Sanctuary Housing Association (202341884)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202341884
Sanctuary Housing Association
30 September 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 complaint is about the landlord’s:
- response to the resident’s reports about:
- damp and mould;
- bedbugs;
- complaints handling.
- response to the resident’s reports about:
Background
- The resident has been an assured tenant at the property of the landlord since February 2019. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a flat within a block of flats. The resident lives in the property with her infant children.
- It is not disputed that the resident had been reporting issues with damp since she moved into the property. The resident made further reports of a possible roof leak in October 2021, following which she was decanted while repairs were undertaken. She returned to the property in or around July 2022 and raised a formal complaint on 14 July 2022 regarding the ongoing issues.
- Around this time, she reported that the damp was still present and there were issues with bedbugs in the property. On 1 August 2022, the landlord advised that it had previously sought to treat the bedbugs in May 2022, but that the resident had declined as she considered the treatment would be ineffective. She considered that the whole block required treatment to solve the issue. The landlord subsequently advised that it was seeking a quote for treatment of the whole block. It advised it would provide a further complaint response within 10 working days of the works being completed.
- The landlord also noted that the resident had expressed how the issues were impacting her mental health. It offered a referral to a support service; however, the resident declined as she was already receiving support through her GP.
- The resident continued to note that she and her children were being bitten by bedbugs and that her possessions had been damaged by the damp and mould issues. She expressed a desire to be rehoused, and it is evident the landlord discussed her rehousing options with her.
- On 11 August 2022, the landlord advised that it was intending to commence treatments to the whole block on 16 August 2022. This would be a course of several treatments. It would decant the resident for the nights that the treatments took place. It also advised it would discuss compensation once the works had been completed. It noted that the resident wanted to be decanted permanently, but it reiterated that it would only decant her for the period of the works.
- Around this time, the resident noted that the treatment was chemical–based and that she had previously been told by a pest contractor that heat treatment was needed. She requested that the landlord provide its position on this; however, it is not evident that the landlord specifically addressed this.
- It is evident that some treatments took place in August 2022; however, the contractor reported to the landlord that there were issues with access in some properties. It is also evident that the contractor provided the landlord with a quote for heat treatment around this time.
- On 26 August 2022, the landlord confirmed that a three-part heat treatment would take place. It also advised that some of the resident’s possessions would need to be disposed of but that these would be replaced. It is also evident that it arranged a decant to a hotel during the treatments.
- Around this time, the landlord also inspected the property regarding damp and mould. Its surveyor reported that there were no ongoing signs of a leak and recommended that the bathroom vent be relocated to improve ventilation. It also raised a further inspection of the external walls.
- The landlord provided its stage one response on 1 September 2022, which included the following:
- Regarding the ongoing damp issues, it noted it had completed an inspection in August 2022. It would subsequently inspect a neighbouring property as well as the external wall but was experiencing difficulty with access. It apologised for the delays.
- Regarding the bedbugs, it advised that the source of the bedbugs was one flat in the building. It was seeking enforcement action to gain access and dispose of items within this flat. It would then proceed with heat treatments, which it intended to do in September 2022.
- It apologised for the damage its contractors had caused to the resident’s property and advised it would make an offer of compensation covering all the issues once it had completed the necessary works. It advised it would provide an update in 20 working days.
- In or around September 2022, the resident referred her concerns to the press, who published an article relating to her experiences.
- On 22 September 2022, the landlord noted that it had completed one treatment and would keep the resident updated about the dates for the next treatments. It advised it was unable to give her details about the access to her neighbour’s property due to its data protection obligations. It also discussed the resident’s transfer application for a new property.
- The resident expressed a desire to be decanted from the property on an ongoing basis; however, the landlord reiterated that it would only offer an overnight decant for the periods of the treatments. It also noted the resident’s concerns that some treatments were chemical treatments, which the resident considered would not solve the problem. The landlord acknowledged this position but advised that these would be helpful in the interim.
- The landlord also noted that, as the bedbugs were not the result of a defect in the building, it considered that pest control was the resident’s responsibility. However, it was completing the treatments at its own cost as a gesture of goodwill.
- The landlord continued to provide regular updates throughout October and November 2022. It advised that its damp inspections concluded that the issue was poor ventilation, and it advised it would not take further action. It also advised that it was continuing to pursue legal action for access to her neighbour’s flat for bedbug treatment. It requested that the resident provide a list of damaged items for it to send to its insurer.
- Regarding the damp, the resident noted that a surveyor had previously referred to an issue with the ventilation vents and requested that the landlord provide an updated position on the issue. On 1 December 2022, the landlord reiterated that it did not consider further works were necessary. However, it offered to reimburse the resident if she wished to arrange for an independent inspection.
- Further damp inspections were completed in February and March 2023. Additionally, further heat treatments for the bedbugs were arranged around this time. In April 2023, the landlord advised that the surveyor’s interim report indicated there was no damp but that it would wait for the full report.
- The landlord provided a further stage one response on 25 May 2023 in relation to the ongoing issues. It noted it had attended to complete further treatments on 14 May 2023, but that the resident had denied access as she did not consider a further chemical treatment would be effective. The landlord provided its position that the programme of treatment had been recommended by its pest contractor and reiterated the need to complete all the treatments. It is evident that access was subsequently arranged.
- On 13 June 2023, the landlord provided yet another stage one response relating to recent expressions of dissatisfaction about the ongoing issues. The response included the following:
- It noted it had now carried out a treatment as part of the current programme of treatments and that a further three treatments were required.
- Regarding damp, it acknowledged that its most recent inspection had not included behind the resident’s wardrobes. Given the resident’s ongoing concerns, it reiterated its offer to pay for an independent surveyor of the resident’s choosing. It also advised it would complete a further inspection of its own.
- It is evident that the landlord completed a further damp inspection on 8 August 2023. On 14 August 2023, the surveyor provided the landlord with a report which noted there was no air flow and recommended a PIV system be installed to improve circulation.
- The landlord subsequently provided a stage two response on 28 September 2023, which included the following:
- It advised it would raise works to install a PIV system as recommended by its surveyor.
- It noted it had completed the programme of treatment for bed bugs and that it had not received any recent reports.
- It apologised for the delay to its stage two response and for its poor communication throughout the period of the complaint.
- It offered compensation of £2,000. This was made up of £1,000 for the length of time it had taken to respond to the complaint, £600 for the time and trouble caused by multiple inspections, and £400 for its poor communication.
- In October 2023, the resident noted a further damp inspection had taken place on 27 September 2023, which found high levels of damp. She requested the landlord raise works to address this and also noted that an external drain had never been inspected as a possible cause of the damp. She also reported further sightings of bedbugs.
- It is evident that throughout October and November 2023, the landlord raised works for the water authority to inspect the drains and for the PIV system to be installed. It is not evident, however, that this was communicated to the resident at the time.
- On 14 December 2023, the landlord provided a revised formal response, which included the following:
- It reiterated works were being raised to install a PIV and that further measures would be considered if this was not successful.
- It raised further works relating to the bedbugs.
- It increased its offer of compensation to £5,353. This was made up of the previous offer plus 20% of rent for the loss of enjoyment of the resident’s home between July 2022 and December 2023 (£3,353).
Assessment and findings
Scope of investigation
- Throughout the period of the complaint, the resident has raised concerns about how the issues she reported, and the landlord’s subsequent service delivery, may have impacted her and her family’s physical and mental health.
- The Ombudsman is unable to make a determination that the actions or omissions of a landlord have had a causal impact on a person’s health. Such a determination is more appropriate through an insurance claim or by a court. Should the resident wish to pursue a claim relating to the impact on her and her family’s health, she has the option to seek legal advice.
- The Ombudsman has, however, taken into account any general distress and inconvenience that the landlord’s service delivery may have caused. The Ombudsman has also considered whether the landlord’s approach should have considered any reported vulnerabilities.
Policies and procedures
- The landlord operates a responsive repairs policy. The policy notes that non-emergency repairs should be completed within 28 days of a report.
- The landlord’s internal documentation on bed bugs notes that it will take responsibility for bedbugs where the infestation is in a communal area or where the infestation affects more than one property within a block. The bedbugs procedure notes that the landlord should consider whether the resident needs to be decanted. If so, it should complete a risk assessment and consider whether a decant should be extended if the treatment is unsuccessful. It is not evident whether reference to a decant in this policy is during specific treatments or on a longer-term basis.
- The landlord operates a decants policy. This policy notes that the landlord may consider an emergency decant due to specific issues such as a fire, flood, or breakdown of key services such as heating during winter. The policy does not mention pest infestations.
- The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy. It will acknowledge a complaint within three working days and provide a stage one response within 10 working days. An escalation can be requested to stage two within 10 working days of a stage one response. A stage two response will then be provided within 20 working days.
Damp and mould
- The resident reported a return of damp to the property in July 2022. It is evident that the landlord carried out an inspection in August 2022; however, its communication around this inspection was limited. While its inspection was broadly within the timeframes for a non-emergency repair, given the resident’s concerns about the impact of damp and mould, it would have been helpful had it explained why it was not taking an emergency approach.
- Following this inspection, further inspections of an external wall and neighbouring property were raised. It is evident that the landlord experienced difficulties arranging access with the neighbour, which caused a delay to the inspections. While it was appropriate that it apologised for these delays in its stage one response, it is not evident that the landlord provided any meaningful updates in the period that followed. Similarly, given that its initial inspection had suggested works relating to relocating a fan, the landlord should have provided its position on these works, which it did not do. This left the resident without any clear resolution to her reports and caused her to have to expend time and trouble chasing further responses.
- Similarly, given that it was aware of delays to the progress of its inspections, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to consider interim actions, such as providing dehumidifiers. It is not evident that it did this, which meant the resident had to continue living with the untreated damp while the delays occurred.
- The landlord provided further updates in November 2022 and concluded that the issue was poor ventilation. Despite the resident querying the relocation of the fan, the landlord advised it would not take any further action. Given that its own surveyor had indicated that the ventilation could be improved, the landlord’s failure to justify why it considered the present ventilation to be adequate was unreasonable. This prolonged the period the resident had to live with damp and mould and once again meant she had to expend time and trouble chasing the issue.
- While it chose not to take any action itself, given the resident’s ongoing concerns, it was appropriate that the landlord offered the resident the opportunity to arrange further inspections, for which it would cover the cost. It was also appropriate that it communicated the interim outcomes of these further inspections, and it was reasonable that it awaited a full report before committing to any specific action. It is not evident, however, that it subsequently provided any meaningful updates until its further stage one response in June 2023. The outcome of this response was that further in-depth inspections were necessary, which, given that almost a year had passed since the initial reports, would have been frustrating for the resident that no action plan had been determined.
- The outcome of the further inspections in August 2023 was that the surveyor recommended that a PIV system be installed to assist with ventilation. The landlord committed to installing this in September 2023; however, it is not evident that works were raised until November 2023, which the landlord confirmed in its updated formal response in December 2023. The PIV system was not installed until April 2024. While some of this delay can be attributed to ongoing discussions between the parties about the most appropriate solution to the problem, there was nevertheless a significant delay in the landlord raising the works despite it having raised the resident’s expectations in August 2023. There was also only sporadic communication across this period, which would have been frustrating for the resident.
- In summary, the landlord’s communication throughout the period of the complaint fell short of what was required. It failed to provide updates about the outcomes of inspections or on its promised actions. It also failed to address the resident’s queries about recommended ventilation works, despite her repeatedly requesting it do so. The communication of its decision that it would take no further action was blunt and did not address all of the resident’s concerns. It also missed the opportunity to consider any interim action while it experienced delays to its inspections. Finally, while it appropriately covered the costs of further inspections, it failed to raise the works recommended in a timely manner without any reasonable explanation.
- In its stage two response, the landlord acknowledged that its communication had been poor throughout the complaint. It also recognised that its poor service delivery had an impact on the resident for which it apologised. In its revised response, it also offered compensation relating to the loss of enjoyment of the resident’s home across the period of the complaint. The offers of compensation are not split between this element of the complaint and the concerns about bedbugs, which are discussed below. In total, it offered £4,353 (plus an additional £1,000 relating to its complaint handling, which is discussed further below). In the absence of a breakdown, the Ombudsman has assumed that 50% of this offer (being £2,176.50) relates to this element of the complaint.
- This service’s remedies guidance notes that compensation above £1,000 is appropriate for instances of maladministration where there have been serious, repeated, and significant failings by the landlord. Given the landlord’s offer of compensation, along with its acknowledgement of the impact caused to the resident and its apology, a finding of reasonable redress has been made. The Ombudsman notes that had the landlord not taken this action, a finding of maladministration would have been made.
- The Ombudsman notes that following the period of the complaint, an inspection took place on 23 November 2023. The resultant report, which the Ombudsman has seen, noted that the property may require tanking if the PIV unit did not address the issues in the property. The resident has advised this service that damp remains an issue in the property, but that the landlord has denied that tanking was suggested. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to continue to monitor the efficacy of any measure it took to address damp in a property and respond to any further reports appropriately. A recommendation has therefore been made that a further inspection take place to determine if any further works are necessary, paying particular attention to the possibility of tanking.
- The Ombudsman also notes that the resident is pursuing an insurance claim in relation to damage to her property caused by the damp and mould. While the resident has advised she is experiencing difficulty with this process, she understands that this is outside of the scope of this investigation. It was nevertheless reasonable for the landlord to refer claims for personal possessions to the insurer.
Bedbugs
- It is not disputed that a number of residents in the block reported bedbugs around July 2022. The landlord’s policy notes that where an infestation of bedbugs affects more than one property in a building, the landlord will take responsibility for treatment. Following the resident’s reports, the landlord appropriately raised works with a specialist pests contractor to begin treating the building. However, in its communications with the resident, the landlord noted that the issue was the resident’s responsibility, and that it was completing treatments as a “gesture of goodwill.” This was misleading and contrary to its policy, as it was well aware that the issues were present throughout the block. This communication therefore sought to weaken the resident’s expectations, which was unreasonable in the circumstances and would have damaged the landlord/tenant relationship.
- It is evident that the pests contractor recommended chemical treatment to the resident’s property and other areas of the block. The Ombudsman understands the resident’s frustrations that chemical treatments had been completed before but had not solved the issue. The Ombudsman also understands that the landlord is not itself an expert in the treatment of bedbugs. It was therefore reasonable for it to rely on the advice of its appropriately qualified expert contractors. It was also reasonable for it to offer the chemical treatment and to reiterate the offer in the instances that the resident declined the works.
- In her communications with the landlord, the resident repeatedly noted her position that she considered heat treatment was necessary. Based on its internal communications, the landlord also discussed heat treatments with the pests contractor and sought a quote. However, it did not inform the resident that it had approved these works for some time, which led her to expend considerable time and effort chasing the landlord’s position on this issue.
- Following the landlord’s confirmation that heat treatment would be included in its programme of works, the resident raised concerns that further chemical treatments would still be carried out. However, the landlord appropriately explained that this was being done as an interim measure to mitigate the ongoing impact. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to carry out interim works to mitigate an issue where possible, and so this action was reasonable in the circumstances.
- In order for the treatments to be effective, the contractor would need access to all properties in the block and would also need to dispose of infested items. However, the landlord experienced issues with some residents refusing access. The Ombudsman understands that the landlord cannot necessarily disclose all the information around issues with access in a neighbour’s property due to data protection requirements. However, the landlord did keep the resident informed and advised that it was seeking legal action. The Ombudsman understands that this can be a lengthy process, and so it was reasonable that the landlord was not able to provide a definitive timeframe.
- Throughout the period of the complaint, the resident repeatedly expressed her concern about the impact the issues were having on her and her family’s health. In particular, she provided several pictures of her children’s bodies showing insect bites. She also repeated, in no uncertain terms, that she wanted a long-term decant while the bedbug issues were ongoing. In response, the landlord appropriately offered mental health support referrals. It also provided the resident with information about her permanent rehousing options.
- Regarding a decant, the landlord appropriately offered a decant to a hotel for the nights on which treatments were taking place. This was in line with its bedbugs policy. However, the Ombudsman notes that the landlord’s communication surrounding these arrangements was often poor. This would have added to the resident’s distress. The landlord specifically acknowledged its poor communication in relation to these decants in a separate complaint response on 25 November 2022, for which it apologised and offered compensation of £150.
- The landlord’s bedbugs policy does not note that a long-term decant will be offered in instances of an ongoing infestation. Similarly, the landlord’s emergency decants policy does not note pests as a reason to offer a decant. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to consider all the circumstances and the resident’s vulnerabilities when considering what action would be reasonable. In its communications with this service, the landlord noted it should also carry out a risk assessment.
- Despite making arrangements for short term decants, the landlord did not provide a position on an ongoing decant. It is not evident that any risk assessment was completed or that the resident’s vulnerabilities and the ongoing concerns of harm to her children were considered. The landlord did not point to any policy or reason to justify its inaction. Given the unique circumstances of this complaint, being that the issues with access were indefinitely preventing the resolution of the complaint, the landlord should have been transparent that it had considered the resident’s requests. It should have provided a clear explanation for any position it took on a long-term decant, which it should have done at the earliest opportunity. The landlord’s failure to satisfactorily address this request caused considerable distress for the resident and led her to expend time and effort repeatedly chasing the issue.
- As noted above, in its stage two response and its subsequent compensation communication, the landlord apologised and offered compensation to reflect its poor communication and the impact the length of the delays had on the resident. As with above, in the absence of a breakdown, the Ombudsman has assumed that 50% of this offer (being £2,176.50) relates to this element of the complaint. The landlord’s failings, as identified above, were undoubtably serious and would have caused the resident considerable distress. However, the landlord has acknowledged its failings, apologised, and offered compensation, which is in line with what the Ombudsman would expect in the circumstances. A finding of reasonable redress has therefore been made.
- Following the course of treatments completed during the period of the complaint, the landlord noted that it had not received any further reports of bedbugs. However, the resident has since made further reports to the landlord, and it has raised further works. The resident has advised this service that she remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s approach. In instances where a problem continues despite repeated attempts to solve it, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to increase its response proportionally. Given the length of time these issues have been ongoing, the barriers to a resolution caused by some residents in the block, the lack of success with its previous attempts, and the failures identified in this report, a recommendation has been made for the landlord to provide a detailed update to the resident about what action it intends to take and the timeframes it will complete any works. It should also make enquiries with the resident about how she is being impacted and provide a detailed and considered position on any actions it can take to assist.
Complaints handling
- The resident raised a formal complaint about the damp and mould in July 2022. She also made expressions of dissatisfaction about the bedbugs around this time. The landlord provided an update on 1 August 2022, but it did not indicate whether this was a response in line with its complaints procedure. It did, however, indicate that it would provide a formal response once the works to address the issues were completed. It did not discuss this approach with the resident but instead forced it upon her.
- This approach was not in line with its policy or the Code, which require that a formal stage one response be provided within 10 working days. Given that there would potentially be follow–on works, this uncertainty around when a response would be provided unreasonably delayed the resident from being able to escalate her complaint, which would have caused her frustration.
- The landlord provided its stage one response on 1 September 2022, which was outside of the timeframes of its policy. The response noted that the landlord would make an offer of compensation once it had further information, and it committed to providing an update on this point within 20 working days. It was appropriate that it notified the resident of this intention and that it set clear timeframes, which was reasonable in the circumstances. That said, it did not subsequently provide any further position on compensation within that timeframe, which would have been frustrating for the resident. This also hindered the resident’s ability to escalate the complaint, as she was left waiting for a promised update, which never came.
- As noted above, the landlord’s policy states that an escalation can be requested to stage two within 10 working days of a stage one response. The Code does not specify whether or not an escalation request can be time restricted; however, any justification for not escalating a complaint must be fair and reasonable to residents. A recommendation has been made below that the landlord review this provision of its complaints policy, paying consideration as to whether it is artificially restrictive.
- The resident continued to express her dissatisfaction with the ongoing issues, and the landlord chose to provide further stage one responses in May and June 2023 instead of escalating the original complaint to stage two. Given that the resident’s concerns were a continuation of the ongoing complaints, it would have been helpful had the landlord provided a position on why it had not escalated the original complaint. The Code requires that where a landlord declines to escalate a complaint, it must provide an explanation and notify the resident of the right to refer the complaint directly to this service. The landlord did not do this and simply proceeded with multiple stage one responses, which delayed the completion of the complaints process.
- When the landlord eventually did accept a stage two escalation in September 2023, it appropriately acknowledged that there had been a significant delay to the completion of the complaints process, for which it apologised. It also offered compensation of £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor complaints handling. This service’s remedies guidance notes that compensation between £600-£1,000 is appropriate for instances of maladministration where there has been a significant impact on the resident. There were multiple and repeated failings in the landlord’s complaints handling, which, in the absence of its apology and offer of compensation, would have amounted to maladministration. However, given the steps it has taken to put things right, a finding of reasonable redress has been made.
Determination (decision)
- In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its service failure in respect of its:
- response to the resident’s reports about:
- damp and mould;
- bedbugs;
- complaints handling.
- response to the resident’s reports about:
Recommendations
- The landlord should write to the resident and include the following:
- It should arrange a further inspection to determine if any further damp works are necessary, paying particular attention to the possibility of tanking.
- It should provide a detailed update to the resident about what action it intends to take in relation to ongoing issues with bedbugs and the timeframes in which it will complete any works.
- It should make enquiries with the resident about how she is being impacted by the bedbugs and provide a detailed and considered position on any actions it can take to assist.
- It should reiterate its offer of £4,353 compensation in relation to the damp and bedbug complaints, if this is yet to have been accepted.
- It should reiterate its offer of £1,000 compensation in relation to its complaints handling, if this is yet to have been accepted.
- The landlord is to review the provision in its complaints policy, which only allows 10 working days for an escalation request to be made. The landlord should consider whether this timeframe is artificially restrictive and in keeping with the principles of being fair and reasonable.