Sanctuary Housing Association (202348371)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 1 bed property with her 2 children. She raised concerns that the landlord had placed her on the incorrect housing band, and that she had not received any offers to be moved as a result. She also complained about damp and mould in her home. The resident has mental health concerns.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about:
   1. her banding position.
   2. damp and mould in the property.
3. We have also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her banding position.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
   3. The resident’s complaint about how the landlord responded to her reports of damp and mould is outside of our jurisdiction to investigate.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord missed several opportunities to carry out a review of the resident’s priority banding. While it provided some redress for its failings, Given the circumstances, it did not go far enough to put matters right.
6. The landlord’s complaint responses were significantly delayed. It also failed to fully respond to the resident’s specific concerns in her complaint.
7. In relation to the damp and mould, we cannot investigate issues which are also subject to legal proceedings or where matters at court are connected so closely to the complaint, they cannot be separated.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

8. In response to the resident’s August 2023 complaint the landlord carried out an internal review of her banding. This was reasonable and in line with its allocation policy that stated it should carry out a review when a resident raises concerns about their banding.
9. However, despite the landlord telling the resident on 12 September 2023 that it was processing her review, there is no record it did. Nor is there evidence that it took any further action on the matter even though the resident chased it again for an update at the end of September 2023. The reason that the landlord failed to carry out a review of the resident’s banding at this time is unclear. Nonetheless that it did not was a failing which caused the resident distress and inconvenience because her concerns about being in the incorrect banding went unaddressed. It did not attempt to address them until approximately 9 months later after the resident referred her concerns to us. During that time it also failed to contact the resident. This was inappropriate.
10. When the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in May 2024, it failed to acknowledge or act on her concern that she was in the incorrect banding. It also failed to address the matter in its stage 2 complaint review, despite the resident incurring additional avoidable time and trouble reiterating and explaining her concern further in her escalated complaint. That it did not was unreasonable.
11. It is noted that the landlord changed the resident’s priority from Band from B to A in November 2024 when she submitted further supporting evidence in October 2024. We cannot say whether this decision could reasonably have been made sooner if the landlord had engaged with the resident’s concerns in a meaningful way. However, we have ordered the landlord to review its handling of the case to establish whether it missed an opportunity to reconsider the resident’s banding earlier.
12. The landlord acknowledged that its Band confirmation letter was “slightly” misleading as it referred to the date that the resident joined the waitlist when confirming her banding priority. While the letter did not explicitly state that the banding had been backdated, it lacked clarity. The wording of the letter understandably caused the resident confusion and distress. The landlord said it would “consider reviewing” the wording of the letter. Given the confusion that had been caused in this case, and to mitigate the risk of similar confusion being caused in the future, the landlord should reasonably have committed to reviewing the correspondence as learning from the complaint. We have therefore ordered it to do so now.
13. It was appropriate for the landlord to offer the resident £550 compensation for the “overall trouble caused”. However, it included compensation for 2 other issues that did not form part of this investigation and the landlord did not provide a breakdown. Therefore, the proportion that it attributed to this particular element of the resident’s complaint is unclear. Also, it is unclear what factors it took into consideration when it made its offer.
14. Taking this into consideration, the failings identified, and the resident’s circumstances, we are not satisfied that the landlord’s offer fully put matters right. Therefore, we have made an order for the landlord to pay an additional £250 compensation. This is in line with our Remedies Guidance.

15. The landlord took approximately 9 months to issue its stage 1 response and 5 months to issue its stage 2 response. Both responses were significantly outside of its policy response timescales of 10 working days and 20 working days respectively. The delays caused the resident distress, inconvenience and trouble. It is unclear whether the landlord offered reasonable redress for the stage 1 complaint delay in the absence of its £550 compensation breakdown. Its offer of £100 for its delayed stage 2 response was reasonable, given the length of the delay.
16. In its complaint responses, the landlord attempted to respond to the resident’s questions about its housing waiting list. However, it did not fully respond to her questions about her position on the list and how many 2 beds it had let since she was on it. Not providing a meaningful response meant that the resident’s concerns went unaddressed. This caused her distress and inconvenience as she told us that she still did not understand where she stood on the waiting list. Therefore, an order has been made for the landlord to contact the resident to discuss any outstanding concerns she may have.
17. Overall, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have ordered it to pay the resident £100 compensation for the failings identified.

18. In her August 2023 complaint, the resident raised concerns about damp and mould in her home. The resident has since commenced legal proceedings in relation to this matter. We have been in receipt of the particulars of claim and note that the matters to be heard at court are closely linked to the issued referred to our Service. As such, we cannot investigate this complaint.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping) and Communication

19. The evidence suggests that the landlord’s failure to progress the resident’s request for a banding review and complaint in 2023 was due to inadequate record keeping and internal communication issues. Therefore, the landlord may wish to carry out a review into the matter.