombudsman notes that there are properties in the area which do not have wooden doors, but this in itself would not mean that the conservation area rules do not apply. There may be a number of reasons why not all properties have wooden doors such as the rules changing over time and exceptions for medical reasons etc.
36. External doors can take up to 12 weeks to replace as they often need to be specially manufactured, particularly where, as in this case, the landlord had to abide by conservation area guidelines. The landlord’s call records of 4 May 2023, show that it told the resident the door was booked in for 10 May 2023. As noted above, the resident said that on the day the operative who attended said they had to collect the door from a supplier. The operative returned and told the resident the door was not in stock. In its complaint response of 11 October 2023, the landlord told the resident that the appointment on 10 May 2023 was to re-measure prior to the installation of the door. Where there is a dispute over the facts without supporting evidence to confirm what happened, it is not possible for the Ombudsman to determine what was and what was not the case. However, going forward it is recommended that the landlord write to residents prior to repair appointments to set out what the appointment is for and what work will be carried out.
37. The landlord booked the installation of the replacement door for 29 May 2023. The resident waited in all day however no-one attended. The resident complained to the landlord on 30 May 2023 about this missed appointment. It was reasonable that the landlord offered the resident further compensation for the inconvenience in its complaint response of 1 June 2023, and that it apologised and offered further compensation on 1 August 2023. However, it did not provide an explanation in either of these complaint responses as to what had gone wrong. It is accepted that in its complaint response of 11 October 2023, the landlord explained that the door was still not available from its supplier. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have contacted the resident in advance of the appointment of 29 May 2023, to let her know that due to supply issues it would not be able to attend that day to fit the door. The fact that it did not do so was a failing. It is recommended that where there are issues with a supplier, meaning that an appointment cannot go ahead as planned, the landlord ensures it contacts the resident to cancel the appointment and follows-up in writing to explain the reason for the cancellation.
38. The landlord acted appropriately in looking into whether it could source the door through an external contractor, given the issues with its regular supplier, to see if it could speed the process up for the resident. It decided that the cost of sourcing the door externally was too expensive. This was reasonable as it had a responsibility to show it only used funds for purposes where there was evidence to show it was proportionate to do so. However, there is no evidence that the landlord ensured that it kept the resident updated as it provided no further information as to what was happening in relation to the door from 1 August 2023 until its complaint response of 11 October 2023, when it told her the door would take a further 6-10 weeks.
39. It was right that the landlord responded to the resident’s concern that there were inaccuracies in its stage 2 complaint response of 11 October 2023, when it referred to its staff having attended her property to fit a bolt to her door. It was right to say it would look into this further and would check again with staff as to when they had attended. It acted appropriately in acknowledging the error and offering the resident compensation for this. This demonstrates that the landlord showed willingness to acknowledge and correct mistakes where it had got things wrong. Nonetheless, the error would have caused frustration for the resident.
40. The resident complained to the landlord that its handling of the replacement of her front door affected her health and the health of her children. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to look at whether it could take any steps to support the resident and/or refer her to other agencies who may be able to provide support.
41. The landlord has acknowledged and apologised for its failings in its handling of the installation of a new front door. Due to the wording of the landlord’s complaint responses, it is not clear which offers of compensation were repeats of previous offers it had made. The landlord has told the Ombudsman that the total amount of compensation offered to the resident is £800. It is not clear how much of this amount was for the delays in the replacement of the resident’s door. As a breakdown has not been provided, the Ombudsman has assessed the compensation based on what we would have ordered if the landlord had not made an offer. We consider it appropriate to allocate £600 of the compensation offered by the landlord as compensation for its delays in the replacement of the front door. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, published on our website, which sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation. The remedies guidance states that where there were failures which adversely affected the resident, £100-£600 compensation should be awarded. Therefore, the landlord does not need to do anything further in this regard, as the compensation is in line with what the Ombudsman would have awarded had the landlord not already made an offer. It is appropriate redress for the landlord’s failures in its handling of the replacement of the front door.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

42. In its initial complaint responses issued on 25 May 2023 and 2 June 2023 respectively, the landlord responded swiftly either the next day or within a few days of receiving the resident’s complaints. However, these complaint responses demonstrated a lack of investigation into the issues the resident had raised and failed to fully explain the reasons behind the delays in the installation of the door.
43. The landlord opened 2 separate complaint investigations in relation to the resident’s complaint about the replacement of the door. It also reopened a complaint rather than escalate it to stage 2 as the resident had requested on 23 June 2023. This was confusing and led to it missing the resident’s request that her complaint be escalated. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have investigated all the issues the resident raised as one complaint.
44. On 23 June 2023, the resident asked that her complaint be escalated. The landlord did not issue a stage 2 complaint response until 11 October 2023 when it responded to the resident at the request of the Ombudsman. This was over 2 months outside of its timescales for responding to stage 2 complaints and will have caused time, trouble, and inconvenience for the resident as she was waiting longer than she should have been for a response and she had to contact the Ombudsman for assistance in progressing her complaint.
45. The resident raised a complaint on 8 November 2023 about the mess left by the landlord’s operatives during the installation of the door and being locked out. It is appropriate that the landlord recognised the impact these failings will have had on the resident and offered its apologies and further compensation. However, the landlord did not issue its complaint response until 26 February 2024 which was 3 months outside of its timescales for doing so. These delays caused further inconvenience for the resident, as she was unable to progress her complaint to the Ombudsman until she had received a final response from the landlord.
46. The landlord has acknowledged and apologised for its failures in its handling of the resident’s complaints. It is not clear how much of the total compensation offered by the landlord, was for its failures in its complaint handling. Therefore, the Ombudsman considers it appropriate to allocate £200 of the compensation offered by the landlord, as compensation for its failures in its complaint handling. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, referred to above. Therefore, the landlord does not need to do anything further in this regard, as the compensation is in line with what the Ombudsman would have awarded had the landlord not already made an offer and it is appropriate redress for the failures in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
47. The Ombudsman recommends that when offering compensation, the landlord makes it clear whether any further offers are repeats of offers made previously or whether it is offering additional compensation. It should also provide a breakdown of its offers to show how much compensation it is offering for delays in completing repairs and how much compensation it is offering for failures in its complaint handling. This will make it clearer to residents how much compensation the landlord is offering for particular aspects of their complaint.

Determination (decision)

48. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the replacement of the front door, satisfactorily.
49. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint, satisfactorily.

Recommendations

50. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Pay the resident the £800 compensation it has offered the resident through its complaints process if it has not done so already. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress is based on the understanding that this compensation will be paid.
    2. Contact residents in advance if planned appointments cannot go ahead, to cancel the appointment and follow-up in writing to explain the reasons for the cancellation.
    3. Ensure that when offering compensation, it makes clear whether any further offers are repeats of offers made previously or whether it is offering additional compensation.
    4. Provide a breakdown of its offers of compensation to show how much compensation it is offering for delays in completing repairs and how much compensation it is offering for failures in its complaint handling, if applicable.