Sanctuary Housing Association (202336534)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202336534

Sanctuary Housing Association

31 July 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

The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of repairs related to damp;
2. Response to reports of pests;
3. Handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy which started in 2010. The property consists of a kitchen, bathroom, a bedroom/ living room, and a conservatory.
In December 2020, the resident complained about outstanding works to remedy the effects of damp and mould in her home, after there had been a leak from the flat above. By way of complaint resolution, the landlord raised repair jobs for mould washes in all rooms in the property, and to:
1. Fill cracks in the ceiling, seal gaps around the window, and replace the “defective base unit carcass” in the kitchen (with the unit doors being re-used);
2. Strip the woodchip and replace the extractor fan in the bathroom;
3. Apply insulated wallpaper in the conservatory.
The landlord gave these repairs a target of 60 days to be completed, and offered the resident £1,800 compensation.
The evidence we have seen shows that, as of summer 2022, the landlord was still seeking to organise several of the repairs. The evidence shows that it had some problems in raising works to its preferred contractor during 2022, and also indicates that once the works were raised its contractor had difficulty contacting the resident to organise an appointment.
In September 2022 the resident expressed her dissatisfaction with “a year of excuses and no action” from the landlord’s contractors. She told the landlord she had thrown away boxes of trainers due to mould, the flooring in her kitchen and bathroom was sinking, and her home was infested with flies and other pests. She told it a rotten step in her bedroom had turned the carpet green. She explained she had experienced “constant headaches and skin breakouts”, and she was embarrassed to have guests to visit.
The landlord treated this as a complaint, and offered the resident £3,360 compensation for the delays on 23 September 2022.
The landlord’s contractor attempted to attend to carry out repair works in October 2022, and had to cancel and delay them after they struggled to find parking in the area and established that they would need a permit from the local council.
The landlord advised the resident on 19 October 2022 that any issues regarding the repairs that arose after its response on 23 September 2022, would need to be treated as a new complaint. It advised that this included any concerns about the quality of work done or further delays.
The resident chased an update from the landlord on 1 November 2022, and told it that the property stunk of dead rodents. That day, the landlord logged a new stage 1 complaint, about outstanding repairs to the bathroom flooring, the vent in the bathroom, a recurring leak in the bathroom, rotten skirting boards, repairs to the kitchen, a leaking window in the kitchen and rats gaining entry to the kitchen.
The landlord issued an “interim” stage 1 complaint response on 17 November 2022, and apologised to the resident for the issues she was experiencing. It explained that it hoped to start the repair works in seven to 10 working days. Its pest control contractor had attended the previous day, and would return on 22 November 2022 to complete the treatment. It told the resident it would advise her when it had a date for the damp works.
The resident contacted the landlord on 22 November 2022 and confirmed that the pest control contractor had attended. She told the landlord that the kickboards under the cabinets needed to be re-fitted, with one having been broken when the landlord removed them to give access for the pest control.
In April 2023, the resident emailed the landlord and expressed her ongoing frustration that the repairs had still not been completed. She explained that the landlord’s new contractor had attended a day early to carry out damp works, which meant she missed them.
The landlord called the resident on 25 May 2023, to provide another interim response. It explained to the resident that it had asked a new contractor to carry out the work to remedy the damp, and repair the kitchen and bathroom. The new contractor wanted a surveyor to attend first, which the landlord had agreed to.
On 13 June 2023, the landlord raised the following repairs to its contractor:
1. Renew, skim and redecorate the bathroom ceiling;
2. Renew the carpet and underlay to the steps leading to the bedroom;
3. Investigate underneath the steps for water ingress/ damp;
4. Supply and fit beading to the skylight reveals;
5. Provide a latch and lock for the loft hatch door.
The landlord issued a ‘final’ stage 1 complaint response on 28 June 2023. It:
1. Said it was aware that the issues were ongoing since 2020, however it could only fully investigate issues in the last six months;
2. Advised it had appointed an external contractor at some point in 2021, there had been a delay in getting a quote back from the contractor, and it was then unable to complete the work. The landlord had then asked another contractor to take over. The landlord apologised “on behalf” of the initial contractor;
3. Explained that the second contractor had wanted its surveyor to attend before the contractor carried out work, which led to another “service failure and delay”, which the landlord apologised for. Once the surveyor attended on 1 June 2023, the repairs were booked in for 3 July 2023;
4. Advised that the kitchen and bathroom “replacement” would be “picked up” by its planned works team and it would contact the resident in “due course”;
5. Upheld the resident’s complaint, and offered her £350 compensation, made up of £50 for its delays in communication and the resident’s time taken to contact it, and £300 for the delays to the repairs and any stress or inconvenience this had caused. It advised the resident that this offer was to cover any “future impact” until all works had been completed.
On 9 July 2023 the resident contacted the landlord, and told it that the offer of compensation was an “insult”. She asked for the landlord to move her, or to complete the works that month so she could go back to “normality”.
On 27 July 2023 the resident contacted the landlord again, and expressed her disappointment at not having a “formal” response. She said she had recently laid new flooring, and had discovered mould. She had had to throw away clothes and items of sentimental value due to the mould. The resident said “patch” repairs were not sufficient, and the property needed a “full gut and refurbishment”, which she did not think was feasible with her living there. She also told the landlord that she had visited her GP twice in the last two weeks because of the physical and mental health effects of living in the property.
On 23 November 2023, the landlord issued another stage 1 complaint response. It:
1. Said that it had inspected the resident’s kitchen in June 2023, and while it had confirmed that the kitchen was part of its future planned works programme, it did not have a timescale for this;
2. Confirmed it had received a quote for the bathroom repairs, which it had raised and would chase and monitor;
3. Confirmed it had completed the initial damp and mould repairs in 2022. It had booked in new repairs for 27 November 2023, and it would ensure these were finished on 29 November 2023;
4. Offered the resident £500 compensation, made up of £100 for its communication and “multiple delays” in responding to her complaint, and £400 for the “overall impact inclusive of time, trouble and inconvenience” caused by the issues the resident had raised.
On 11 December 2023, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She said the kitchen repairs had not been touched, the bathroom repairs were not complete, the bedroom/ living room repairs were not completed to a satisfactory standard, and there were issues with a wall vent and the boiler. She again explained the impact, telling the landlord that she had been hospitalised at one point, and now used asthma inhalers due to the conditions in her flat.
On 3 January 2024 the landlord called the resident and agreed to arrange a post inspection of the works its contractor had done. It reiterated to the resident that the kitchen was on a planned programme of works, and recorded that the resident was not satisfied with this. At some point after this, the landlord escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 2.
The landlord spoke again with the resident on 4 March 2024 as part of its investigation into the stage 2 complaint, and clarified that the outstanding repairs were the flooring in the bathroom, the extractor fan, and all the work in the kitchen. The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response the same day, in which it:
1. Advised it had asked its contractor to provide a quote for the replacement of the extractor fan in the bathroom, repairs to the floorboards in the bathroom and kitchen, treat the damp and mould under/ behind the kitchen units, remove and refit them, and repairs to the leaking kitchen window;
2. Recognised that the resident had complained about these matters on 1 November 2022, and confirmed the resident had accepted its offer of £3,300 compensation on 30 November 2022;
3. Advised that its pest control contractor had attended several times in November 2022, found “light rat activity”, laid bait, and on its last visit on 7 December 2022 no new activity was found or reported. The landlord had not received further reports of rats from the resident;
4. Apologised for not escalating the resident’s complaint to stage 2 when she requested this on 11 December 2023;
5. Advised that its repairs contractor had completed repairs on 21 December 2023, and the resident had cancelled the appointment for it to return. The landlord asked the contractor to attend again on 9 February 2024, and the resident had confirmed she had no issues with the bathroom. The landlord’s surveyor had attended and confirmed they were satisfied with the works that had been done. The surveyor found damp around the steps leading to the resident’s bedroom, which they believed to be trapped moisture from the previously reported leak, and which appeared to have dried once it was exposed. The surveyor had found the kitchen to be in “relatively good condition”, with the “interim” repairs being acceptable until it was replaced on the future planned works programme. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord had agreed to ask its contractor to quote for “outstanding works” to the kitchen;
6. In summary and conclusion, the landlord recognised that the length of time it had taken to carry out the repairs its surveyor had identified as necessary, and the repairs that were outstanding from her previous complaint, was “far longer” than it should have been. It apologised for the inconvenience this had caused the resident, and offered her a total of £3,792 compensation, made up of:
  1. £3,392 for the loss of enjoyment of her home from November 2022 to 30 June 2024 (its internal records indicate it had calculated this at 40% of the resident’s rent);
  2. £400 for the impact of its complaint handling and communication failures.
As of July 2024, the landlord has confirmed that the repairs are now complete. It told us that the resident did not want a new kitchen unit to be installed due to damp issues, and it would arrange additional repairs in relation to this. It advised us that it would speak to the resident to confirm again if there are any additional repairs that are required.

Assessment and findings

The above background is a summary of the key events of the case. It is not intended to be an exhaustive account of all contact between the resident and landlord during the years covered by the complaint. What was clear from the records we saw was that the resident has tried many times to seek a conclusive outcome from the landlord, and while it acknowledged her contact each time, it did not appear to put adequate steps in place to ensure that all the repairs were completed, in a timely way, or to its expected standards. This has left the resident feeling that matters are still outstanding as of July 2024, over two and a half years after she first raised a complaint.
Following two recent severe maladministration findings related to complaints about the landlord’s response to damp and mould reports, we issued a wider order in line with our powers under paragraph 54(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. In response, the landlord commissioned an independent report, which identified that improvements were required in the areas of complaints handling, repairs, record keeping, and vulnerabilities. More details, and a copy of the report, can be found here: https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/2024/05/16/sanctuary-review-nearly-4000-cases/ .
The resident explained to the landlord multiple times that the wait for repairs was causing her distress, and that she needed notice to be able to take time off from work. The landlord’s responses did not demonstrate appropriate empathy or sufficient attempts to work with the resident to make mutually convenient arrangements for the scheduling of repairs appointments.
We have recently published a spotlight report on attitudes, respect and rights (which can be accessed here: https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/centre-for-learning/key-topics/attitudes-respect-and-rights/ ). Some of the findings are relevant here. We encourage landlords to put “human-centric policies” in place, and the report highlights the importance of acknowledging the specific concerns residents are raising as part of complaint responses. In this case, the landlord’s failure to adequately acknowledge and respond to the specific issues the resident had raised regarding the ongoing impact of the works understandably did not allow her to feel heard.
The resident raised specific concerns about the impact of the repair delays on her physical and mental health. These are medical matters and fall outside the scope of our investigation, however we acknowledge that the resident found the experience very upsetting.

The landlord’s handling of the repairs related to damp and mould

There appears to be agreement between the landlord and resident that the problems originated with a leak from the property above at some point in 2020. There was nothing to indicate that the repairs that had been requested were particularly complex in nature. Instead, the landlord appears to have lacked sufficient oversight to ensure that they were completed in a timely way. This suggests that it does not have an appropriate system in place to ensure ownership and accountability for repairs that it has raised.
Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985) the landlord must keep the property in repair, and carry out necessary repairs within a reasonable timeframe. This responsibility remains even if it contracts the repairs out.
It is very concerning that the landlord took over three and a half years to complete the works. The landlord has acknowledged this took too long, and has over that period offered the resident a substantial amount of compensation for the delays. The compensation the landlord offered totalled £13,792, which should have prompted it to consider whether it was giving appropriate priority to the completion of the works. It also puts the resident’s request for a replacement of her kitchen into perspective in relation to the cost it would have involved for the landlord.
It is unclear how much of the compensation has been paid to the resident beyond the £3,300 she accepted in November 2022.
It appears that factors in the delay to the repairs being completed included the landlord’s approach to communication with, and management of, its contractors. The landlord’s staff did not appear to be able to react in a timely way when its preferred contractor was not in a position to provide a quote or take on the works, and it did not appear to have advised its contractor that it would need a permit in order to park in the resident’s street. There were also issues with the notice its contractors had given the resident before attending, and it is unclear what action, if any, the landlord took to address this with its contractor. As explained above, we will not repeat the orders we have recently made and which the landlord has started to take steps to improve, however we draw its attention to the resident’s experience in this case and encourage it to take on the learning around its approach to the use of contractors.
Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord is required to keep the resident’s kitchen in repair, but it is not required to replace the units on any set timescale. Under the Decent Homes Standard, the landlord must update a kitchen that is over 20 years old, only if the property also fails to meet two or more of the following conditions as well:
1. a kitchen with adequate space and layout;
2. a reasonably modern bathroom (30 years old or less);
3. an appropriately located bathroom and WC;
4. adequate insulation against external noise (where external noise is a problem);
5. adequate size and layout of common areas for blocks of flats.
Therefore, it is not unreasonable for the landlord to seek to repair rather than replace the resident’s kitchen on the basis of age. However, it clearly indicated to her in its complaint response of 28 June 2023 that the kitchen replacement would be undertaken by its planned works team. This was an unhelpful commitment, because it sounded like this would be part of a scheduled programme in the near future, where the reality seems to be that there is no timeframe for this at present. The landlord’s surveyor identified that one of the units needed replacement in December 2020, and it is unclear whether this was completed, or the unit was repaired instead.
It is our position that simply offering compensation is not enough to resolve the problem. The resident continued to have to live in unacceptable conditions for an unreasonable amount of time, and despite making various large compensation offers at various points, the landlord did not actually complete the repairs which were central to her complaint. For this reason, when taken together, the landlord’s failures in its handling of the repairs from 2020 until summer 2024 amount to severe maladministration.
Given the unreasonable delay to the works being completed, and the poor level of communication from the landlord, it is right that a substantial amount of compensation should be paid to the resident, and we have made an order below to reflect this.

The landlord’s response to reports of pests

The landlord arranged for a pest control contractor to attend to carry out treatment in November and December 2022, which appeared to have been effective in eliminating the issue. It is usual that more than one round of treatment will be required, as it was here. After the treatment was completed, the landlord needed to fill the access points to prevent rats from entering the property again. We have commented above on the landlord’s general handling of repairs and its associated communication with the resident during these months, and will not repeat the same observations here. We do recognise that the experience was distressing for the resident, but in this instance the landlord has carried out works to remedy and resolve the situation.
When considering the above, we have not found maladministration in the landlord’s response to the reports of pests.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

As we have referred to above, the landlord has accepted that its complaint handling needs improvement, and has committed to deliver training to its staff.
In its complaint response of 28 June 2023, the landlord told the resident it could only fully investigate events of the last six months. This risked missing opportunities to identify what had gone wrong, and take appropriate learning from it. It also risked the landlord’s ability to identify a reasonable and proportionate remedy to put things right.
It was concerning to see so many complaints opened in this case, which were all about the same matters. This demonstrated a failure by the landlord to use its complaints process to resolve the issues the resident had raised to it. The fact that the complaint period covered several years is not acceptable.
The landlord’s more recent responses recognised the unreasonable delays, including failures to escalate the resident’s complaint at appropriate moments. The landlord’s recognition of failures has mitigated against a finding of severe maladministration. It has offered her some compensation, but it is our opinion that this amount needs to be increased given the seriousness of its failure to ensure that the actions it had promised were subsequently completed.
The landlord failed to address some of the resident’s specific concerns, including the impact she told it that the condition of the property was having on her health, and the fact that she felt too embarrassed to have visitors. It did not record a response to her request to be moved, and it should have ensured that it explained its rationale behind any decision regarding this – whether a temporary or permanent move, it would have been fair for the landlord to explain to the resident why it thought this was not necessary, if that was the case.
Taking into account the impact of the landlord’s failures, its handling of the resident’s complaints amounts to maladministration.
The Ombudsman previously ordered the landlord to carry out a review of its policy or practice under paragraph 54(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in relation to responding to requests for repairs due to leaks. Some of the issues identified in this case are similar to the cases already determined. The landlord has demonstrated compliance with our previous wider order, so we have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case, which would duplicate those already made to landlord. We note that the landlord has committed to implementing several improvements, including a focus on “right first time” repairs and training for its complaint handlers. The landlord itself should consider whether there are any additional issues arising from this later case that require further action, in particular in relation to its communication with, and management of, contractors, and the ‘ownership’ of/ staff responsibility for the completion of outstanding repairs promised as part of a complaint resolution.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs related to damp;
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of pests;
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, an appropriately senior member of staff (of at least director level) from the landlord must apologise to the resident for the impact of its failures to complete the repairs in a timely way, or to react with appropriate urgency to the issues she raised in her complaint. It must provide us with a copy once this has been done.
Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must ensure it has directly paid the resident a total of £11,000 (with any amounts it has already paid subtracted), made up of:
1. £10,000 for the impact of the delays to the repairs (this is equivalent to approximately 60% of the resident’s average rent over the period when the repairs remained outstanding);
2. £1000 for the impact of its complaint handling failures.

Recommendations

We recommend that the landlord’s planned works team contacts the resident to confirm what its current plans are regarding kitchen replacements in her area.
We recommend that the landlord contact the resident to advise how she can make a claim through its insurance process for damage to belongings or personal injury.