Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Sanctuary Housing Association (202010332)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202010332

Sanctuary Housing Association

31 August 2021


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. This complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
    1. The resident’s reports of repairs to his rear living room window.
    2. The resident’s report of alleged anti-social behaviour (ASB).
    3. The resident’s concerns about calls he made to the landlord on 3, 4 and 5 August 2020 and his housing officer putting the phone down on him when he called on 29 September 2020.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy commenced on 19 December 2011. The property is a three-bedroom mid terraced house.
  2. The resident has advised this service that he has mental health issues including depression and anxiety, which the landlord has confirmed the resident has made it aware of.

The resident’s reports of repairs to his rear window.

  1. On 11 February 2020, the landlord’s surveyor attended the resident’s property to inspect his front living room window which had recently been replaced. The surveyor reported that they had found nothing wrong with the front living room window and made no reference to the rear living room window.
  2. On 16 February 2020, the resident emailed to landlord asking that someone come out and look at his rear living room window. The resident reported a crack in the window frame and cold air and draughts coming through the window. The resident claimed that the surveyor had witnessed the crack when he had attended on 11 February 2020.
  3. The landlord raised a job for the rear living room window to be attended to on 23 March 2020. The landlord’s records at that time do not specify what works it intended to carry out. On 19 March 2020 the landlord emailed the resident to advise that this appointment had been suspended due to COVID restrictions. On 20 March 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to ask when the repairs to his rear living window would be carried out. The landlord advised that under COVID 19 government guidance, it was only a carrying out emergency repairs at that time and that it would contact the resident when restrictions had been relaxed and apologised for the inconvenience caused.
  4. Between 26 May 2020 and 23 July 2020, the resident called the landlord several times chasing the repair to his rear living room window.  On 30 June 2020, the landlord advised that it was still only doing emergency repairs and would be in touch when it could attend.
  5. On 31 July 2020 the resident contacted the landlord who informed him that the repair to his rear living room window had been schedule for 25 August 2020. The resident was not happy with waiting this long. The landlord explained that it had a backlog of repairs following the lockdown restrictions.
  6. The resident wrote to the landlord on 7 August 2020 to log a formal complaint about the outstanding repair to his rear living room window.
  7. An appointment to repair the rear living room window took place on 25 August 2020. The landlord noted that the works, to fit window hinges, were not carried out as the operatives did not have the parts required to complete the job.
  8. On 1 September 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to complain about a conversation he overheard between operatives who had attended on 25 August 2020. The landlord’s records note that the resident was asked what the operatives had said and that the resident could not say but knew they were talking about him as they were looking his way.
  9. The landlord issued its stage one response 16 September 2020. In its response the landlord referred to the resident refusing its proposal for his home to be modernised and that both the resident’s windows and doors had been proposed for renewal as part of its investment works due to take place in 2020/21. The response did not address the resident’s concerns about the delay to the repair to the rear window nor the resident’s complaint about the operatives that attended his property on 25 August 2020.
  10. On 30 September 2020, an appointment to fit window hinges to the rear living room window, due to be carried out that day, was cancelled and rescheduled to 17 November 2020. The landlord’s records note that this was due to an operative going home sick. The landlord advised the resident as such when he called the following day.
  11. The resident escalated his complaint on 8 October 2020. The resident said that the repair to his rear living room window had still not been resolved, that an operative attended on 25 August 2020 and was intimidating and threatening, did not carry out the repair and went to his van and spoke to his colleague about him. The resident also said that an operative had failed to attend on 30 September 2020 and that whilst he had been given a new date of 17 November 2020, he was concerned no one would attend.
  12. The same day, 8 October 2020, the landlord hand delivered a letter to the resident apologising on behalf of the operatives that attended on 25 August 2020 and confirming that both had been spoken to and reminded that inappropriate discussions were not acceptable and would not be tolerated. The landlord agreed for operatives to attend on 12 October 2020 to fitting the hinges to the resident’s rear window.
  13. On 12 October 2020 the resident confirmed to the landlord that the repair to his rear living room window had been completed.
  14. The landlord issued its stage two, and final, response on 2 November 2020. The landlord noted that the rear living room window repair was now completed but apologised that it had taken longer than anticipated. The landlord also noted its letter to the resident on 8 October 2020 apologising for its operatives conduct on 25 August 2020. The landlord apologised for the missed appointment on 30 September 2020 noting that this was due to staff illness and that it had been unable to contact the resident on the day as it had no means to contact him other than by letter. The landlord said that lockdown restrictions had impacted greatly on the level of service it could provide resulting in a back log of outstanding repairs from March 2020. It said that as soon as restrictions were lifted, all of its non-emergency repairs which had been delayed were re-booked as soon as was possible. The landlord said the complaint was partially upheld and offered £10 compensation for the missed appointment on 30 September 2020.

The resident’s reports of ASB

  1. On 6 April 2019, the resident reported to the landlord that his neighbours were using their washing machine all through the night which meant that could not sleep and that they were banging on his walls all day long. On 29 April 2019 the landlord spoke to the resident over the telephone and advised that unless the resident agreed to have noise monitoring equipment installed then it would not be able to take any further action with regards to his report. The landlord noted that this issue had been reported numerous times previously and had never been proven. It also said that the noise the resident was describing was deemed to be general domestic noise such as washing machines and children playing.
  2. On 25 December 2019, the resident reported that a neighbour was banging on his walls between 6:30 to 9:00am.
  3. On 7 August 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord to complain that it had failed to investigate his reports of ASB.
  4. On 21 August 2020, the resident again reported that his neighbour’s children were banging on the walls and that their washing machine had been on at night and made a lot of noise. The resident also reported a dog barking, another neighbour looking at him which he said was “very intimidating”.
  5. The landlord issued its stage one response 16 September 2020. The landlord said it was satisfied that it had investigated the resident’s reports as far as it was able to, given the evidence provided. The landlord said that the resident’s reports indicate that the sound coming from neighbouring properties was no more than that of normal household activities. The landlord said that it had offered constructive attempts such as mediation and noise monitoring equipment but these had been refused by the resident. The landlord acknowledged that the resident’s most recent report was received on 21 August 2020 but that it was unable to respond until 7 September 2020 due to staff leave. The landlord said that diary sheet would be sent to the resident for him to record incidents so that his concerns might be taken up with his neighbours.
  6. On 22 September 2020, the resident called the landlord to report his neighbours continually and deliberately banging on his wall, giving him “dirty looks and watching him when goes outside to put the washing out”. On 29 September 2020, the resident again reported that that his neighbours were deliberately, and continually, banging on his kitchen walls.
  7. The resident escalated his complaint on 8 October 2020 as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of his reports.
  8. The landlord issued its stage two, and final, response on 2 November 2020. The landlord said :
    1. That a risk assessment was completed following the resident’s report on 6 April 2019, but there was no evidence of communications with him other than a call on 29 April 2019 when reports of ASB were discussed. It had advised him that as with his previous reports, it had been unable to evidence noise nuisance or proceed further until he had agreed to complete diary sheets and/or have noise monitoring equipment installed, because what he had been reporting was deemed to be normal household noise. The case was closed on 29 April 2019 due to lack of evidence.
    2. While it had received the diary sheets on 31 January 2020, following the resident’s reports noise nuisance on 25 December 2019, the case was not logged until 27 February 2020 and then closed the same day. The landlord acknowledged that a member of staff had taken leave during this period and apologised that he was not communicated with. It said it had fed back its findings to the area manager who had handled the complaint at the first stage of the complaints process and requested that they remind the ASB handler of the importance of following the ASB procedure. The reason for closure was that the nuisance he reported was normal household noise and not ASB.
    3. Due to lockdown restrictions, its only means of communication with the resident following his reports of dogs barking, washing machine noise and children banging on the walls on 21 August 2020, was by letter as he had no access to email or a telephone. It said that a risk assessment was completed but as the Housing Officer was on leave, the case was not updated until 7 September 2020.
    4. With regards to the resident’s report of 29 September 2020, it had offered to refer him for support but this was declined. Due to the lack of evidence it had of noise nuisance, it was restricted in what it could do. It wrote to him on 13 October 2020 advising that it had not received supporting evidence from him and it would leave the case open until 26 October 2020 at which point it would be closed if no evidence was received. He had called on 19 October 2020 and was asked to complete diary sheets. The case remained open at the time of writing.
  9. The landlord acknowledged and apologised that there were some service failures in its response to the resident’s reports of ASB in relation to “due process” and communications, however it was satisfied that given the lack of evidence provided and his request for his neighbours not to be approached, it had offered as much assistance as it could. The landlord said the complaint was partially upheld and offered £50 compensation for due process not being followed.

The resident’s concerns about calls he made to the landlord on 3, 4 and 5 August 2020 and his housing officer putting the phone down on him.

  1. The resident wrote to the landlord on 7 August 2020 to log a formal complaint about his calls to the landlord on 3 and 4 August 2020. The resident said that when he called on 3 August 2020 he was told by the call handler that his call was going through to his housing officers voicemail and that when he rang again and was told that his housing officer was on holiday, so left two messages which he said he was told would be passed on. The resident said that when he called again on 4 August 2020 he was again told that his calls were going straight to his housing officer’s voicemail. The resident said that it was ‘‘pretty clear’’ that his housing officer did not want to take his calls.
  2. The landlord issued its stage one response 16 September 2020. The landlord said that it had listened to the resident’s calls made on 3 August 2020. The landlord said that on the resident’s first call the call handler did try to transfer the resident to his housing officer but the call went through to her voicemail. On the second the call handler advised the resident that his housing officer was not in work but would be returning the following day. The landlord confirmed that when the resident called on 4 August 2020 his call again went through to his housing officer’s voicemail but the landlord did not agree with the resident’s allegation that this meant that he was being deliberately ignored. The landlord said that it had a facility to return customers call either by telephone or email but as the resident had neither, his housing officer could not have returned his calls despite the messages sent to her.
  3. The resident escalated his complaint on 8 October 2020. The resident said that the landlord stage one response letter did not refer to his housing officer (twice) putting the phone down on him in the last week.
  4. The landlord issued its stage two, and final, response on 2 November 2020. The landlord confirmed that on both occasions his calls went to voicemail. The landlord explained further that his housing officer only works two days a week and at the time of his calls, she was unavailable due to being busy with other customers. As there were no means of contacting the resident, other than letter, she was unable to call him back when she became free. The landlord said that it agreed with its stage one response in that his housing officer had not intentionally ignored the resident and apologised that he felt that was the case. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s frustration but explained that its staff are not always immediately available to speak to.
  5. The landlord apologised that the resident was provided with incorrect information about logging a complaint when he called on 5 August 2020. The landlord confirmed that complaints could be submitted verbally and the advice that he had been given regarding putting his complaint in writing was incorrect. The landlord said that it had fed back its findings to the relevant manager and asked them to remind the staff responsible of the landlord’s complaints policy and procedure. In conclusion, the landlord said the complaint was partially upheld and offered £25 compensation for the incorrect information he was given with regards to the landlord’s complaints process and for him being told that the member of staff was not work on 3 August 2020, when they were.

Assessment

Relevant policies, procedures, agreements and guidance.

  1. The tenancy agreement obliges the landlord to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the resident’s home, including windowsills, window catches and window frames, and including necessary external painting and decorations.
  2. Section 5 of the landlord’s repairs policy and procedure provides timescales for different categories of repairs: Emergency repairs, where the repair poses a serious health and safety threat. Response time within 24 hours of receipt. Appointed repairs, which applied to all non-emergency repairs where access to the property is required. Response time within 28 days and at the appointment time originally agreed with the resident.
  3. The landlord’s ASB policy includes noise nuisance within its definition of ASB, and states that a nuisance can be either continuous or intermittent, but in either case it must affect the comfort or quality of life of a reasonable person. The policy goes on to state that when dealing with noise nuisance the landlord is bound by the statutory definition of noise nuisance and can only address noise reports that meets that definition.
  4. The landlord’s ASB procedure states that within one working day, for cases considered serious and five working days for all other cases, the landlord is to assess the seriousness of the ASB, contact the victim, send out diary sheets if appropriate and complete a vulnerability assessment. If there is no evidence to suggest that the alleged incident took place, the landlord must advise the victim that whilst no further action will be taken at that time, the situation will be monitored for a set period of time and investigations reopened if further reports are received. Where no further incidents are reported for a period of six weeks the case is closed and a letter issued to the resident explaining the reason why.
  5. The landlord’s compensation guidance states that the landlord is to pay £10 in compensation per failed/unnecessary appointment and that payments of up to £400 may be made in recognition of time, trouble and inconvenience of a service failure dependent on the effort and impact to the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to his rear living room window.

  1. The first evidence of the resident reporting repairs to his rear living room window was on 16 February 2020. At that time the resident reported that the crack in the window frame and the draught through the window had been witnessed by a surveyor who had attended his property on 11 February 2020. This is not supported by the report made to the landlord by the surveyor in which the rear living room window was not mentioned.
  2. The landlord initial raised a job for the window to be attended to on 23 March 2020. However, towards the end of March 2020 the government issued COVID 19 guidance for landlords. The guidance confirmed that the landlord’s repairing obligation had not changed but recommended that access to a property was only proposed for serious and urgent/emergency issues. As the repair reported required access to the property but did not pose a serious health and safety threat, it was appropriate and in accordance with its repairs policy, for the landlord to categorise the repair as a non-emergency repair.
  3. Following the lifting of government restrictions, the repair appointment was rescheduled for 25 August 2020 but the operatives who attended did not have the parts required to finish the job.
  4. A further appointment was booked for 30 September 2020, which was not attended because the operative had gone home sick. In its final response the landlord apologised to the resident for not advising him at the time that the appointment could not go ahead and offered him a £10 goodwill payment. This was in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy which states that the landlord is to pay £10 in compensation per failed/unnecessary appointment.
  5. The new window hinges were fitted to the rear living room window on 12 October 2020.
  6. Given the government’s COVID 19 restrictions it was reasonable for the repairs to be delayed, initially because the landlord was only able to carry out emergency repairs and then due to the backlog of work that had accrued due to those restrictions. The landlord also investigated the resident’s allegations about the conduct of its operatives on 25 August 2020, apologising to the resident and warning the operatives about their behaviour.
  7. The landlord also apologised and offered the resident £10 compensation, in accordance with its compensation policy, for its failure to attend on 30 September 2020.
  8. However, having considered all the evidence, that there was service failure by the landlord in that, despite the resident contacting the landlord several times about the repair, between 26 May and 23 July 2020, the only evidence of a response from the landlord was when it advised the resident on 30 June 2020 that it was still doing emergency repairs.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB

  1. The resident has reported experiencing ASB over a number of years related to noise from his neigbours properties. The resident had a previous complaint with the landlord about its response to his reports that was closed in March 2019. The landlord had previously proposed mediation and the installation of sound monitoring equipment but these had been declined by the resident.
  2. During the period of time covered by this investigation the resident reported five  incidents of ASB, on 6 April 2019, 25 December 2019, 21 August 2020, 22 September 2020 and 29 September 2020. With the exception of the resident’s reports that his neighbour had looked at him and was “very intimidating”, his other reports of ASB were all issues relating to noise.
  3. Living in close proximity to others it is inevitable that noise from other properties will be heard and ordinary living noise such as noise from children playing and electrical appliances, such as washing machines, is not considered noise nuisance; that is, unless the noise is unreasonably loud or at unsocial hours.
  4. Whilst the resident’s reports of child noise were during the day, as his reports of washing machine noise were ‘‘through the night’’, it was reasonable for the landlord responded to the allegations under its ASB policy. This it did by completing a vulnerability assessment, contacting and interviewing the resident and sending out diary sheets. There is also evidence of the landlord offering to install sound monitoring equipment, which the resident declined. This was a reasonable and proportionate response from the landlord to the nature of the reports made by the resident.
  5. Given the lack of any evidence to suggest that the noise the resident was reporting was anything other than ordinary living noise it was reasonable for the for the landlord to take no further action.
  6. In its final response the landlord acknowledged that there were some failures in regard to the resident’s report of 25 December 2019 and 21 August 2020. The landlord acknowledged that it failed to act in accordance with its ASB policy by not reviewing the resident’s diary sheets of 30 January 2020 until 27 February 2020 and, whilst a risk assessment was completed, by not logging the resident’s report of 21 August as ASB case until 7 September 2020. The landlord explaining that in both cases this was due to staff leave during that period.
  7. Having acknowledged that it failed to act in accordance with its ASB policy in respect of the resident’s reports of 25 December 2019 and 21 August 2020, it was appropriate for the landlord apologised to the resident, to take steps to ensure that the ASB handler was reminded of the importance of following its ASB procedure and to offer the resident compensation.
  8. Having reviewed all the evidence I am satisfied that the actions the landlord took in response to its acknowledged service failure, including the offer of £50 compensation were fair and proportionate and provided the resident with reasonable redress for those failures.

The resident’s concerns about calls he made to the landlord on 3, 4 and 5 August 2020 and his housing officer putting the phone down on him when he called on 29 September 2020.

  1. Following the resident’s complaint about his calls to the landlord on 3 and 4 August 2020, the landlord acted appropriately by carrying out an investigation into the resident’s allegations that his housing officer had not wanted to take his calls, as each time the call handler had attempted to put the call through it went to voicemail.
  2. The landlord also acted appropriately in response to the resident’s complaint about his calls to the landlord on 3 and 4 August 2020. The landlord listened to the calls and whilst it confirmed that the resident’s calls had indeed gone straight through to voicemail, it did not agree that the resident was being deliberately ignored. The landlord also reasonably explained that his housing officer only worked two days a week and at the time of his calls may have been on the phone to other customers. The landlord also reasonably explained that whilst it did have a facility to return calls it did not have either an email address or telephone number for the resident that would have allowed it to do so. Whilst it found no evidence of service failure, the landlord expressed empathy for the frustration this matter had caused the resident. With regards to the resident being told that his housing officer was not in work when he called on 3 August 2020, the landlord apologised to the resident explaining that this was a genuine error.
  3. The landlord also acted appropriately in response to the resident’s complaint about his housing officer putting the phone down on him. This it did by carrying out an investigation into the resident’s allegations and speaking to his housing officer, who denied terminating the call. Whilst it was not possible to definitively establish what happened during the call, as the call was not recorded, it is clear the landlord considered the allegations and took reasonable steps to seek to establish the facts. The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint but did apologise that he felt that the call was terminated.
  4. The landlord acknowledged that the resident had been given incorrect information about how to log a complaint when he called on 5 August 2020 and confirmed that it had taken steps to remind the relevant manager of its complaints policy and procedure. The landlord apologised to the resident and offered him £25 compensation, covering both of these failures.
  5. Having considered the evidence, I am satisfied that the landlord’s apology and its offer of a £25 compensation provided the resident with reasonable redress for the incorrect information it provided with regards to his housing officer not being at work on 4 August 2020 and the incorrect advice given to him with regards to having to make his complaint in writing.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of repairs to his rear living room window.
  2. In accordance paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of alleged ASB.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns about calls he made to the landlord on 3, 4 and 5 August 2020 and his housing officer putting the phone down on him when he called on 29 September 2020.

Reasons

  1. Despite the resident contacting the landlord several times about the repair, between 26 May and 23 July 2020, the only evidence of a response from the landlord was when it advised the resident on 30 June 2020 that it was still doing emergency repairs.
  2. The £50 compensation offered to the resident was sufficient redress to the resident for the landlord’s acknowledged failure to respond to the resident’s report of 25 December 2019 and 21 August 2020 in accordance with the timescales set out in its ASB policy and procedures. Given the nature the alleged ASB reported this failure did not have a serious detriment to the outcome but did result in a delay to the landlord responding for which it was appropriate that it apologise and offer the resident compensation.
  3. The landlord took steps to investigate the resident’s concerns. Having confirmed that it had given the resident incorrect information with regards to both how he could log a complaint and whether his housing officer was at work when he called on 3 August 2020, the landlord apologised to the resident and offered compensation which provided the resident with reasonable redress for its acknowledged service failures.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. That within 28 days of the date of this determination the landlord is to pay the resident a total of £50 for its failure to provide the resident with an update on the repairs, other than on 30 June 2020, despite the resident contacting the landlord several times about the repair between 26 May and 23 July 2020.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not done so, the landlord is to re-offer:
    1. The £10 offered in its final response for the missed appointment on 30 September 2020.
    2. The £50 compensation offered for its failure to respond to the resident’s report of 25 December 2019 and 21 August 2020 in accordance with the timescales set out in its ASB policy and procedures.
    3. The £25 compensation offered for the incorrect information it provided with regards to both how he could log a complaint and whether his housing officer was at work when he called on 3 August 2020.