Sanctuary Housing Association (202337623)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202337623

Sanctuary Housing Association

28 January 2025

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:

a.     The resident’s reports of ongoing leaks, damp and mould, and the subsequent repairs in the property.

b.     The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about its contractor’s conduct.

c.      The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

2.             The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She lives in a 2-bedroom second-floor flat and has done so since July 2022. At the time of the complaint, the resident had a toddler and was pregnant.

3.             On 31 December 2022 the resident reported a leak from her bathroom. The landlord attended the same day and isolated the water, and the records indicate the job was completed.

4.             The resident complained on 17 January 2023 after discovering a further leak in the bathroom. She said that mould was everywhere in her property and had ruined her flooring and decorations. She told the landlord that she was 12 weeks pregnant. The landlord reported that the leak was repaired on 6 February 2023.

5.             The resident reported a further leak on 8 February 2023. Following an inspection, an area of the cavity wall was recommended to be removed for further investigation. The landlord requested a second opinion on the leak.

6.             On 16 February 2023, the landlord issued a stage 1 response regarding the leaks and repairs. It said:

a.     On 31 December 2022, the resident initially reported a leak in the bathroom. Following this, additional leaks were discovered.

b.     On 1 February 2023, a surveyor inspected the property and identified a defective pipe under the bath as the likely cause of the leaks.

c.      The landlord removed the bath panel on 6 February 2023 and addressed a separate leak in the corridor on 8 February 2023. The landlord requested a follow-up inspection on 10 February 2023, which found no leaks.

d.     On 13 February 2023, the resident declined work to regrout her tiles because she believed the leaks had not been fully resolved.

e.     The landlord planned to inspect the leaks further and treat any mould afterwards.

f.        The landlord has requested proof of purchase for the resident’s damaged items.

7.             On 6 March 2023, the resident escalated her complaint. She said:

a.     she had not received any updates regarding the ongoing leak

b.     she was frustrated about being left in a property with mould while caring for a toddler, especially as she was 18 weeks pregnant.

c.      the situation was unacceptable and caused her significant stress and negatively impacted her pregnancy.

d.     following the second inspection on 10 February 2023, the operatives had not conducted a thorough investigation, and the operative was rude during the visit.

8.             The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 12 September 2023, which said:

a.     It was sorry for any distress caused by its contractor. The matter had been referred to the line manager for review and appropriate action.

b.     It was sorry for the delays and inconvenience the resident experienced in seeking updates, acknowledging that this was unacceptable and not the standard of service expected. Delays were attributed to difficulties accessing the flat where the leak originated.

c.      Following a surveyor’s inspection on 6 September 2023, an appointment would be scheduled to arrange the repairs.

d.     The landlord offered compensation of £3,954.25, comprised of:

1. £400 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused.
2. £936 for the loss of enjoyment of the home.
3. £300 for the failings in complaint handling during stages 1 and 2.
4. £1,689 for redecorating both bedrooms, the living area, and the hallway.
5. £78.77 for paint purchased.
6. £360.48 to reimburse the cost of a child’s car seat and £40 for a damaged suitcase.
7. £150 for future impact while waiting to complete the work.

Events after the completion of the landlord’s complaints process

9.             On 21 September 2023, the landlord offered £2,550 to reimburse the resident for flooring and carpets, in addition to the compensation offered in its stage 2 complaint response.

10.        On 27 November 2023, the resident reported another leak, and an inspection on 7 December 2023 noted: 

a.     Concern over mould in the children’s bedroom, likely due to cold bridging. 

b.     Mould near the balcony door and lower exterior wall in the living room.

c.      A small patch from the leak was visible in the living room and bathroom.

11.        On 24 January 2024, the landlord informed the resident that a leak from the upstairs flat would be repaired that week. The damp issue was due to cold bridging in the external walls and poor ventilation. Additional work was necessary while some repairs were completed to the children’s bedroom on 22 December 2023. To facilitate repairs, the landlord recommended a temporary relocation (decant). The required repairs included:

a.     Installing extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom.

b.     Mould treatment in the main bedroom, lounge, kitchen, and external walls should be insulated.

c.      Raking out the grout in the bathroom and checking for leaks under the bath.

12.        The resident contacted us on 6 February 2024, stating that her landlord had not fixed the issues in her property. She detailed the negative impact of damp and mould on her and her children’s health.

13.        On 6 February 2024, the landlord offered the resident an additional £950 for the inconvenience caused since it had issued its stage 2 response in September 2023. The next day, it offered £1,689 to reimburse the resident for redecorating her property.

14.        The resident was decanted from the property on 16 February 2024 for approximately 2 weeks.

15.        On 27 February 2024, the landlord offered a further £3,059, broken down as:

a.     £400 for time, trouble, and inconvenience caused, including the decant. 

b.     £300 for delays in reopening the complaint and for slow responses. 

c.      £600 as a goodwill gesture for additional damaged items. 

d.     £200 for the anticipated future impact through the end of March 2024. 

e.     £339 for the replacement of a bed. 

f.        £750 as a goodwill gesture towards the cost of flooring. 

g.     £470 for the loss of enjoyment of her home (calculated from November 30 to the end of the decant—13 weeks at 20% rent). 

16.        Following a post-inspection on 14 March 2024 the landlord confirmed that the works had not been completed to a satisfactory standard and additional works would be required. The compensation offer was increased to £3,906.79 as follows:

a.     £600 for time trouble and inconvenience.

b.     £300 for the anticipated future impact through to the end of May 2024.

c.      £150.79 for laundry services.

d.     £347 for replacement of a wardrobe and drawers.

e.     £50 for the replacement of a bedroom cabinet.

17.        The resident refused the landlord’s offer and said she was entitled to much more as she had been decanted for 2 weeks. The landlord increased its offer to £4,141.79 the same day, an increase of £705 for the loss of enjoyment payment.

18.        On 2 April 2024, the landlord processed a one-off payment of £607.00. This covered the costs of replacing the resident’s wardrobes and a chest of drawers.

19.        The landlord confirmed to our Service that a further payment was made to the resident in May 2024. The total compensation offered and accepted by the resident was £12,357.54. The landlord has confirmed that the compensation was paid to the resident and that all repairs were completed by 18 November 2024. However, we have not been able to contact the resident to verify this.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

20.        The resident began reporting leaks from December 2022 until November 2023. The evidence indicates that the landlord issued follow-on complaint responses after its stage 2 response in September 2023. For completeness, we have assessed the landlord’s actions following its stage 2 response as the issues remained unresolved.

21.        The resident has expressed concerns that mould in her property has worsened her children’s health. This matter is best assessed by and insurer or the court. While the Ombudsman is unable to determine liability, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience the resident has experienced and whether the landlord’s response was reasonable in the circumstances.

Tenancy agreement, policies and procedures

22.        The tenancy agreement states it is the landlord’s responsibility to keep the structure and exterior of the premises in good repair. This includes the internal walls, floors, and ceilings, but this does not include internal painting and decorating. The landlord is also responsible for maintaining any installations they have fitted for space heating, water heating, sanitation, and the supply of water, gas, and electricity.

23.        The landlord’s repair policy states that:

a.     Emergency repairs will be responded to within 24 hours. A second appointment may be needed after the initial repair.

b.     Non-emergency repairs should be completed within 28 days.

24.        The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that it deals with damp and mould using a four-step process to identify, remedy, resolve, and prevent. It will work with residents to ensure that it can diagnose the problem early and tailor its approach based on understanding the residents’ needs.

The resident’s reports of ongoing leaks and mould and the subsequent damage in the property

Leaks

25.        On 31 December 2022, the landlord was notified of an initial leak in the resident’s property. Evidence indicates that the landlord responded on the same day and turned off the water, which was appropriate and in line with its repair policy. However, the landlord has not provided evidence of any investigations conducted at that time to trace the source of the leak or evidence that it arranged a second visit after the initial repair, which was a departure from the landlord’s repair policy. 

26.        The landlord inspected the property on 26 January 2023, 17 working days after the leak was reported and 7 working days after the resident lodged her complaint. In accordance with its policy, the landlord should have attended within 24 hours. 

27.        The 26 January 2023 inspection found the walls to be wet with water marks and damage to the walls in the living room. It is unclear what repairs were identified or undertaken.

28.        Following a further report of a leak on 30 January 2023, the landlord found a concealed leak seeping under the resident’s flooring. Operatives attended to remove boxing and trace and repair the leak on 6 February 2023.

29.        On 8 February 2023, the landlord identified the leak as an urgent issue. The landlord completed another inspection on 10 February 2023 as it wanted a second opinion on the cause of the leak, which resulted in no leaks being identified. On 16 February 2023, it told the resident that it would arrange another inspection, which was 8 days later. There is no evidence an inspection took place at or around this time, which was a failure by the landlord.

30.        The resident inquired about updates on 6 March 2023, over two weeks after the landlord had indicated an intention to inspect the issue. This suggests a delay in the landlord’s actions to address the matter. The lack of immediate action to resolve the leaks and to organise the required remedial work in a timely manner may not align with standard expectations.

31.        The resident consistently requested updates between 20 March and 26 April 2023. However, the landlord failed to provide timely responses or keep her adequately informed about the status of the repairs. This is unacceptable and not in line with our Spotlight report on complaints concerning repairs, published in 2019, which states landlords must communicate effectively with their residents.

32.        On 5 April 2023, the landlord confirmed that it had identified the leak as coming from the flat above. The landlord explained that the delays were due to difficulties accessing the flat above the resident’s property.

33.        On 15 May 2023, the resident told the landlord that she felt neglected and believed the landlord “did not care” about her issues. The landlord’s failure to promptly address her concerns or expedite the necessary repairs is unacceptable.

34.        The landlord gained access to the flat above on 8 June 2023, which was 42 working days after identifying it as the source of the leak. Repairs to the upstairs flat were completed on 20 July 2023, 30 working days after the leak was assessed. This unjustifiable delay likely intensified the resident’s frustration, caused additional inconvenience, and was a departure from the landlord’s repair timeframes.

35.        While we recognise the challenges faced by the landlord, we have not seen any evidence that they utilised the terms and conditions of the tenancy agreement to secure access. The landlord should have acknowledged the extended impact of the delay on the resident and considered how to expedite the situation if access continued to be an issue. There is no evidence that this was done.

36.        The resident pursued the landlord regarding the repairs to her property in early August 2023. An internal email dated 10 August 2023 confirms that the landlord did not have appropriate oversight of its contractors and the required repairs. The landlord said it was “struggling” to ascertain the necessary repairs in the resident’s property, resulting in unnecessary delays for the resident. The landlord said another inspection would be completed as a “priority”.

37.        Although the urgency of addressing the repairs was acknowledged, the actions taken did not reflect that urgency. The inspection took place on 6 September 2023, 19 working days later and 34 days after the leak was supposedly repaired. Additionally, no satisfactory explanation has been provided for these delays.

38.        On 6 September 2023, the survey inspection revealed that significant work was needed on the resident’s property. The landlord’s stage 2 response outlined the extensive repairs required but did not provide a timeline for their completion. This absence of information left the resident in a state of uncertainty. Given the history of multiple reported leaks, the landlord missed an opportunity to communicate more clearly and to work on rebuilding the relationship with the resident.

Damp and mould

39.        The resident reported mould growth in her property on 17 January 2023. At this point, she stated she was pregnant and had a young child in the property, and the conditions were causing her considerable stress.

40.        The landlord inspected the property on 26 January 2023, 9 days after the resident reported the dampness and mould. During the inspection, the landlord noted damp in the children’s bedroom but has not evidenced whether the leaks or a separate issue caused this. Furthermore, it did not outline how it would address the matter. This was unreasonable and likely exacerbated the already challenging situation for the resident, who stated that her pregnancy had been ruined and that the landlord had left her living in a mouldy property with a toddler while she was 18 weeks pregnant.

41.        On 25 August 2023, the resident reported being unable to use her bathroom because of black mould. The evidence shows that a mould cleaning was completed on 29 August 2023.

42.        The landlord said that it intended to address the mould issue after fixing the leaks, leaving the resident and her children exposed to mould for 8 months, which is unacceptable. The landlord should have conducted temporary cleaning to reduce the impact of the mould, and there is no evidence that the potential health risks to the resident and her children were considered. Ignoring these risks while prioritising the leak repairs is unacceptable and is a departure from its damp and mould policy in taking a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould.

Conclusion

43.        At stage 2 of the complaints process, the landlord acknowledged some of its failings and apologised to the resident. In addition, the landlord offered the resident £3,954.25 in compensation.

44.        The total amount included £2,168.25 for reimbursement of damaged items and for the redecoration of the resident’s property. The landlord offered an additional £2,550 to cover the costs of replacing flooring. This demonstrated that the landlord accepted responsibility by agreeing to cover the cost of replacing the damaged items directly, rather than referring the matter to their insurance company, which would have unnecessarily delayed the resolution.

45.        Although the landlord’s actions and compensation offer may have addressed the resident’s immediate concerns, it took 14 months to resolve the main issue of her complaint after providing its stage 2 response. Furthermore, the landlord did not fully acknowledge its shortcomings or outline the steps it would take to prevent similar issues in the future in its stage 2 response.

46.        The landlord did not learn from past mistakes, as similar issues continued to arise even after the complaints process concluded. For example:

a.     The landlord failed to provide a lasting solution to the leaks, as the resident reported another leak coming from the flat above on 27 November 2023.

b.     The resident was required to vacate her property for 2 weeks in February 2024 due to extensive repairs that were needed.

c.      The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the contractors’ workmanship, and following the landlord’s inspection of the property, additional work was necessary.

d.     Repairs were not fully completed until 18 November 2024, nearly 2 years after the initial leak was reported.

47.        Overall, the landlord’s handling of the works involved multiple failings. The prolonged duration for which the work remained incomplete, the lack of follow-up on promised actions, and the substantial disruption experienced by the resident during this extended period are unacceptable. These failings constitute severe maladministration.

48.        The landlord made a final offer of compensation on 10 May 2024 of £4,646.29. The landlord’s compensation offers totalled £12,357.54 (which includes approximately £6,000 towards damaged items, redecoration costs and laundry services).

49.        Our role is to consider the failings identified and assess whether the redress offered by the landlord did enough to put things right. The final offer was significant, exceeding what we would typically provide according to our remedies guidance.

50.        We have been unable to determine the exact amount of compensation either party paid to the resident. However, considering the compensation offered by the landlord, we have decided not to order any additional compensation in this case.

51.        Since we have not been able to contact the resident, we cannot confirm whether she is satisfied with the resolution of the leaks and the completion of all repairs to an acceptable standard. As a result, an order has been issued to address this issue.

The resident’s reports concerning the contractor’s conduct

52.        As part of her complaint, the resident reported contractors being rude and aggressive during inspections. The resident told the landlord on 8 February 2023 that she was a domestic abuse survivor and that having unknown men in her property triggered her PTSD.

53.        At stage 2 of the complaints process, the landlord apologised to the resident, which was reasonable, albeit delayed. The landlord recognised that the resident had experienced upset and apologised for any distress this had caused. It confirmed that the matter had been passed to the individual’s line manager to review and for any appropriate action to be taken in the circumstances.

54.        Therefore, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports concerning the contractor’s conduct.

 

Complaint handling

Complaints policy

55.        The landlord has a two-stage complaints policy and will acknowledge a complaint within five working days. It will aim to respond to complaints at stage 1 within ten working days. A stage 2 response should be sent within 20 working days.

56.        Where a full response cannot be provided, the complaints handler will discuss this with the customer and agree on an extension to the timescale for response. If appropriate, staff will provide an interim response to the customer explaining their findings so far and when a full response will be provided.

57.        On 17 January 2023 the resident raised a complaint. The complaint was acknowledged on 7 February 2023, 10 working days outside the landlord’s 5-day acknowledgement timeframe. Therefore, it was understandable that the resident felt relieved that her complaint was being investigated after waiting for it to be acknowledged.

58.        On 16 February 2023, 22 working days after the resident submitted a complaint, a stage 1 response was issued. This response summarised the events, yet it failed to evaluate the actions already taken. Additionally, it did not specify the agreed or proposed measures to address the leaks, damp, and mould, nor did it provide clear timelines for resolution. This lack of thoroughness is unacceptable and does not comply with the organisation’s complaints policy or the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

59.        Furthermore, the landlord failed to acknowledge the inappropriate aspect of the contractor’s behaviour in its stage 1 response.

60.        The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and asked that the complaint be escalated on 6 March 2023. Evidence shows that the resident actively sought updates from the landlord regarding the complaint throughout March and April 2023.

61.        On 15 May 2023, the resident emailed the landlord after the deadline for a response had passed. This heightened her feelings of being ignored and the landlord not caring.

62.        The escalation of the complaint was acknowledged on 20 June 2023, 67 working days outside of its 5-day acknowledgement timeframe. The acknowledgement email advised that a response would be sent no later than 18 July 2023.

63.        On 17 July 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to request an extension to the deadline for its stage 2 response and aimed to respond by 28 July 2023. A further extension was requested on 28 July 2023 but did not confirm a response deadline. It is also not clear that the resident agreed to the extensions. Either way, the delays significantly prolonged the resident’s complaints process and delayed her bringing the complaint to our Service.

64.        On 12 September 2023, a stage 2 response was issued, 132 days after the resident’s escalation and 32 days after the landlord’s revised deadline of 28 July 2023. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response merely outlined the next steps regarding the associated works. While it acknowledged the extensive history of repairs, it notably lacked any expression of empathy for the unacceptable living conditions faced by the resident. Furthermore, the response failed to identify any lessons learned or specify steps the landlord would take to address the persistent delays in complaint handling, which was unreasonable.

65.        Our role is to consider whether the landlord’s redress offered in respect of its acknowledged failings in handling the resident’s complaint put things right and resolved the complaint satisfactorily.

66.        At stage 2 of its complaints process, the landlord offered compensation of £3,954.25. As mentioned earlier, the landlord presented several increased compensation offers following the stage 2 response. These offers were made after the resident provided proof of damage to her personal items. Additional offers were made after a further leak, which highlighted the ongoing detriment experienced by the resident for several months after the complaints process was completed.

67.        The landlord’s offers set out the reasons for increasing the compensation award and considered the residents’ feedback. This increase in compensation shows that the landlord evaluated the situation and offered appropriate redress in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles. However, the multiple compensation offers made it difficult for us to determine the total amount provided. In the future, the landlord should take steps to ensure that its approach is clearer.

68.        The landlord offered £300 for its complaint handling failures at stage 2 of its complaints process. An additional £300 was offered as part of its final complaint response in March 2024. The total offer of £600 is in line with our remedies guidance, where the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right.

69.        While it is encouraging that the landlord has reviewed its compensation offers, it has not demonstrated any learning from this complaint. It has failed to explain how it plans to prevent these issues from recurring in its complaints process in the future.

70.        The landlord’s ineffective use of the complaints process caused significant delays in addressing the resident’s concerns and hindered efforts to resolve the substantive issues. As a result, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint and made orders to address the failings.

Determination

71.        In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in relation to the resident’s reports of ongoing leaks, damp and mould and the subsequent repairs in the property.

72.        In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the resident’s reports concerning the contractor’s conduct.

73.        In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

74.        Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:

a.     Provide a written apology to the resident from the Chief Executive or a senior management team member.

b.     Contact the resident to confirm that all repairs have been completed and that she is satisfied with the work. If not, the landlord should agree to inspect the resident’s property, identify outstanding repairs, and complete a schedule of works with completion dates. The outcome should be shared with the resident and us.

75.        Within 12 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must carry out a case review. The review is to aid the landlord’s learning and must include, but is not limited to:

a.     Identify the reasons for failing to resolve the leaks at the earliest opportunity and what action has been or will be taken to prevent a reoccurrence in the future.

b.     It should ascertain how it can improve communication between all parties to provide better service to its residents.

c.      Whether it has appropriate oversight of its contractors and repairs and what action it had or will take to ensure repairs are addressed promptly and completed to a satisfactory standard.

d.     Review its policies and procedures in relation to vulnerable residents. In doing so, demonstrate how it will effectively use its vulnerability information to provide additional support if required.

e.     It should consider how it will handle complaints, escalate complaints, and ensure it responds to formal complaints in a timely manner, per its policy and the Complaint Handling Code.

f.        The landlord should provide us with a review copy within 12 weeks.

Recommendation

1.             The landlord should consider the best practices highlighted in our Spotlight report on Attitudes, Respect and Rights: A Relationship of Equals and ensure its contractors are aware of its Code of Conduct.