Sanctuary Housing Association (202428785)

Background

1. The resident experienced a flood from pipes in his bathroom which caused damage to the property and some of his belongings. The resident was unhappy with how the landlord responded to the situation and requested compensation for his damaged belongings.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. The resident’s reports of flooding in the property and the subsequent damage caused.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found the landlord responsible for:
   1. service failure in its response to the resident’s reports of flooding and the subsequent damage caused
   2. reasonable redress in its complaint handling

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

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord responded within its emergency timescales when the flood was reported. However, it failed to complete follow on works in a reasonable time due to poor record keeping. It gave a reasonable response when the resident requested compensation for his damaged personal belongings but was slow to give him guidance on making a claim through insurance. It acknowledged and apologised for most of its failings.
5. The landlord’s complaint handling was poor. It missed deadlines repeatedly and the resident had to chase it for responses. It compensated appropriately for the inconvenience he faced.

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.

What we have not looked at

6. We made the resident aware that we are unable to make decisions on liability for damages or if he should be compensated for damage to his belongings. These decisions should be made by insurers or through the courts. We have looked at how the landlord responded to the concerns he raised.

What we have looked at

7. The landlord responded to the report of a leak within 24 hours as its Repairs and Maintenance Policy says it will for emergency repairs. It stopped the leak and made the property safe in line with its policy.
8. However, the landlord’s handling of the inspection of the property and completion of repairs was poor. It was initially delayed in completing an inspection due to cancellations by itself and the resident. When it did inspect the property on 13 February 2024, it failed to provide a report. It chased for a report repeatedly before receiving one on 18 July 2024 which identified numerous works. It was unreasonable that it did not change its approach for 5 months to move forward with potential works sooner. The repairs were not recorded as complete until February 2025, a year after the inspection took place.
9. The landlord’s record keeping was inconsistent throughout. It was not able to locate any reports from its operative about the cause of the leak when it was first fixed and then failed to maintain a proper record of the inspection. It acknowledged that poor record keeping had inconvenienced the resident.
10. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor. It missed his email on 30 January 2024 sent following its request for information about his damaged belongings in the initial stage 1 response. The resident chased it for an update on 3 April 2024 after not hearing back. It also failed to update him while it was chasing its surveyor for the inspection report. Given he had complained about poor customer service from the landlord, it missed an opportunity to improve the relationship by providing him with regular updates throughout the process as its Repairs and Maintenance Policy says it will.
11. The landlord’s approach to the investigation was inconsistent. It requested information about the belongings that had been damaged and compensated for some items in its reviewed stage 1 response. However, at stage 2 it said it could not compensate for damaged items because it was unclear who was at fault for the flood. It should have kept clear records to ensure it was making all decisions based on evidence as its Complaints Policy says it will. The resident faced unnecessary inconvenience because it was not consistent in its investigation.
12. The landlord did not provide the resident with clear guidance on his options for making a claim through his own home insurance for damaged belongings until its stage 2 response. This delayed his options for progressing a claim unnecessarily. Though it was reasonable that it made clear it would not be paying compensation for damaged belongings, it should also have provided information about making a claim through its own public liability insurance. It is the responsibility of the insurer to assess fault, not the landlord. It should have provided this information and notified its insurer of a potential claim as its Insurance Policy says it will.
13. The landlord gave an appropriate apology in its stage 2 response. It recognised its failings and offered compensation of £1,057 for time, trouble and inconvenience caused by its handling of the repairs. The final amount of compensation offered was appropriate and reflected the level of distress and inconvenience the resident faced. We are not ordering that any more compensation is paid. However, orders have been made to provide information about making a claim through its own insurance.

14. The landlord’s complaints policy is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”).
15. As can be seen from above:
    1. the landlord responded at stage 1 within 20 working days (4 December 2023 to 4 January 2024) which was not compliant with the Code which allows 10 days
    2. the landlord responded at stage 2 within 37 working days (4 August 2024 to 25 September 2024) which was not compliant with the Code which allows 20 working days
16. The landlord was delayed in its responses. It did not keep the resident informed throughout the process or explain the reasons for its delays. He had to chase it for responses repeatedly throughout the process, putting him to unnecessary time and trouble. It did not show that conversation with its customer remained at the heart of the process as its Complaint Procedure says it will.
17. The landlord extended the process unnecessarily by adding a reviewed stage 1 response on 29 July 2024. This was not in line with its procedure. It had asked the resident for further evidence of damages in its stage 1 response on 4 January 2024 and said it would review its offer of compensation. It failed to offer him the option to escalate to stage 2 until it reviewed its offer of compensation. He was put to further time and trouble without good reason.
18. The landlord did not manage the residents expectations appropriately. Its stage 2 response set out a timeline of the complaints process and acknowledged that it repeatedly requested additional time for its responses but missed its agreed deadlines each time. It apologised for these failings.
19. The landlord apologised and offered £400 compensation in its stage 2 response for the inconvenience caused by its handling of the complaint. This was a reasonable level of redress for its failings.

Learning

20. The landlord identified many of its failings when providing evidence to this investigation. This was positive and showed a reflective approach to the complaint. Since the complaint, it told us it had introduced a new repairs management system and a new complaint handling model. It could consider whether these new systems are providing positive changes.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

21. The landlord recognised significant record keeping issues. It could reflect on whether its new repairs management system has improved its record keeping.

Communication

22. Communication was poor overall, which the landlord recognised. It could consider whether there has been a general improvement in both internal and external communication since the complaint process.