Sanctuary Housing Association (202122141)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122141

Sanctuary Housing Association

6 July 2023

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:

a. handling of the resident’s request for reimbursement of travel expenses;

b. consideration of the resident’s vulnerabilities;

c. complaint handling.

Background

The resident has an assured shorthold tenancy agreement with the landlord. The resident and her child both have health issues that impact their day to day living.
The resident reported mould in her property in October 2020 and advised the landlord that she was experiencing issues with her breathing and asthma. All works to resolve the mould issue, i.e., enlarging the loft space, installing a drimaster extractor fan and fitting insulation, were reported as having been completed by 13 September 2021, after a significant delay.
Throughout this period of time the resident expressed concerns to the landlord about the impact the mould was having on her physical and mental health. She advised the landlord on a number of occasions that she had been hospitalised with breathing issues.
On 20 April 2021 the resident submitted a formal complaint in relation to the repair delays and the lack of communication from the landlord. She also referenced the impact the issue was having on her wellbeing.
In June 2021 the resident informed the landlord that she had moved to a family member’s house with her child pending the repair works. She advised the landlord that this move had resulted in her incurring taxi expenses of £20 per day to take her child to school (two return trips costing £5 each way).
Due to the matter being unresolved, and the resident’s ongoing concerns about her health, the landlord asked the resident if she would like her complaint escalated to stage two of its internal complaints process. The resident confirmed that she did, and an acknowledgement response was sent on 21 June 2021.
The final complaint response was issued on 6 December 2021 and advised:

a. The landlord was unable to compensate the resident in relation to a loss of earnings and health issues as per its complaints policy. It could, however, look at goodwill payments in cases of serious inconvenience that had been caused.

b. There had been repair delays and disruptions since the mould was reported in 2020, and this should have been better managed. Some explanation was provided to the resident regarding reasons for the delayed work.

c. The landlord offered an apology for delays responding to the complaint.

d. The housing officer was not aware that the property was uninhabitable and that a temporary move was required. Therefore, the landlord would not be able to consider the claim for compensation towards taxi fares.

e. Complaint findings had been passed back to teams to help prevent the same issues occurring.

f. The landlord offered the resident £450 which equated to £300 for time and trouble and £150 for the delayed final complaint response.

Following referral to this Service on 5 January 2022, the resident confirmed that the mould issue was resolved but requested assistance regarding the reimbursement of her travel expenses.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s role is to determine complaints by reference to what is fair in all the circumstances and decide if the landlord is responsible for maladministration or service failure.
When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its dispute resolution principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:

a. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes

b. Put things right

c. Learn from outcomes.

The resident’s request for reimbursement of travel expenses

When dealing with requests for compensation, a landlord should refer to its own compensation policy, as well as consider what is fair and reasonable in the circumstances of the case. Requests for compensation should be acknowledged and responded to in a timely manner, and a landlord should consider providing the resident with its compensation policy where a claim is being made. This helps to manage a resident’s expectations and provides an opportunity for a resident to submit any supporting evidence to demonstrate costs that may have been reasonably incurred.
On 15 June 2021 the resident informed the landlord that she had been admitted to hospital 11 days previously due to breathing issues and had now moved into a family member’s home with her daughter. She advised that she had to pay “keep” and that she was paying for taxis to take her daughter to and from school at a cost of £20 per day.
On 17 June 2021 the resident advised the landlord that she had been given an appointment date for repair work for five weeks’ time. She advised that she was staying with family and that she should not be paying rent for a property she could not live in.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s reference to taxi costs when it replied to her stage two complaint on 6 December 2021. This was nearly six months from when she first advised the landlord of this expense. This Service has not seen evidence to suggest that the landlord responded to her reports of incurring travel costs when she first reported them or advised her of its compensation policy.
In the stage two response the landlord advised the resident that it was unable to consider compensation for taxi costs because the housing officer had not been aware that her property was uninhabitable, or that a temporary move was needed. The landlord’s compensation guidance advises:

a. Sanctuary assess the habitability of a property and use of the rooms at the point that a repairs request has been requested. This is usually through the attendance of a suitably experienced Sanctuary operative or surveyor.

b. Where a property is found to be habitable, but the customer is concerned that their individual situation or vulnerabilities mean that the property is not habitable or safe for them, housing officers will be asked to assess the household needs and the works required to make a final decision as to whether a decant should be arranged.

The landlord had been aware of the resident’s reports of damp and mould since 2020. There is no indication that the landlord made investigations into whether the resident needed to be decanted in the interests of her health, or due to the property’s condition. In the landlord’s internal correspondence, dated July 2021, it queried whether there were any records to show that the property was inhabitable. There is no evidence to suggest that a response was provided to this question, or that the enquiry was followed up.
Landlords should consider at an early stage whether moving the resident out of their property is necessary, either on a temporary or permanent basis. This is particularly important with respect to residents who report that their living conditions affect their wellbeing. Landlords can then determine whether any payments are to be made to the resident in accordance with the decant process, or whether compensation should be offered for rooms that are deemed unusable.
The landlord’s compensation policy advises that it will consider the following:

a. the overall time, trouble and inconvenience suffered and whether this was reasonably foreseeable;

b. any known costs that have been reasonably incurred;

c. consideration of the household vulnerabilities;

d. recognition of any failure to follow policies and procedures.

There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord gave advice to the resident regarding any potential claim for travel expenses or considered these costs in line with its compensation policy. This failing has caused the resident distress, as well as time and trouble pursuing the matter. She states that she has been left out of pocket due to incurring travel costs.
Sometimes it is apparent that there may have been a financial loss to the resident as a result of the landlord’s maladministration but it is not always possible to quantify this. While it is generally reasonable to ask a resident to provide evidence of costs they have incurred, there may be occasions where no such evidence is available. Where this Service is satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, a resident has incurred costs but has not evidenced this, a landlord may be asked to pay an amount in recognition of the fact that the resident has incurred costs that would not have arisen had the maladministration not occurred.
In this case, the resident has not provided evidence of her travel costs, but on the balance of probabilities, the Ombudsman is satisfied that some reasonable costs would have been incurred from the middle of June 2021 until the insulation was fitted in September 2021.
Further, this Service has determined that there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for reimbursement of travel expenses, which would have caused frustration and inconvenience to the resident.
As such, orders to ‘put things right’ are made: £100 for failures in its response to the resident’s request for reimbursement of travel expenses. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which sets out amounts of up to £100 where there has been a service failure which has impacted the resident, and £400 in recognition of any travel costs the resident incurred.
A further order is made to ensure that learning is taken from this complaint.

The resident’s reports of the impact of damp and mould on her health and wellbeing

While this Service was sorry to learn of the physical and mental health issues that the resident has described, this investigation is unable to determine a causal link between these and the landlord’s actions. Often when there is a dispute over whether a health issue has been caused or made worse, the courts rely on expert evidence in the form of a medico-legal report. Without that evidence, this Service is not able to draw any conclusions on whether the resident’s health has been affected by the way in which the landlord handled her reports of mould.
It is however the role of this Service to assess how the landlord responded to the reports made by the resident regarding the impact that the damp and mould was having on her health and wellbeing, and whether its response was reasonable and proportionate in all circumstances of the case. This Service can also review whether the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. 
The resident drew the landlord’s attention to her health issues multiple times between October 2020 and September 2021. She advised the landlord of breathing difficulties, asthma, stress, and anxiety. She also advised the landlord that she had been hospitalised on more than one occasion.
The landlord’s complaints procedure advises that staff are responsible for updating the complaint record to ensure that all discussions, actions and pertinent correspondence is uploaded to the system so that a full record is held on the customer’s account. Internal correspondence provided by the landlord dated 6 May 2021 references that the first mention the resident had made of the impact on her health was on 20 April 2021 when her complaint was logged. It is however noted in the repair log, dated 14 October 2020, that the resident had informed the landlord that she would be contacting environmental health to see if the condition of her property had any link with the health issues she was experiencing, as she had not had breathing difficulties or asthma before.
The landlord did not appear to have an up to date record regarding the resident’s health concerns. Staff should have a way of easily identifying reports that residents have made in relation to their vulnerabilities. This knowledge can assist staff with understanding any actions that are needed to help ensure resident wellbeing and safety, and ensure residents receive appropriate advice and support.
On 20 April 2021 the resident submitted a formal complaint in which she referred to suffering from stress and anxiety and having been hospitalised with breathing issues, before returning to a home with mould in it. She described feeling sad and angry at how she was being treated.
On 28 April 2021 the resident advised the landlord again that she had been hospitalised and said that her situation was an emergency due to the impact it was having on her health. She referred to the distress she was experiencing as unacceptable and said that “other than cry I don’t know what else to do”. The resident continued to advise the landlord of her health concerns throughout her complaint. The landlord referenced her wellbeing concerns in its internal communications, for example when attempting to bring forward appointment dates. There is, however, no evidence to suggest that the landlord responded directly to the resident to acknowledge her health concerns and hospitalisations or provided any support in this respect.
This was a failing on the part of the landlord and indicates a lack of empathy with the resident. This would have been distressing and frustrating for the resident who had reported her health concerns on multiple occasions. The compensation that was offered to the resident in the final response (being for ‘time and trouble’ and the delayed complaint response) did not take into account the impact that the delayed repair had on her wellbeing and the distress caused.
The landlord should learn from this complaint and ensure that its staff recognise when residents disclose their vulnerabilities and the need to respond appropriately. The landlord should also ensure that customer records are kept updated with relevant medical information.
This Service has determined that there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of the impact of mould and damp on her health and wellbeing. As such, an order for £400 compensation is made, in recognition of the adverse effect to the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord operates a two stage complaints process:

a. Stage 1: The landlord aims to acknowledge front line resolution (FLR) complaints within five working days and to provide a written response within 10 working days.

b. Stage 2: The landlord aims to respond to all investigation stage complaints within 20 working days and will ensure that customers are informed whether their complaint has been upheld and what action will be taken to resolve the situation.

The landlord’s complaints procedure advises that conversation with customers remains at the heart of the process and that all customers will receive a written response to their complaint at each stage of the process.
In respect of “time, trouble and inconvenience” the landlord’s complaints procedure confirms that payments of up to £400 may be made in recognition of a service failure.
In respect of poor complaints handling, the landlord’s complaints procedure confirms payment up to £150 may be made where the resident has experienced significant difficulties raising a complaint, there has been a delayed response and poor quality correspondence. It also confirms that when considering compensation, the landlord will take into account:
1. the overall time, trouble and inconvenience suffered and whether this was reasonably foreseeable
2. any known costs that have reasonably been incurred
3. consideration of household vulnerabilities
4. recognition of any failure to follow policies and procedures.
The resident submitted a formal complaint on 20 April 2021, and it was acknowledged in line with the landlord’s complaints policy. Following receipt of the resident’s complaint there was ongoing contact with the resident but the complaint remained unresolved.
On 17 June 2021 the landlord asked the resident if she wanted her complaint to be escalated to stage two, which she did. This was not in line with the landlord’s internal complaints process. The landlord ought to have provided a stage one response within the timeframes set out in its policy.
The resident was sent a formal acknowledgement of her complaint on 24 June 2021 which advised that the landlord was looking into the repair delays and that it aimed to reply to the stage two complaint by 19 July 2021. It advised too that due to Covid-19 there may be delays.
The stage two acknowledgement contained no reference to some of the issues the resident had made in her complaint, such as her health concerns and the taxi expenses she said she had incurred. It did not reference the request that she had made for external contractors, or her comments regarding the cancellation list. The resident subsequently replied to the landlord’s acknowledgement, reiterating the travel costs she was incurring as well as the detrimental impact on her health.
The resident spent time and trouble trying to ensure that the landlord had understood her complaint. This could have been avoided by the landlord sending an acknowledgement in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. The Complaint Handling Code states that the acknowledgement should set out the landlord’s understanding of the complaint and the outcomes the resident is seeking. If any aspect of the complaint is unclear, the resident must be asked for clarification and the full definition agreed between both parties.
The stage two response was issued in two parts. The first part was issued on 19 July 2021, in line with the expectations that the landlord had set with the resident for a response date. While the landlord was unable to provide a full response at this point, it offered an apology and explained the reasons why the response would be in two parts. It also provided a date for responding in full which was to be within 20 working days (this would have been by around 13 August 2021). No mention was made however of the resident’s reference to her health concerns or the expenses she had mentioned.
On 16 September 2021 the landlord noted that it had contacted the resident to apologise for the lack of contact regarding her outstanding complaint response. The resident explained again about the impact on her health and how she felt she could not stay in the property. She mentioned being referred to hospital twice for breathing issues. She was advised that her complaint would be responded to when the casework officer returned from leave, which was in two weeks’ time. The resident reiterated that she felt her health had not been taken into consideration and that she was expecting the taxi fares to be reimbursed.
The second part of the stage two response was significantly delayed, and no holding response was sent. The resident had to follow up with the landlord to find out when she could expect to be contacted. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code specifies that landlords must respond to the stage two complaint within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. Exceptionally, landlords may provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be received. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason. If an extension beyond 10 working days is required to enable the landlord to respond to the complaint fully, this should be agreed by both parties. Avoidable delays add to the distress and inconvenience caused to a resident and undermine the trust and confidence a resident has in their landlord.
On 17 November 2021 the resident contacted the landlord as she had not yet received a response to her complaint. The landlord apologised and advised her to expect a response on 3 December 2021. The second part of the stage two response was issued on 6 December 2021.
The landlord did not follow its own complaints policy in relation to responding to the resident’s complaint. An effective complaints handling process enables the landlord to learn from the issues that arise and take steps to improve the service that it provides. It can help to resolve an issue before it becomes more complicated or challenging and promotes a positive landlord and resident relationship.
The resident is unlikely to have felt heard or understood due to the delays that occurred responding to her complaint, and the lack of acknowledgement regarding some of the issues that she had raised.
This Service has determined that there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. It is acknowledged that the landlord has offered redress of £150 for the delayed complaint response. This Service welcomes the landlord’s approach and there is evidence to show that it is applying the dispute resolution principles to its complaint handling. It is the role of the Ombudsman to determine whether the amount offered was fair and reasonable given the circumstances.
It is this Service’s view that the amount offered by the landlord does not fairly reflect the adverse effect on the resident. In the Ombudsman’s remedy guide for compensation where there has been service failure which has had no permanent impact but has had an adverse effect, awards of £100 – £600 are considered appropriate.
As such, an order for £300 is made for the landlord’s complaint handling failures. The landlord should learn from this complaint and ensure that complaint responses are sent in line with its policy. Landlords should keep residents regularly updated about the progress of the investigation even where there is no new substantive information to provide, and respond to all issues raised within a complaint. Landlords should only escalate a complaint to stage two once it has completed stage one and at the request of the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for reimbursement of travel costs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould on her health and wellbeing.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and Recommendations

Within six weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:

a. Pay the resident £1,500 comprising of:

£300 for overall time and trouble regarding the complaint (as offered by the landlord already in its stage two response)
£300 for the failure in its complaint handling
£100 for the handling of the resident’s request for reimbursement of travel expenses
£400 towards any travel costs the resident may have incurred
£400 for its consideration of the resident’s vulnerabilities.

b. Any payments that may already have been made and accepted by the resident as offered in the stage two response should be deducted from the above total amount of £1,500.

c. The landlord to ensure that there is a clear record of the resident’s medical issues on file to assist with any future housing issues.

d. If it hasn’t already done so in the last 12 months, carry out staff training on how to manage and respond to complaints, in line with the complaint handling code.

e. If it hasn’t already done so in the last 12 months, carry out staff training on how to manage requests for reimbursement of any costs incurred such as in this case.

f. Send a written apology to the resident in relation to any failures identified.

g. The landlord to provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders.

Recommendations

The landlord to identify training opportunities to help ensure staff respond appropriately to residents when they disclose vulnerabilities.
Following this Service’s recent conversation with the resident, this Service understands that works are still outstanding in relation to repairs at this property and the mould and damp issue. This Service understands that an inspection in March 2023 was undertaken by the landlord and a list of works were recommended that have not yet been progressed. This Service recommends that all works are progressed in line with the conclusion in the inspection report that “all works should be carried out ASAP”.