Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

Sanctuary Housing Association (202412636)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202412636

Sanctuary Housing Association

13 March 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 the landlord’s handling of:
  1. Repairs to a leak.
  2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy which started in August 2023. The landlord is a housing association and recently became a subsidiary landlord. For this report both the primary and secondary landlord will be referred to as the landlord.
  2. The property is a 2-bedroom flat on the third floor. The resident lives with her partner and two young children. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
  3. The repairs history confirmed the resident reported a leak within a cupboard on 2 January 2024. She said the cupboard was wet and showed signs of damp and mould and she was concerned about the impact to her children from mould appearing on their bedroom walls.
  4. The resident complained to the landlord on 29 February 2024, she said she was extremely frustrated, dissatisfied, and inconvenienced by the outstanding water leak. She stated that the repair was handled poorly without consideration to the impact upon her family, or damage to the property. She had also taken time off work for an excessive amount of unsuccessful repair appointments. The resident wanted the repair to be prioritised and to be compensated for the multiple failed attendances.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 18 March 2024 and upheld the resident’s complaint. It apologised for the frustration and acknowledged inconvenience caused by service failures. It referred to an inspection which took place on 14 March 2024 and stated that it would respond to the findings accordingly. It also acknowledged the residents request for compensation for a missed appointment on 18 March 2024 and said it would be in touch with its findings.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 27 March 2024 due to a further failed appointment. The resident’s complaint included poor handling and communication regarding the repair, a lack of timely action and failed appointments since she first reported the leak.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 15 May 2024, it upheld the complaint and offered compensation of £475. This was made up of £400 for leaks and outstanding repairs and £75 for a lack of communication during the complaint handling process. It also apologised for:
  1. several missed appointments to investigate the leak
  2. a lack of communication
  3. findings from investigations not shared with the resident
  4. access issues
  1. In referring her complaint to us the resident said she wanted the landlord to prioritise and repair the leak, to be compensated for missed appointments, address the poor complaint handling, and formally acknowledge all parts of her complaint. The Ombudsman has also considered events following the landlord’s final response as the issue remains unresolved.

Assessment and findings

Repairs to a leak

  1. In this case, the landlord does not dispute that there were failings in its handling of the matter. Where the landlord admits failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to assess if the resident’s complaints were remedied fairly in the circumstances. The Ombudsman also considers whether the landlord acted in line with our dispute resolution principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  2. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states that its target response times are immediate, emergency, standard or planned. The repairs history log states the repair was categorised as routine, which is not a repairs category within its policy. The repairs and maintenance policies for the primary and secondary landlord are not aligned and this is likely to cause misunderstanding.
  3. The repairs policy states that repairs shall be completed to a good standard, within a set timescale and wherever possible fixed during the first visit. Further, a routine repair is described as not causing a serious inconvenience but still needs to be put right and will be completed within 15 days. The resident has told us that the repair remains outstanding for over a year since first reported and is not disputed by the landlord. The landlord has failed to manage the repair in line with its maintenance repairs policy, which has caused inconvenience, time, and trouble for the resident in pursuing the repairs.
  4. Between January and December 2024, the landlord’s records show that approximately 10 repair appointments were recorded as failed due to a lack of parking or access. The landlord’s policy states that the contractor will arrive at the agreed time and date and is responsible for delivering a ‘right first time’ approach to service delivery. The resident said the significant amount of failed and attended appointments, with a lack of action, has caused distress, inconvenience, and frustration with the outstanding repair.
  5. The landlord’s evidence tells us that the leak is a complex repair and outlines the difficulties and misunderstanding between contractors. It said the repair is taking longer than is acceptable to resolve and communication was below the expected standards. It advised it would follow up with the resident after May 2024 to oversee the repairs. From May to October 2024 there is no evidence that the landlord kept the resident informed regarding further delays. The landlord missed opportunities to manage the resident’s expectations and provide updates about its attempts to resolve the repair. This led to the resident attempting to raise a further complaint in October 2024.
  6. The landlord’s internal emails show that following a further failed appointment on 22 November 2024, a cohesive approach between all parties to manage the repair was set up via email. Although this was 5 months after the internal complaint process, this was effective, and a date for the closed-circuit television survey (CCTV) was set. Furthermore, the landlord attended site on the same day and in advance which ensured the appointment went as planned and demonstrated a solution-based approach.
  7. The resident was concerned about the impact of the damp and mould to her children’s bedroom. The landlord offered to apply a mould wash as part of its stage 2 complaint response and during a call on 24 October 2024. The landlord advised that the resident declined and said that she would remove the mould and damp from the bedroom until the repair had been completed and remedial works identified. The landlords offer to apply a mould wash was reasonable and in line with its damp and mould information guide.
  8. The Ombudsman has considered the distress and inconvenience of the landlord’s poor handling of the leak caused to the resident. As a result of the landlord’s failings, the resident has now lived in the property with a recurring and ongoing water leak for over 12 months. The landlord’s delays have had a significant impact on the resident, who had concerns about the effect on her, her children’s health and the property that has been damaged by the prolonged exposure to the damp.
  9. As evidenced on the landlord log, the numerous scheduled appointments have caused inconvenience to the resident and her family. These inconveniences have included taking time off work, and the cancellation of days out to remain available for repair appointments. This has inevitably caused a significant level of inconvenience and frustration, which was exacerbated by the landlord’s repeated failed appointments.
  10. Our dispute resolution principles set out that landlords should learn from complaints. There is no evidence that the landlord learned from its complaint responses despite its acknowledgment and apologies for service failures. Failed appointments continued, and the resident says that the repair remains outstanding. The landlord should have acted sooner to investigate communication issues between its contractors, managing agent and repairs provision, which demonstrated a failing to put things right first time and learn from outcomes.
  11. The landlord’s final response in May 2024 identified failings and offered £400 compensation for the leak and outstanding repairs. The £400 offered was reasonable at that time, and in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance. However, the substantive issues are still outstanding long after the completion of the landlord’s internal complaint process.
  12. We have therefore found maladministration for the failings identified in this report and have made an order for the landlord to pay a further £600 in compensation to the resident. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s published remedies guidance for failings which accumulate over a long period of time, and which have a significant impact on a resident.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord sets out a 2 stage complaints process. Stage 1 complaints are responded to within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The landlord will also try to contact customers to discuss the outcome of the complaint investigation before confirmation in writing. Regardless of the stage, if an extension is required, the resident will be updated.
  2. The stage 1 complaint submitted to this service is not dated, the landlord logged its receipt on 29 February 2024. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 18 March 2024 which was 13 working days later. While it did phone the resident regarding her complaint on 8 March 2024 the written response was outside of the timescale set out in the complaint policy. It did not acknowledge or apologise for the delay in responding to the stage 1 complaint. This was not appropriate or in line with its complaints policy.
  3. The resident escalated her complaint on 27 March 2024. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 15 May 2024 which was 34 working days later. While it did phone the resident on 14 May 2024 regarding her complaint, the written response was outside of its timescale. This was not appropriate or in line with its complaints policy.
  4. There were failings in the landlord’s complaint handling at stage 1 and 2. The landlord did not learn from its service failings at stage 1 and repeated the same failing at stage 2. However, within the stage 2 complaint response the landlord apologised for falling below its standards and offered £75 compensation. This Service, therefore, finds that the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress, prior to investigation, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. This determination is made on the understanding that if the £75 remains outstanding this is re-offered to the resident.
  5. In April 2024 the landlord wrote to the Ombudsman setting out its lessons learnt following a senior management review into its repairs processes and procedures, record keeping, contractor management, and complaint handling. Therefore, the Ombudsman has not made recommendations concerning the above but expects the landlord to take all relevant learning from this case into account.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs to the leak.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £600 compensation for distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by its handling of repairs to a leak. This is in addition to the £400 already offered at stage 2 of the internal complaints process. The landlord may deduct from this total any compensation it has already paid.
    3. Contact the resident to inspect the outstanding repairs to the leak, it should agree the dates of the planned work and other planned actions associated with the repair until it is completed.
    4. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders at each stage.

Recommendations

  1. Within the landlord’s stage 2 response, it stated it would provide Customer First training to all staff members. Provide evidence to this service that this has been completed.