Sanctuary Housing Association (202411555)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202411555

Sanctuary Housing Association

9 May 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. the resident’s reports of a repair to a multi-plug socket.
2. the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord which began on 1 May 2023. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a 2-bedroom second floor flat. The resident lives with his partner and 2 children. The landlord said it does not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
On 20 December 2023, the resident reported a repair to the kitchen multi-plug socket. The landlord’s contractors visited the property at least 3 times between January and February 2024. The landlord says a repair was completed on 8 February 2024. On 11 March 2024, the resident reported that the socket was not working again.
The landlord’s contractor carried out works and issued a stage 1 complaint response on the landlord’s behalf. For ease of reference, we may refer to both the landlord and its contractor as ‘the landlord’.
The resident raised a complaint on 23 April 2024. He said:
1. the socket had not worked since he reported it on 20 December 2023 which caused him inconvenience.
2. he was unhappy that there was a delay in the socket repair despite multiple visits.
3. he did not get a satisfactory response when he contacted the landlord on 16 April 2024.
4. he wanted the landlord to replace the socket within 7 days.
The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 8 May 2024. It said:
1. it upheld the complaint and apologised to the resident for the distress and inconvenience of not having a full working kitchen with all plug points.
2. it had attended the property on 12 April 2024 and didn’t take the information required to order a new socket.
3. it had booked an appointment for 14 May 2024 to take measurements so it could order and replace the socket.
The resident requested to escalate his complaint to stage 2 on 9 May 2024. He said:
1. he didn’t think the landlord had taken his concerns seriously and he believed the faulty socket was a potential fire hazard.
2. he was unhappy with the complaint handler’s call on 8 May 2024 and said they had not taken details about the complaint.
3. when he requested an update on 16 April 2024, he was given misleading information.
4. he was unhappy with the amount of time and visits it was taking to complete the repair.
5. he wanted clear communication and updates about the repair job, and the landlord to review its service standards.
6. he wanted the socket repaired quickly and alternative arrangements in the meantime.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 10 June 2024. It said:
1. it visited 3 times in January 2024 and left the socket in a safe condition on each visit.
2. there was a delay in sourcing the socket and it could not confirm when it would complete the repair.
3. it would follow up with the contractor until it was resolved.
4. it apologised, upheld the complaint and said compensation would be offered by the contractor once the repair was complete.
In referring the complaint to this Service on 19 June 2024, the resident was unhappy with the length of time the repair was taking. He said it caused him and his family inconvenience. He was concerned about a potential health and safety risk. He felt the landlord had communicated poorly and misled him about the repair. He disagreed with the amount of compensation later offered.
The landlord completed the plug socket repair on 22 July 2024. It told the resident on 2 September 2024 that the contractor had offered £50 compensation for the repair delay. The resident said he could not accept the offer. The landlord offered an additional £50 on 9 September 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident raised a complaint about missed appointments to fit his kitchen around October and November 2023. The resident has confirmed that he does not want us to consider this complaint, and we have not been provided with evidence that this complaint has exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. It will not form part of this investigation.

Plug socket repair

The landlord’s repairs policy says it will complete standard repairs within 15 working days, to a good standard and within a set timescale. It says its partnering contractor is responsible for delivery of the maintenance service and implementing the repairs policy.
Our Spotlight Report on Repairs highlights that if a landlord contracts out its repairs service, the obligation to repair remains with the landlord and not the contractor. Landlords need to ensure that they have adequate oversight of their outsourced services.
It is good practice for a landlord to:
1. clearly record residents’ reports of disrepair, including phone calls.
2. agree actions and timescales for responding in line with its policies and confirm these in writing.
3. inform the resident of any delays and explain why they are necessary.
The landlord’s compensation policy says it can consider offering compensation for:
1. time trouble and inconvenience including when it has failed to follow policy or provided incorrect information.
2. delay in the provision of a service.
3. loss of facilities.
It is important that landlords have standard data recording requirements to ensure good records. Once information has been created, it should be stored and maintained appropriately. The resident and landlord have reported visits to the property and conversations between the resident, contractor and landlord which the landlord has not provided evidence of. The repairs evidence it has provided lacks detail and clarity. We have therefore recommended that it considers our Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management.
The resident reported his kitchen socket needed repairing on 20 December 2023 and the landlord was put on notice of the repair. It raised a standard repair on 21 December 2023, which its repairs policy says it will complete within 15 days. The landlord attended the property on 9 January 2024. It noted the socket was broken and a replacement socket was required. This response was reasonable and in line with the landlord’s repairs timescales.
The landlord raised another standard repair on 17 January 2024, 6 working days after the landlord says it inspected. There is no evidence of the reason for the delay in raising the repair, which was unreasonable. The landlord attended on 24 January 2024. This was in line with its repairs timescales. It noted a replacement socket was needed and rebooked an appointment for 1 February 2024. There is no evidence this appointment went ahead or explanation of why it was cancelled.
The landlord said it attended on 8 February 2024 and repaired the kitchen socket. The resident says the landlord attended and did not replace the socket but pulled it up and found it was not fully functional due to damage and being installed incorrectly. He says the landlord told him he could use it in the meantime. The resident says he tried to use the socket for around 2 weeks. He says the safety switch frequently tripped and it damaged 2 kettles. He says he was therefore unable to use the socket.
The resident reported that the socket was not working on 11 March 2024. The landlord noted the multi-plug was damaged and not providing any connection. It raised a standard repair the same day. The landlord and resident say the landlord attended on 12 March 2024, in line with its policy timescales. The resident said the landlord found there was no electrical connection. The landlord has provided no record of this visit, and did not repair the socket.
The landlord took no further action until 12 April 2024. They did not explain the reason for this delay to the resident. This was not reasonable or in line with its repairs policy. The landlord said it attended on 12 April 2024, but has not provided evidence of this visit.
The resident says he called the landlord on 16 April 2024, and they told him they had ordered the necessary part. He raised a complaint on 23 April 2024. The landlord told its contractor the socket was still not working and asked them to respond to his complaint.
In its stage 1 response, it was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge it had not taken the necessary measurements to order the replacement socket on 12 April 2024 and provide an appointment date for 14 May 2024. However, the appointment was 21 working days after it says it identified a replacement was needed and it did not explain the reason for the delay. This was not reasonable or in line with its repairs policy. The landlord’s complaint response failed to consider its compensation policy or put things right whilst the repair remained uncompleted.
The landlord attended on 14 May 2024. It noted the socket had been broken since it was installed, and it had reported this in January for the installers to attend. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to explain the reason for any continued delay and give a timescale for completing the repair at this point.
The resident raised the issue of safety in his escalation request on 9 May 2024. The landlord asked the contractor to confirm whether there were any safety risks. The contractor told the landlord on 16 May 2024 that the socket was left in a safe condition. In its stage 2 response, it was appropriate for the landlord to confirm whether the sockets were safe. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to also refer to the visits since January 2024, and helpful to explain how it had satisfied itself there was no risk.
On 16 May 2024, the contractor told the landlord it would offer £50 for service failures. The landlord did not offer this to the resident at stage 2. It would have been reasonable for it to have considered the following at stage 2 of its complaints procedure, to avoid a delay in putting things right:
1. the resident’s request for alternative arrangements whilst the repair was outstanding.
2. awarding compensation for the service failures identified, instead of deferring to its contractor.
The landlord raised a standard repair on 4 June 2024. In its stage 2 response the landlord said it would follow up with the contractor until the repair was resolved.

Post internal complaints procedure

The landlord did not order the replacement plug until after 26 June 2024, at least 16 working days after it raised a standard repair. It did not complete the repair until 22 July 2024, more than 4 months after the resident reported it was still not working. This was an unreasonable delay and was not in line with the landlord’s repairs policy. The landlord’s records are unclear and suggest the repair is still open. There is limited evidence the landlord followed up the repair with the contractor throughout. This was not an adequate oversight of the contractor’s services.
The resident called the landlord on 25 July 2024. He requested an update on the compensation on 31 August 2024. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s offer of £50 compensation on 2 September 2024. He said the landlord had attended 5 times and he had to take time off work. The landlord offered an additional £50 on 9 September 2024.
The resident had to wait until the complaint procedure was exhausted and the repair was completed for compensation. He also had to and chase the landlord for compensation. This is not in line with our dispute resolution principle of putting things right.
The Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repair in that it did not:
1. clearly record the resident’s reports of disrepair, details of works, or call logs.
2. agree actions and timescales in writing.
3. respond to the repair in line with its policy timescales and unreasonably delayed in completing the repair.
4. explain the reason for the delay or why it was necessary.
5. clearly confirm that there was no safety risk.
6. adequately oversee the contractor’s services.
7. consider awarding compensation or offering alternative arrangements earlier.
8. acknowledge the failures identified in this report.
The resident told us that he was unable to use kitchen appliances or work from home whilst the repair was outstanding. He said this caused him and his family significant inconvenience. He told us he felt the landlord did not take his health and safety concerns seriously and he spent a lot of time chasing it by phone and email. He said he was distracted at work, and it caused him and his family distress.
The landlord’s compensation policy says it may offer between £151 and £400 for time, trouble and inconvenience of a service failure if there is high effort and high impact. It says high effort includes the resident having to send a high volume of emails or needing to involve the Housing Ombudsman to resolve the issue. It says high impact includes excessive delays to works and a resident being prevented from enjoyment of their home. In line with our remedies guidance and the landlord’s compensation policy, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £250, inclusive of any compensation already paid.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy says:
1. complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days.
2. it will issue stage 1 complaint responses within 10 working days.
3. it will issue stage 2 complaint responses within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated.
The policy says at each stage of a complaint, the landlord will address all points raised, provide clear reasons for decisions, and provide suitable remedies if necessary. It says it will acknowledge and rectify any mistakes promptly. This is in line with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 25 April 2024 and issued a stage 1 response in line with the landlord’s complaints policy timescales. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s stage 2 complaint within 5 working days of the escalation. This was not in line with the Complaint Handling Code. The stage 2 response was issued 21 working days after the resident requested to escalate it. This was just outside the landlord’s complaints policy timescales.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord did not address all the points raised by the resident including:
1. the way it handled his complaint at stage 1.
2. that he said the landlord had misinformed him on 16 April 2024 that a part had been ordered.
3. his request for alternative arrangements whilst awaiting the repair.
This was not in line with the landlord’s complaints policy or the Code. It was a missed opportunity for the landlord to thoroughly investigate the resident’s concerns and put things right.
The landlord’s compensation policy says it may consider redress if it has failed to follow its complaints policy. It says offers will reflect the effort a resident makes to resolve the issue and the impact on them. It says it may award between £76 and £150 for delays or difficulties raising a complaint and delays in giving a response leading to increased contact from the customer.
Due to the above complaint failures, and the lack of acknowledgement or learning from them, the Ombudsman finds there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. In line with our remedies’ guidance and the landlord’s compensation policy we have ordered the landlord to pay £100 compensation for its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

In line with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a repair to a plug socket.
In line with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this report, we order the landlord to:
1. provide the resident with a written apology for the failures identified in this investigation.
2. write to the resident to set out what it has learnt from the failures identified in this report and what actions it will take to prevent the same failures from happening again in the future.
3. pay the resident a total of £350 compensation, made up of:
  1. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s plug socket repair. The landlord may deduct the £100 previously offered if this has already been paid.
  2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within 28 days of the date of this report.

Recommendations

If it has not done so already, we encourage the landlord to consider the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management.