Sanctuary Housing Association (202427949)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom ground floor maisonette. They live with their adult children and several members of the household have long–term physical health conditions.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
   1. Damp and mould.
   2. Faults with the boiler.
3. We have also looked at the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
   2. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of faults with the boiler.
   3. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Damp and mould

5. The landlord did not appropriately investigate the cause of the damp and mould when the resident first reported these concerns. This delayed the completion of the works needed to resolve the issue. The landlord’s communication with the resident was also poor.

Faults with the boiler

6. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s concerns about the boiler within its published timescales and left them without a working boiler for around a week. It provided an apology and appropriate compensation for the delay.

Complaint handling

7. The complaint was responded to in line with the landlord’s complaints policy.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

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. The landlord’s maintenance repairs policy from the time sets out 4 categories of repairs with associated timescales for completion. A “standard” repair should take place within 15 working days and a “planned” repair within 45 working days.
9. No specific process or policy has been provided to show how the landlord handled concerns over damp and mould at the time the resident raised their concerns, so it is assumed that the usual repair timescales would apply to these types of repairs.
10. The resident’s concerns about damp and mould were first reported to their housing officer on 26 January 2024. The housing officer took pictures of the areas of damp and mould and told the resident they would raise this with the relevant team. This is the time at which the landlord was put on notice about the issue.
11. The landlord contacted its contractor on 5 March 2024 to request that a mould wash was carried out. This request was made 27 working days after the resident first raised their concerns to the landlord.
12. The stage 2 complaint response mentioned a damp and mould inspection that took place on 26 March. We have not been provided with evidence showing this inspection took place or what was found. That no evidence of this was provided points to a record keeping failure. The inspection took place 42 working days after the resident reported her concerns, which was not appropriate.
13. Mould washes were then carried out in the living room and bedroom on 28 March 2024 and 18 April 2024. These were 44 and 59 working days from the time the resident reported their concerns to the landlord, which places the completion of the work outside of the longest time allowed under the landlord’s repairs policy. This points to a failing.
14. The resident reported further concerns about damp and mould to their housing officer on 8 October 2024. The damp and mould had returned to the areas that had already been treated by the landlord. A follow–up inspection was arranged for 25 October 2024 by a surveyor and a list of works needed to resolve the damp issues was produced. The cause was identified as a previous leak to the shower unit.
15. The work identified by the surveyor took place over several visits but was completed on 6 December 2024. The resident has confirmed that this work appears to have solved the problem and there have been no further reports of damp and mould. This was 220 working days, over 10 months, since the resident first reported their concerns about damp and mould.
16. Even under the longest time allowed in the landlord’s maintenance repairs policy, work should be completed within 45 working days. The repairs needed here took significantly longer than this. This was a failing.
17. The resident had explained to the landlord that there were members of the household who had long–term physical health conditions which could be affected by the damp and mould. The landlord should have been aware of this potential vulnerability. The time taken to complete these works does not show that it took this into account.
18. The impact of this delay on the resident was significant. They had expressed concerns over the impact of the damp and mould on them and their family, and the landlord did not show that this concern was taken seriously. While we cannot say if the damp and mould was likely to have caused harm to the resident or their family, their concerns about this caused them significant distress. This is likely to have negatively impacted the landlord-tenant relationship.
19. Because of the extent of the delay and impact, we find there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
20. The landlord’s complaint policy has a payment banding where there is high impact on a resident and the responsibility is solely the landlord’s. This banding and the maladministration range of our own remedies guidance have been considered when deciding on an appropriate amount of redress for the resident. A payment of £400 sits within both ranges.
21. Taking the full circumstances into account, the landlord should make a payment of £400 to the resident to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the failings identified above.

22. The timescales given in the landlord’s maintenance repairs policy from the time are explained above.
23. The resident first reported faults with the boiler on 15 January 2024. An engineer attended on 19 January 2024, balanced the heating system, and confirmed it was working properly.
24. The resident reported further issues with the boiler on 20 February 2024. An engineer attended on 23 February 2024. The engineer felt it would be better to replace the boiler rather than repair it and asked for this to be confirmed by a supervisor. This was then confirmed by a supervisor on 26 February 2024. On the same day, a request was made to the landlord to authorise the installation of a new boiler. This was confirmed the next day on 27 February 2024.
25. The resident contacted the landlord’s contractor on 4 March 2024 to ask for an update on the boiler replacement. It confirmed it had received authorisation and would call back to arrange an appointment. There is no evidence that attempts were made to arrange installation of the boiler until the resident chased this. The boiler was installed on 6 March 2024.
26. In its stage 2 response, the landlord offered compensation for the delays to these repairs and for the resident being left without a working boiler. This came to £44, with an additional £50 as a gesture of goodwill. The £44 was worked out by following the right to repair compensation guidance in the landlord’s compensation policy.
27. The landlord apologised for the delays and provided compensation in line with its policy at stage 2 of the complaints process. While it is appreciated that the delays to these repairs and being without a working boiler would have caused inconvenience to the resident and their family, the landlord acted appropriately to remedy the situation during the complaints process.
28. We find there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of faults with the boiler.
    

29. The landlord’s complaints policy says that a complaint at stage 1 will be answered within 10 working days and a complaint at stage 2 will be answered within 20 working days.
30. The resident first raised their complaint with the landlord on 28 February 2024. The stage 1 response was provided to the resident on 14 March 2024. This was within the 10 working days allowed by the landlord’s complaints policy.
31. The resident asked for their complaint to be escalated to stage 2 on 7 April 2024 by email. The stage 2 response was provided by the landlord on 7 May 2024. This was 20 working days after the escalation request was made.
32. As the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint within its policy timescales at both stages, we find there was no maladministration in its complaint handling.