Sanctuary Housing Association (202331738)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202331738

Sanctuary Housing Association

11 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 complaint about its handling of repairs following a fire at a neighbouring property, and damp and mould due to repair delays.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured (joint) tenant of the landlord. The property is an end of terrace house. The landlord does not own the property next door. The landlord has not recorded any health issues for the household. The resident reported that his wife has a medical condition, and he experienced PTSD following the fire.
  2. The resident reported damage to his gutter, roof, window frames and glass on 14 June 2023 following a fire next door. A contractor visited on the same day and identified repairs needed to the external windows, glazing, fascia, soffit, roof tiles, guttering and rainwater pipe. They found that the glass on the ground floor window was a hazard. The landlord completed work to board the window on the same day. It said it completed work to make the gutter safe.
  3. The landlord referred the matter to its insurance team. It told the resident that it was waiting for a response on 26 June 2023. On 4 July 2023, the landlord identified it needed a further quote for the works. A contractor provided this on 14 August 2023.
  4. The landlord passed the quotes to its insurance team on 25 August 2023. On 30 August 2023, its insurance team said that as the quote for the work was under a certain figure, its insurers would not be involved. The landlord asked for approval for the work on 22 September 2023 and raised work orders on 26 September 2023.
  5. The resident raised a complaint on 27 September 2023. He explained the damage caused to the property, including from water, which had resulted in mould growth, and black smoke damage from the fire. He explained how the arson attack and fire impacted his mental health and that he now had PTSD. He contacted the landlord a number of times, but it had not updated him. He was withholding his rent payments until the landlord resolved the matter. He added that the double glazing was not effective due to the damage and that the property was cold.
  6. In its stage 1 complaint response on 11 October 2023, the landlord upheld the complaint due to the delay in it raising works. It had authorised the work and would contact the resident to book an appointment. It added that it would follow-up to ensure it had completed the repairs and offered £200 compensation for the impact caused by its delays.
  7. The resident contacted the landlord between 26 October and 17 November 2023 setting out his reasons for dissatisfaction. In summary:
    1. He was dissatisfied that there had been a lack of progress. He rejected the landlord’s offer of £200 and said he would continue to withhold rent. The landlord had not contacted him regarding the repairs and he had sought help from citizens advice and the Ombudsman.
    2. The operative that attended on 14 June 2023 boarded the window but did not make the guttering and roof safe. They said this was because they were on their own. Due to the lack of guttering, water was running down the front of the property and causing black mould on the main front bedroom walls and ceiling. This had damaged the bedroom carpet and curtains.
    3. His physical and mental health had become worse. He was suffering with asthma and taking medication. He added that the condition of the property reminded him of the fire which was impacting his PTSD and recovery.
    4. He wanted compensation for the impact on him and his family and towards redecorating. He said that the cost of heating the property had increased due to the landlord not fixing the damage.
    5. He asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 3 occasions and he was unhappy that this had not happened.
  8. On 24 November 2023, an MP contacted the landlord. They asked it to address the repairs and provide an update. Following this, the local authority’s environmental health department (EH) contacted the landlord in December 2023. The landlord accepted the resident’s escalation request on 29 December 2023 and apologised for the delay.
  9. A joint visit to the property with both the landlord and EH took place on 5 January 2024. It completed a mould wash to the front bedroom and corners of the living room on 10 January 2024. It completed work to replace 4 windows on 19 January 2024 and work to the roof line and guttering took place around 25 January 2024. EH signed off the work as completed on 2 February 2024.
  10. On 23 February 2024, the landlord contacted the resident to gain his feedback and check whether he experienced further problems. The resident responded and said he was dissatisfied with the length of time it had taken to complete repairs and the impact on his health and finances. He added that the walls were still full of water, holes and damp.
  11. The landlord responded to the resident’s MP on 28 February 2024. It issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 30 March 2024. In summary:
    1. In relation to its handling of the works, it said that following the resident’s report, it initially attended on the same day, and identified works required to the windows, guttering, and roof. It did not identify damage to the internal parts of the property at the time. It boarded one window and removed the damaged guttering on the same day.
    2. It explained that because it did not own the property next door, repairs needed to go via its insurance team. This had delayed the repairs to the resident’s property. It acknowledged that it did not complete a further inspection following the resident’s complaint or following his further communication on 2 November 2023.
    3. It apologised that the MP needed to communicate with it regarding his concerns about a lack of communication. It confirmed that it had completed all work by 25 January 2024.
    4. It acknowledged that the condition of the property deteriorated due to its delay in repairing the roof and gutters. Works had taken longer than it would have liked due to the insurance aspect and assessing works, but it was inevitable that there would be water penetration with no gutters in place. It added that although the delays were outside of its control, the length of time taken to complete the repairs, and its communication, was not to the standard it expected.
    5. In relation to its handling of the complaint, it apologised for the delay at stage 1 and that the response did not refer to the concerns he had raised about the internal condition of the property. It also apologised for its mishandling of communication following his request to escalate the complaint on 30 October 2023, noting that it did not log this correctly. It also acknowledged that following correspondence from an MP in November 2023, it should have escalated the complaint but did not do so until 29 December 2023.
    6. It upheld the resident’s complaint and apologised for poor communication in respect of the repairs, the handling of his complaint, and the time and trouble he spent in pursuing his concerns. It offered a total of £2,475 compensation, which included an estimate of the cost of replacing the resident’s carpet and curtains as he had not provided quotes. The compensation was comprised of:
      1. £25 for the delay at stage 1;
      2. £100 for its failure to escalate the resident’s complaint twice;
      3. £150 for the delay at stage 2;
      4. £400 for the delay in repairing the windows, roof, and gutters;
      5. £350 to reimburse for the bedroom carpet (estimated cost);
      6. £50 to reimburse for the curtains (estimated cost);
      7. £200 towards redecoration costs;
      8. £800 for the loss of enjoyment of the property between June 2023 and January 2024 (£100 per month);
      9. £400 as a contribution towards increased energy costs from the start of the heating season in October 2023 to January 2024.
  12. The resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman to investigate as he remained dissatisfied. He said that the condition of the property and the arson attack had significantly impacted his mental health. He continued to experience damp within the property and the landlord had not completed repointing work and damp proofing agreed during a joint visit on 5 January 2024. It told him he needed to raise a repair request via its repairs team who had not responded. He said he was seeking for the landlord to complete damp proofing and to pay additional compensation as he did not feel the amount offered was sufficient in view of the trauma, or the impact on his mental and physical health.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

  1. It is understandable that the arson attack and fire were likely to have a significant impact on the resident and his household. In his communication, the resident has stated that the fire, subsequent delay in completing works, and damp conditions, had impacted his mental and physical health. While the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s concerns, it is not our role to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing, consider whether the landlord is liable for this, or award damages. This is more suitable to be dealt with as a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
  2. In his communication, the resident advised that his mattress and wardrobe were damaged, although it is unclear as to whether this related to the fire or his reports of damp and mould. As above, the Ombudsman is not able to determine liability. However, the landlord is asked to consider his claim or refer the matter to its insurer should he believe it is liable for any damage. This is included within the Orders and Recommendations section below.
  3. The resident also raised concerns about ongoing damp in the property. This investigation focuses on the period from 14 June 2023 to 30 March 2024. While other dates may be mentioned within the report when considering the landlord’s handling of the complaint, the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to respond to its handling of ongoing reports through its complaints process before the Ombudsman is able to investigate.

Policies and procedures

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for repairs needed to the structure and exterior of the building, including the roof, drains and guttering, and windows. The resident is responsible for the internal decorations and insuring the contents of the property.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it aims to attend and make safe emergency repairs within 24 hours. This includes damage to ground floor windows. Appointed repairs include all non-emergency repairs, including leaking gutters and roof leaks. It aims to complete appointed repairs within 45 days with an enhanced service of 28 days to customers with a vulnerability. If the landlord is unable to meet its timescales, it must keep the customer informed of the progress of the repair and provide updates as to when it will complete work.
  3. The policy further states that where a resident reports unforeseen or accidental damage, or vandalism, the landlord must determine who is responsible for the repair by completing a home visit. If the repair is the landlord’s responsibility and covered by insurance, then it should inform its insurance team. Where a resident reports criminal damage, they would need to provide a crime reference number. The landlord’s insurance policy states that where a claim falls below an excess, it would not be handled by its insurers.
  4. The landlord’s customer contact procedure states that staff and contractors are responsible for providing accurate information within a reasonable timescale, keeping residents updated on any matter which takes some time to resolve, and responding to customers within the agreed timescale of 5 working days.
  5. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it has a 2 stage formal complaints process. At stage 1, the landlord will acknowledge the complaint within 3 working days and respond within 10 working days. It aims to respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. Where there is likely to be a delay, the landlord will contact the resident, explain the reason for delay and provide a new response date.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about its handling of repairs following a fire at a neighbouring property, and damp and mould due to repair delays

  1. The resident initially reported damage to his property from a suspected arson attack at his neighbour’s property on 14 June 2023. The landlord acted reasonably by attending within its emergency timescales to determine what repairs were required. However, there was a significant and unreasonable delay in completing works to the windows, roof, and guttering until 25 January 2024. This was a period of over 7 months, which was significantly outside of the landlord’s published timescales. There were also delays, primarily in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for it to escalate and respond to his complaint at stage 2, which meant that he spent additional time and trouble pursuing his concerns via his MP and EH.
  2. Within its complaint responses, the landlord has not disputed that there were unreasonable delays in completing works, it communicated poorly, failed to complete further inspections of the property (following his complaint in relation to reports of damp and mould), and that the condition of the property worsened due to the delays in it remedying the damage. It also acknowledged delays at various stages in its handling of the complaint and the impact on the resident.
  3. It offered a total of £2,475 compensation which included £275 for complaint handling failures, £1,200 for the delay in carrying out repairs and the loss of enjoyment of the property as a result, £600 towards the cost of replacing a carpet, curtains, and redecorating, and £400 towards increased energy costs. However, the resident remains dissatisfied with the compensation offered and said that he continues to experience damp and mould in the property.
  4. Where a landlord admits failings, the Ombudsman considers whether the redress offered by it 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.
  5. The landlord acted reasonably by attending the property within its emergency timescales to establish the extent of the damage and works required. The delay in progressing works between 14 June 2023 and 25 August 2023 was somewhat outside of the landlord’s control as it needed to acquire additional quotes for its insurance team to confirm whether its insurer needed to be involved. However, there is no clear evidence to show that the landlord proactively kept the resident updated which was likely to add to the distress experienced.
  6. However, any delay after 25 August 2023 was inside of the landlord’s control. Its insurance team said that they would not be involved further as the total cost of the works did not require this. There was then a delay of a month in the request for approval to complete the work (until 22 September 2023). While the landlord took steps to query when the works would begin (up until 10 October 2023), there was a further delay in passing the repairs to contractors (until 14 November 2023). The landlord queried when the works would take place on 27 November 2023, following contact from the resident’s MP, but there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord monitored or handled the repairs proactively until 27 December 2023, after contact from EH.
  7. While the landlord took reasonable steps to acknowledge the impact of the delay within its complaint responses, it did not fully account for its part in the delay, stating that this was outside of its control as the works needed to go via its insurance team. It did not fully acknowledge failures in its administration of the required repairs. It is also evident that the resident needed to spend additional time and trouble pursuing his concerns through third parties such as his MP and EH before works were adequately progressed. While the landlord acknowledged poor communication, and apologised that his MP needed to contact it, it failed to acknowledge the involvement of EH.
  8. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence to confirm that the resident reported damp prior to his complaint on 27 September 2023, although he said he attempted to raise this concern. There was a significant delay in the landlord inspecting the property until 5 January 2024, approximately 3 months later. The Ombudsman notes that this inspection was prompted by EH informing the landlord that it was due to visit the property following the resident’s reports of a lack of repair, rather than in response to the resident or his MP’s communication. This was unreasonable.
  9. The resident also raised concern that the guttering had not been made safe on more than one occasion, including within his complaint. He reported this was “dangling”, and in his communication on 2 November 2023, he said that the operative who attended on 14 June 2023 did not make the guttering safe as they said this was a “two-man job”.
  10. In view of the potential hazards associated with damp and mould, and falling objects, the Ombudsman would have expected to see evidence that the landlord proactively sought to check that the guttering had been made safe, following the resident’s reports that this was “dangling down” on 27 September 2023, and inspect the property.
  11. The landlord has not disputed that it failed to comment on the condition of the property in its stage 1 complaint response. It also apologised that it did not raise any work to re-inspect the property and water ingress following the complaint, or the resident’s additional communication on 2 November 2023. Its apology was reasonable in the circumstances.
  12. However, the landlord continued to state that the guttering had been made safe on 14 June 2023 within its responses to the MP in February 2024 and its stage 2 complaint response in March 2024. This indicates that it failed to engage with the resident’s concern. This was evidently frustrating to the resident who informed the landlord again, on 31 March 2024, that the guttering was not made safe during the period the works were outstanding.
  13. It was reasonable for the landlord to carry out a mould treatment to the property as a reactive measure in January 2024 in order to remove any immediate risk associated with mould spores. In his communication with the Ombudsman in March 2024, the resident said that damp proofing works remained outstanding. He further added that the surveyor who attended with EH on 5 January 2024 agreed that a damp proof course and re-pointing was needed but this had not happened.
  14. While the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comment about the discussion, we have seen no documentary evidence confirming that work to the damp proof course or re-pointing was required. EH signed off works as completed on 2 February 2024, indicating that they were no longer involved in the matter. However, the landlord asked the resident on 23 February 2024 whether he continued to experience any further issues following the work to reinstate the gutter. In response on the same day, the resident raised specific concern that the walls were still full of water, holes, and damp.
  15. Despite raising these concerns, the landlord failed to acknowledge that the damp issues reported were ongoing within its subsequent complaint response. It is evident that the resident needed to spend additional time pursuing this concern following the complaint as a result of this failing. He was subsequently informed on 24 April 2024 that he would need to contact its repairs team for any further works required. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to address the resident’s concerns in full within its stage 2 complaint response and confirm the actions it would take in an attempt to resolve ongoing problems, which it had accepted was the result of its delay. The landlord missed the opportunity to take action and offer a satisfactory resolution within its responses which caused additional inconvenience to the resident.
  16. In respect of its handling of the complaint specifically, the resident initially raised a complaint on 27 September 2023. The landlord subsequently responded at stage 1 on 11 October 2023 This was 1 day outside of the landlord’s policy timescales and unlikely to have a significant impact. However, it was reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge and apologise for the delay in its stage 2 complaint response on 30 March 2024.
  17. The landlord acknowledged that it failed to escalate the resident’s complaint on 2 occasions following his initial request for it to do so on 30 October 2023, and following communication from his MP in November 2023. The Ombudsman has seen evidence that the landlord missed the opportunity to escalate the resident’s complaint on several further occasions, including on 26 October 2023, when he called to express dissatisfaction that there had been no progress, following his communication on 2 November 2023, and following receipt of the complaint form he submitted on 17 November 2023.
  18. The complaint was not escalated until 29 December 2023. It is evident that this was prompted by communication from EH on 22 December 2023 yet the landlord did not comment on EH’s involvement within its response or account for the additional time and trouble spent by the resident in pursuing his concerns. While the landlord could have done more within its subsequent complaint response to acknowledge these specific failings, it nonetheless is not disputed that there were delays in responding at stage 2.
  19. Once the complaint was acknowledged on 29 December 2023, there was a delay of approximately 44 working days in responding. While the landlord informed the resident that it needed additional time on 26 January 2024 and that it would respond by 7 February 2024, the Ombudsman has seen no further evidence to show that the resident was kept adequately updated as per its policy. It is of concern that despite works being confirmed as completed internally on 8 February 2024, the landlord did not issue a complaint response until 30 March 2024.
  20. In line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), landlords are expected to address each aspect of a complaint, identify where things have gone wrong and demonstrate learning. The landlord acted reasonably by acknowledging its failure to reference his concerns related to the internal parts of the property at stage 1 within its subsequent stage 2 complaint response.
  21. As set out above, the landlord’s investigation at stage 2 was flawed and it did not identify how its actions contributed to the delay in completing works, stating that this was out of its control as a result of needing to go through its insurer. The incorrect explanation for its failure indicates that the landlord has not taken adequate learning from the complaint in order to prevent similar failings in the future. In addition, it failed to comment on specific concerns related to the gutters not being made safe as described, or continued damp. This was likely to make the resident feel unheard and add to his overall frustration.

Summary

  1. The landlord has taken some steps to put things right for the resident by acknowledging the delay and disruption caused to him and offering a total of £2,475 within its complaint responses. This offer is significant and is within a range the Ombudsman considers proportionate in instances of severe maladministration where there has been a serious impact on a resident and the redress required to put things right is considerable.
  2. In the absence of receipts to show any specific additional costs caused to the resident, it was reasonable for the landlord to offer compensation towards replacing the bedroom carpet and curtains and redecoration. This was in line with its compensation policy which states that where there is damage or loss of belongings, property or decoration, the landlord will offer compensation up to an amount that would allow a claimant to purchase a like for like replacement. It also acknowledged that there may have been increased energy usage due to the damage to the windows and its offer towards the cost of increased energy bills was a reasonable acknowledgement of the impact its delays had.
  3. The overall offer goes some way to put things right for the resident and acknowledge the impact on him and his family as a result of the failings identified. However, the Ombudsman has found service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns.
  4. The landlord’s investigation into its handling of the resident’s reports was flawed and it did not correctly identify parts of the delay that were within its control which amounts to a complaint handling failure. In addition, its responses to the complaint failed to fully address his concerns or provide an adequate resolution to his continued reports of damp. In view of the landlord’s failure to provide an adequate resolution at the time of the resident’s complaint, it is the Ombudsman’s view that additional redress is warranted, and several orders have been made below.

Determination

  1. In line with paragraph paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s complaint about its handling of repairs following a fire at a neighbouring property, and damp and mould due to repair delays.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified within this report.
    2. Pay the resident an additional £250 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to his complaint.
    3. Contact the resident to discuss any ongoing concerns related to damp within the property and instruct a surveyor to complete a damp survey of the affected areas.
    4. Appoint a member of staff to act as a point of contact for the resident and monitor any outstanding works through to completion.
    5. Consider its handling of the resident’s reports of ongoing damp since March 2024 and any failings which contributed to continued delay. It should allow the resident the opportunity to confirm any specific reason for dissatisfaction. It should set out its findings in writing to the resident and make an offer of compensation in recognition of the impact of the ongoing delay since its stage 2 complaint response in March 2024 where appropriate. If dissatisfied with its response, the resident may wish to raise a new complaint to the landlord if he has not already done so.
  2. Within 6 weeks, the landlord is to write to the resident with the outcome of the damp survey and provide a copy of the surveyor’s report. It should explain what works, if any, are needed and confirm the expected timescale for completing the work.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is to complete a management review of the resident’s case. It should provide a copy of the review to its senior leadership team and the Ombudsman within 8 weeks. The review should consider steps the landlord could take to ensure that its repairs and insurance teams are able to work together to improve how quickly they:
    1. Decide whether the insurer needs to be involved or not.
    2. Progress repairs after that decision.
  4. The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within the specified timescales.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord contacts the resident to confirm how he can make a claim for any damage to belongings. The landlord should consider his claim or refer the matter to its insurer should he believe it is liable for any damage.