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

Sanctuary Housing Association (202206512)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202206512

Sanctuary Housing Association

28 June 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

1.     The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs required to the resident’s property.

2.     The landlord’s complaints handling has also been investigated.

Background and summary of events

Background

3.     The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord at the property, a four bedroomed terraced property suitable for 8 persons. The property is occupied by the resident, her spouse and 5 children. 

4.     The resident moved to the property by way of mutual exchange in 2008. 

5.     The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for any of the occupants. However, the resident’s communications with the landlord refer on various occasions to her children having vulnerabilities.

6.     The landlord has provided this Service with its relevant policies regarding repairs and maintenance and complaints.

7.     With regard to repairs, the tenancy agreement states that it is the landlord’s obligation to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the premises. This obligation includes repairs to gutters; the roof; door and window frames, catches and glass; internal walls, floors and ceiling plasterwork; paint and decoration where the need for it is caused by the landlord or its contractors carrying out repairs; and boundary fences.

8.     The landlord’s repairs policy categorises repairs as emergency or appointed repairs. Emergency repairs are those necessary to remove a serious threat to the health and safety of residents or the structure and fabric of their home. Examples given in the policy include a water leak coming through the ceiling. The landlord’s response to emergency repair requests is to attend and make safe the property within 24 hours of receipt of the repair request. A second appointment may be required to complete all remedial works following initial attendance.

9.     Appointed repairs are non-emergency repairs for which access to the property is required. Examples given in the policy include leaking gutters and repairs to boundary walls. The landlord aims to complete all appointed repairs within 28 days and at an appointment time agreed with the resident. Where repairs require specialist parts to be ordered, or for specialist contractors to be called in, the landlord should keep service users informed of the progress of their repair and provide an update when the work will be completed.

10. The landlord’s complaints policy provides a two stage complaints procedure. At the first stage, front line staff of the landlord dealing with the complaint will seek to discuss concerns and agree appropriate action with residents in order to resolve the problem. The landlord aims to propose a resolution within 10 working days. Where this is not possible, residents will be informed of this and when a response will be provided. 

11. The policy states that at Stage 1, all complaints will receive a formal written response that will set out formally: what has been considered as part of the complaint; the agreed/proposed action to be taken to resolve the problem;  timescales for resolution where actions are required; whether the complaint is upheld, partially upheld or not upheld; any offer of compensation or goodwill considered appropriate; and how the resident can escalate their complaint if they are dissatisfied.

12. Where a complaint cannot be resolved at the first stage, and the complaint is escalated to Stage 2, an investigation will be conducted by the landlord’s investigating officer by way of a full review. The landlord will provide a Stage 2 written response within 20 working days.

13. The landlord’s complaints policy and procedure provides guidance as to the circumstances when compensation will be considered and the scale of compensation awards.

Summary of events

14. The resident’s complaint concerns a number of repair issues at her property, some of which are long standing.

15. The landlord has provided repair records covering the period 12 May 2018 to 19 July 2022. For the reasons stated in paragraph 80, the focus of this investigation report is the period from July 2021, being the six month period prior to the resident logging her formal complaint to the landlord on 10 January 2022.

16. It is clear from the landlord’s repair log, however, that some of the resident’s concerns raised in this complaint were long standing. By way of background and context, a communication from the resident to the landlord via social media dated 19 January 2021 provided detail of her concerns at that time:

a.     There were gaps when the windows were closed, which the resident had sealed with foam.

b.     Some windows had broken catches.

c.      There was damp in the property, including a wet stain to the wall in a child’s bedroom, which had damaged clothes. 

d.     Broken guttering was making the walls wet.

e.     Remedial repairs were required to the bathroom following a repair to a burst pipe. The flooring was damaged and boxing in was required.

f.        She was running a dehumidifier every day to combat the damp issues and keeping the heating on all day due to the air coming through the gaps in the windows.

17. Photographs accompanying this communication show gaps when the window was closed and a wet stain to the wall.

18. In response to this communication, the landlord encouraged the resident to report the concerns to the maintenance team as it said that it would otherwise not be able to raise any orders for them to be fixed. The resident explained that everything had been raised and had been marked as done. She explained that this was how the landlord had left the bathroom and windows after she had raised the repairs repeatedly. She had to report the damp to the wall but this was a historical issue she had reported and which the landlord had said was condensation. She stated that she got “rubbish service” but would call the maintenance team again.

19. It is not clear from the landlord’s repair records when the resident raised her concerns with the maintenance team as she said she would do. However, an entry in the repairs log on 2 September 2021 records that a housing officer requested that the landlord’s surveyor conduct a joint inspection of the resident’s property to assess the repairs. This inspection was originally scheduled for 23 September 2021 and on that day was rescheduled to 30 September 2021. Due to a petrol shortage, it was rescheduled again to 7 October 2021.

20. In the interim, on 28 September 2021, the resident reported a roof leak at her property to the landlord. The landlord’s surveyor who was due to conduct the inspection was informed. He advised that if the tenant was in danger an operative should attend to make it safe and report back works for the electrician and that it would be good to have the roof checked as well.

21. On 29 September 2021, the landlord raised an order to repair the roof leak. The repair log notes these as emergency works. The repair log records that the landlord’s customer services centre booked an appointment on 30 September 2021 to make the electrics safe at the resident’s property and arranged for roofing contractors to attend the property urgently to fix the leak. On 30 September 2021, the landlord’s roofing contractors advised that they could not accept the job as they had no availability. The job was re-raised with alternative contractors who attended the property on 1 October 2021 and advised that scaffolding was needed to complete the repair. 

22. On 7 October 2021, the joint inspection of the property took place. Following this visit, on 12 October 2021, the surveyor sent an internal email advising on the condition of the property, which included the following:

a.     The front and back gutters were leaking. 

b.     The damp to the top of the wall in the bedrooms was due to the faulty gutters and soffit.

c.      All UPVC windows and doors were blown and seals perished and past economical repair.

d.     Boxing around the pedestal and tiling needed to be completed to the floor at the back of the toilet area in the bathroom.

23. The email also set out the steps to be taken in relation to these repairs which included the following:

a.     Quotes were required for new UPVC windows and doors throughout.

b.     A quote was required for new gutters front and back and to report back on the fascia board. 

c.      An operative was to fit UPVC boxing around the pedestal to the bath and tile down to the floor behind the toilet. 

24. The landlord’s surveyor requested quotes for the replacement windows and doors and guttering from the contractors the same day.

25. Following the surveyor’s advice, and prior to the date of the resident’s formal complaint to the landlord, the repairs required to the property were actioned by the landlord as follows.

Roof repairs and guttering

26. On 11 October 2021, the resident communicated with the landlord via social media regarding the roof repair. She stated that she had waited 2 weeks for the repair to be started and had no light in the bathroom because of the leak. She had received no information from the surveyor or housing officer as to the scaffolding. In response, she was informed that her communication had been passed on to the maintenance team.

27. The resident chased the roof repair again on 13 October 2021 by a communication via social media. On 14 October 2021, the landlord chased the roofing contractors for the quote and advised the resident of this.

28. On 18 October 2021, the resident sent a communication to the landlord via social media, stating that she had no light in the bathroom and water came through the ceiling each time it rained. She was informed that the landlord was awaiting a quote for the scaffolding and was advised how to raise a complaint.

29. The landlord’s repair records show that around 19 October 2021, an estimate for the scaffolding was provided to the landlord’s surveyor by its contractors and forwarded by him for internal approval. On the same day, the landlord’s surveyor instructed the roofing contractors to quote for works to the roof and guttering once the scaffolding was up and if it was an easy fix to call him from the site to proceed with the works.

30. On 21 October 2021, the resident sent a further communication to the landlord via social media, chasing the roof repair and guttering as well as other repairs advised by the landlord’s surveyor. With regard to the guttering, she complained that nobody was addressing that the guttering to the front and back of the house needed fixing and that it was causing the internal walls to be wet every time it rained. The landlord advised that it would be in touch as soon as there was an update regarding the repair.

31. Around 25 October 2021, the scaffolding was erected prior to repair works planned on 3 November 2021. The resident was updated with this information by on 28 October 2021.

32. The roof repair was completed on 4 November 2021.  

33. It is not clear from the landlord’s records why the repair to the guttering was not completed at the same time as the roof. The repair log shows that the landlord created a new repair record for the guttering on 28 October 2021 with a target date for completion of 25 November 2021. This noted that the front and back guttering end caps and all brackets had come away and that the contractor should report back if it required full replacement. It would therefore appear that the landlord set up a new repair record for the guttering notwithstanding that the landlord’s surveyor had already requested quotes from the contractor for the replacement of the gutters on 12 October 2021. 

34. The landlord’s repair log shows that the landlord tried to contact its contractors by telephone about the guttering repair without success on 23 November 2021. The landlord sent an email to the contractors asking for a date for the repair, noting that there was a target date of 25 November 2021 for the job to be completed, and the resident had not heard anything.

35. The scaffolding was taken down on 26 November 2021.

36. On 1 December 2021, the resident telephoned the landlord to chase the guttering repair. On 6 December 2021, she sent a communication via social media stating that she had no date for the guttering. She also emailed her housing officer on 13 December 2021, asking that he assist as the guttering had had a completion date of 26 November 2021, she had wet walls again and she was having to pay for a dehumidifier for all day use. The housing officer asked the landlord’s customer services centre team for an update.

37. The landlord’s repair records show that the landlord’s customer services centre contacted the contractors, following up the quote for the guttering repair on 6 December 2021, 14 December 2021 and 20 December 2021. The landlord was informed by its contractors that the quote was being prepared. There is no record that the resident was updated during this time.

38. On 20 December 2021, the resident emailed the housing officer regarding the guttering as well as other repairs. She stated that the guttering had still not been replaced and water was running down the wall when it rained. She asked to escalate the matter to a complaint procedure.

39. On 5 January 2022, the resident reported to her housing officer that the guttering repairs were still outstanding. 

40. As at the date of the resident’s formal complaint to the landlord on 10 January 2022, the guttering repairs had not commenced and the landlord had not obtained a quote for the work from its contractors.

Replacement UPVC windows and doors

41. There is no evidence in the repair records provided by the landlord to this Service that a quote was received from the landlord’s contractors in response to the landlord’s surveyor’s request on 12 October 2021 or that any action was taken by the landlord to follow it up prior to the resident’s formal complaint.

42. The resident chased the landlord regarding the windows to her property as well as other repairs in a communication via social media on 21 October 2021. She was informed that the landlord would be in touch when there was an update to her repairs. 

43. The resident emailed her housing officer on 13 December 2021 and 14 December 2021 regarding outstanding repairs to her property, including the windows. In the email of 14 December 2021, she stated that she had been informed that she would have a 3 year wait for her windows. The landlord’s housing officer did not respond to this statement or take action in relation to it.  

Tiling work to bathroom

44. The landlord’s repair log notes that on 12 October 2021 the landlord scheduled an appointment to attend the property to tile the wall behind the toilet and fit boxing. On 25 October 2021, the landlord’s operative attended the property to carry out this work.

45. Following this visit, on 25 October 2021, the resident complained to the landlord via social media, and by email to the housing officer, regarding the standard of work carried out. She reported that the wall behind the toilet cistern had not been tiled down to the floor as advised by the surveyor, and which was required in order to prevent mould. The operative had reused old water damaged wood for the boxing rather than a new piece. 

46. The resident also complained about the behaviour of the landlord’s operative who had walked mud into her property, huffed about wearing a mask and left her bathroom in a mess. She advised the landlord that she did not wish for the operative to return.

47. On 28 October 2021, the landlord confirmed to the resident that it had raised a repair survey. There is no record in the evidence supplied by the landlord that this survey took place.

48. As at the date of the resident’s formal complaint to the landlord, the remedial work to the repair remained an outstanding issue. 

Fencing

49. On 19 November 2021, the resident reported that her back boundary fence had broken as the post had rotted and the fence was not safe or secure. The landlord spoke to the resident that day and she advised that she had tied the fence up and that there were vulnerable children at the property so she could not be without a fence. An appointment was booked for 1 December 2021, at which the resident was advised that the fence would need replacing.

50. On 1 December 2021, the resident communicated with the landlord via social media regarding the fence. She stated that she had been informed at that day’s appointment that it would be fixed on 13 January 2022 and that no temporary fencing had been offered. She had multiple autistic children who were unable to go outside without supervision. She reported that the garden was open to a public alley and a man and children had come into the garden. She complained that she had waited an hour on hold to contact the landlord on the telephone.  Her children and her property in her shed were at risk. The landlord responded that the information had been sent to its maintenance department.

51. On the same day, the resident emailed her housing officer to report that she had been informed that she would not be provided with temporary fencing and had been told it was her responsibility to make things in the garden safe. She queried how she would do this without a fence. 

52. On 6 December 2021, the resident reported to the landlord via social media that she needed temporary fencing to her garden and that a man had entered the garden that night. 

53. On 10 December 2021, the resident reported via social media that she was still chasing repairs.

54. On 13 December 2021, the resident emailed the housing officer chasing repairs to the fence. She was advised by the housing officer that 13 January 2022 was the earliest that the fence could be fixed and to keep valuable items locked away and report suspicious activity to the police. 

55. On 14 December 2021, the housing officer informed the resident that he had asked the repair team to put up some form of temporary fencing.

56. The landlord’s repair log records that on 14 December 2021, the repair team sought to bring forward the repair with its contractors but was unable to do so.  On 15 December 2021, the landlord considered in internal communications whether temporary plastic fencing could be used to secure the garden but the planning department advised that the fence was fully down and as such no temporary repair could be made. They would review whether it was possible to bring forward the repair to the following week.

57. On 20 December 2021, the resident emailed her housing officer to inform him she had had no call about the fence. 

58. On 21 December 2021, the tenant was advised that the repair had been brought forward to 30 December 2021. The landlord’s repair log records that the works to replace the fence were completed on 30 December 2021.

The resident’s complaint

59. On 7 January 2022, the landlord’s housing officer emailed its complaints department on behalf of the resident, regarding the outstanding repairs to her property.

60. On 10 January 2022, the landlord’s Customer Services Officer (CSO) confirmed in an email to the resident that a complaint had been recorded and that she aimed to contact the resident within 10 working days with a formal response.

61. In her email, the CSO summarised her understanding of the issues with which the complaint was concerned. These were follow on works following visit from the surveyor, including:

a.     issues with windows and doors

b.     windows wet around the frames

c.      damp around patio door on the floor

d.     front and rear guttering

e.     the internal wall was wet

f.        damage to bathroom ceiling following a leak

g.     bodged boxing and tiling in the bathroom

h.     follow up repair following gas safety check (valves).

62. The resident gave further detail on these issues in an email to the CSO the same day. The resident explained that:

a.     She had had a historical battle about windows and doors with the landlord dating back 8 years. She had been told by the surveyor that the windows and doors were to be replaced. There were gaps when the windows were closed which the resident had sealed with 1 – 2 inches of foam. Some windows were too damaged to open or were difficult to close once opened. One bedroom had suffered from water damage due to a leaking window. The frame inside the window was wet and plaster was crumbling off.

b.     The guttering was broken. The surveyor had informed her that the guttering to the front and back of the property needed replacing.

c.      The front wall was wet due to the guttering not functioning and so had mould and mildew growing. The corner of the room became wet when it rained due to the guttering being broken. Clothes belonging to the resident’s family had been lost as a result.

d.     She had had to use dehumidifiers to prevent further loss of belongings at a high energy cost to her.

e.     An operative had visited her property months ago to do a quote but the landlord said that they had not received it despite her being given 26 November 2021 as a completion date for the repair.

f.        It took the landlord 10 weeks to fix a broken tile on the roof that allowed water to come through the bathroom ceiling.

g.     There was damp in the property. The resident was unable to have carpet in the property as it went mouldy. The resident had laminate flooring with a damp proof membrane and still had silver fish downstairs in every room. The patio never dried out. The resident had had to pay for anti mould paint in every room.

63. Between 10 January 2022 and 17 March 2022, the landlord’s CSO had a series of communications with the resident regarding the complaint:

a.     On 19 January 2022, she confirmed to the resident that the surveyor who had visited her property on 7 October 2021 had requested quotes for the replacement windows doors and guttering. She was waiting to hear from him if the quotes had been received and sent for approval. She had escalated the matter to the landlord’s senior surveyor.

b.     On 4 February 2022, she informed the resident that she had received no update from either of the surveyors and had escalated the matter again.

c.      On 15 February 2022, she informed the resident that the surveyor who had visited her property had left the business in late 2021 which is why she had not received a response. She had spoken to the senior surveyor who had emailed contractors regarding the windows, doors and guttering issues and the internal damp the resident was experiencing. She also reported that the senior surveyor was happy to make good the damage to the bathroom ceiling if it was still needed. The resident confirmed that if it was proposed to use more filler to repair the damage to the ceiling she would not bother. She reiterated her concerns regarding other repair issues required to the bathroom tiling and boxing.

d.     On 18 February 2022, the resident advised that the boundary fence had broken again and that she had had to screw the gate shut to the post.

e.     On 3 March 2002, the CSO confirmed that the fence repair had been referred to maintenance. She had asked the senior surveyor to expedite the repair issues.

64. During the period between 10 January 2022 and 17 March 2022, the landlord’s records show that the landlord’s CSO and senior surveyor chased the landlord’s contractors to produce the quotes for the replacement guttering and the replacement UPVC windows.

65. On 17 March 2022, the resident confirmed that the window contractors were attending her property on 6 April 2022 and that a damp specialist was attending on 1 April 2022. She asked for her complaint to be escalated.

66. On 29 March 2022, the resident confirmed in response to the landlord’s query that she wanted her complaint escalated to Stage 2. 

67. On 31 March 2022, the landlord’s Case Resolution Officer (CRO) acknowledged that the complaint was being dealt with under Stage 2 of the complaints procedure and that a response would be sent to the resident by 28 April 2022. 

68. On 28 April 2022, the landlord’s CRO provided its stage 2 response. The response:

a.     acknowledged and apologised for the delay in works to replace the resident’s windows and doors and renew the guttering which had been causing issues with damp in her home and the serious inconvenience this had caused her;

b.     explained that the repairs had taken much longer than they should have done due to delays in works being organised because the landlord’s surveyor left the organisation and there were delays in quotes being provided by its  contractors which had required approval in line with the landlord’s procedures; 

c.      assured the resident that this did not represent the standard of service she had the right to expect and that the issues she had experienced had been discussed with the senior surveyor so that improvements would be made in the future;

d.     explained the reasons for the delays following the surveyor’s visit on 7 October 2021, these being that the surveyor had left the employment of the landlord in November 2021; the contractor which had agreed to quote for the replacement of the guttering and fascias had delayed in doing so; following escalation of the matter to the senior surveyor, a quote for the guttering was sought from alternative contractors which was also delayed;

e.     stated that the landlord had received a quotation for the guttering works on 22 March 2022, which had been approved by the landlord, but the contractor had since advised that an asbestos survey would be required before they could complete the works and the landlord had asked its specialist contractor to carry this out;

f.        with reference to the damp issue in the resident’s home, explained that the landlord’s contractor had assessed the works that were necessary to treat the excessive mould in the property and had reported after their visit on 1 April 2022 that the walls were wet due to the guttering leak and defective windows and it was not a condensation issue which was their area of expertise;

g.     stated that the landlord’s contractors had been asked to quote for works to the windows and doors along with any internal mould treatment and one of their operatives had arranged to visit the property on 6 April 2022 for this purpose;

h.     stated that urgent updates on the quotes for works and asbestos survey had been requested from the contractors and the landlord’s CSC proactive repairs team had been asked to monitor the works through to completion;

i.        noted that, although it did not form part of the original complaint, the resident’s boundary fence had come down and the landlord had included it in the works which the CSC proactive repairs team had been asked to monitor;

j.        offered compensation to the resident of:

  1. £300 in recognition of the delays in the necessary works being arranged to replace the resident’s windows, doors and guttering in order to address the damp issues that had been affecting her home and the inconvenience this has caused her;
  2. £100 in appreciation of the inconvenience caused to the resident in chasing up the works and having to raise a complaint.

Post complaint

69. The resident acknowledged the Stage 2 response by email on 29 April 2022.  She thanked the landlord and said she felt listened to. She accepted the offered payment as going some way to cover the costs of the possessions which had been destroyed and the dehumidifiers she had bought. She reminded the landlord that the boxing and tiling to her bathroom remained unresolved. She also stated that she had an ongoing repair required to her back fence. This was preventing access and the resident could not take her rubbish out as she had had to screw the gate shut to the fence to hold it up.

70. In emails of 3 and 4 May 2022, the landlord’s CRO confirmed that he had forwarded the information regarding the unresolved repairs to the bathroom to the customer service centre and had asked the proactive repairs team to chase the works to the boundary fence with the contractors.

71. It is noted from the repairs log that a quotation was received by the landlord for the fencing works on 9 May 2022 and the resident was advised of this and that it had been sent for approval.

72. The resident subsequently sent various emails to the landlord seeking information as to the progress of the repairs which were the subject of her complaint. It is noted that the resident also logged new complaints with the landlord regarding the lack of progress and information provided to her regarding the repair works.

73. On 1 July 2022, the resident referred a complaint to this Service. The resident complained regarding the landlord’s handling of the repairs to her property; the landlord’s response to her reports of poor quality of repairs completed by contractors; the level of compensation offered by the landlord; and that repairs remained outstanding. The resident wanted to be reimbursed for the damage to her son’s clothes, furniture and purchase of dehumidifiers

74. With regard to outstanding repairs, it is understood from information provided by the landlord to this Service on 17 August 2022 that as at that date:

a.     With regard to the windows and doors, a quotation was received by the landlord on 6 July 2022 and approval granted. An order was raised for the works on 4 August 2022. The contractor would be contacting the resident to arrange installation once the items had been manufactured.

b.     With regard to the guttering, the repair remained outstanding. The asbestos report had been completed on 17 May 2022. An appointment had been made for the contractor to attend the property on 7 June 2022. A contractor attended on that day but had been instructed to fit brackets and not replace the guttering and facias as required. Accordingly, no works were done on that day. Subsequently, the contractor advised the landlord it was unable to get scaffolding due to lack of staff and on 15 August 2022 advised that it could not complete the works due to long term staff sickness. The landlord was seeking an alternative contractor to do the work.

c.      With regard to the wet walls, damp and mould at the property, on 4 August 2022, the landlord had offered to reimburse the resident for the cost of dehumidifiers and damage caused to possessions, in line with its complaints policy and procedure.

d.     With regard to the fence, the repairs were completed by the landlord’s contractor on 11 July 2022. On 2 August 2022, the resident reported that there was still an issue with the latch on the gate. The contractor had been booked to attend to this in the week commencing 15 August 2022.

e.     With regard to the boxing in and tiling to the bathroom, the landlord had raised a new works order with an external contractor on 10 August 2022 to attend the property to assess the works. Once completed, an order would be raised to complete the tiling urgently.

75. The resident also asked this Service to consider as part of her complaint that a gas safety check started in September 2021 remained incomplete. It is noted that the resident’s original complaint to the landlord, as summarised by the landlord’s CSO in her email of 10 January 2022, referred to a follow up repair which was required to the property’s heating system valves following a gas safety check in September 2021. It was drawn to the landlord’s attention by this Service that this element of the resident’s complaint had not been addressed in the landlord’s Stage 1 or 2 responses.

76. The landlord acknowledged this on 17 August 2022. The landlord confirmed to this Service that the annual gas safety check was completed on 25 October 2021. However, follow up work which was required to replace valves could not be fitted at the time due to scaffolding being up for the roof repair. This had prevented access to the external stop tap. The landlord informed this Service that it had arranged for a gas engineer to visit the property on 30 August 2022 to fit the valves and assess the system. The landlord also advised this Service that on 28 July 2022, it had acknowledged to the resident that there had been a service failure in this regard and offered a payment of £150 as a gesture of goodwill which the resident had accepted.

77. In recent emails to this Service, following the acceptance of her complaint, the resident has advised that the guttering was only completed in November 2022, that repairs have still not been fully completed and that she continues to have significant issues with the fitting and quality of the work in respect of the new  windows.

Scope of the investigation

78. Whilst it is noted that the resident continues to have concerns regarding the quality of works carried out by the landlord, this investigation report will not consider issues which have arisen after the date of the landlord’s Stage 2 response. This is because the landlord has not had an opportunity to investigate and respond to any complaint which may be raised by the resident in respect of those events. Any such issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.

79. It is noted that it is part of the resident’s complaint to this Service that she had to replace the bathroom flooring following a repair to the burst pipe. The landlord’s records show that these repair works were carried out on 19 July 2018.

80. The Ombudsman’s remit in relation to complaints is set out in its Scheme. Paragraph 42 of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in its opinion:

a.     were made prior to having exhausted a members complaints procedure (Paragraph 42 (a)); or

b.     were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising (Paragraph 42 (c)).

81. The resident’s complaint to the landlord was brought on 10 January 2022 which is significantly outside the period of 6 months since the event occurred. Moreover, this element of the landlord’s service was not brought as part of the resident’s formal complaint within the landlord’s formal complaints procedure.  Accordingly, this investigation report will not address this aspect of the resident’s complaint.

82. As stated in paragraphs 75 and 76 above, it was drawn to the attention of the landlord by this Service that it had not addressed in its Stage 1 and 2 responses that aspect of the resident’s complaint which concerns the outstanding repair to the valves of the resident’s gas heating system. The landlord has since informed this Service that on 28 July 2022, it acknowledged to the resident that there had been a service failure in this regard. The landlord stated that it had arranged for a gas engineer to visit the property on 30 August 2022 to fit the valves and assess the system. The landlord stated it had also offered of payment of £150 to the resident which she has accepted.

83. The landlord therefore acknowledged its service failure on its own initiative once this aspect of the complaint had been brought to its attention by this Service. It also took appropriate steps to put things right and offer reasonable redress for this aspect of the resident’s complaint. Accordingly, no findings or orders will be made in respect of this aspect of the resident’s complaint in this investigation report.

Assessment and findings

Repairs

84. The landlord’s records show that the resident’s property required multiple repairs to be carried out during the period covered by this investigation report. The landlord’s surveyor had identified and acknowledged the need for some of these repairs at his visit on 7 October 2021. Others were reported by the resident and were accepted by the landlord as its responsibility to repair. There were considerable delays in the landlord performing its repair obligations.

85. With regard to the roof leak reported by the resident on 28 September 2021, the landlord properly categorised this as an emergency repair: water leaks through the ceiling are given as an example of an emergency repair in the landlord’s repairs policy. The landlord’s repairs policy provides that emergency repairs should be made safe at the property within 24 hours of receipt of the repair request and that a second appointment may be required to complete all remedial works following initial attendance.

86. Initially, the landlord acted promptly, and in accordance with the repairs policy, in arranging for the resident’s property to be made safe on 30 September 2021 and sourcing roofing contractors with availability to attend to fix the leak at short notice on 1 October 2021. 

87. Having been advised by its contractors on 1 October 2021 that scaffolding was required to complete the repair, a second appointment should have been arranged by the landlord to complete the works. These works should have been prioritised by the landlord, given that the contractors had not been able to stop the water ingress to the resident’s property at the initial visit and therefore the urgent status of the required work continued. 

88. The repair was completed on 4 November 2021, a period of five weeks after the roof leak had been reported. Much of the delay was not due to the complexity of the repair but due to the quote for scaffolding being prepared by the landlord’s contractors. This took from 1 October 2021 until 19 October 2021 to produce. It would be reasonable to expect the landlord to have proactively chased the works with more urgency than the one occasion recorded in the repair log during this period, on 14 October 2021, given the circumstances of continuing water ingress to the resident’s property.

89. Five weeks was an unreasonable length of time for the resident to have to wait for the repair to be carried out under the circumstances. It is noted for context that under the landlord’s repairs policy the landlord aims to carry out appointed (i.e. non–emergency) repairs within 28 days. During this time, the resident suffered detriment of water ingress to her property and no light in her bathroom. The resident was also caused inconvenience in having to chase the landlord on four occasions in October in order to obtain updates on the progress of the works.  

90. With regard to the guttering, on 7 October 2021, the landlord’s surveyor had assessed that the front and back guttering to the property needed replacing and that a report on the condition of the fascia board was required. He assessed that the leaking gutter was the cause of the damp to the top of the wall of the resident’s property.

91. Leaking gutters are given as an example of an appointed repair under the landlord’s repairs policy. As such, the landlord should have aimed to complete the repair within 28 days.

92. The replacement of the guttering was excessively delayed. According to information provided by the landlord, the repair was still outstanding as at 17 August 2022, a period of more than 10 months after the need to replace the guttering had been identified by the landlord’s surveyor. It is understood from information recently provided to this Service by the resident that the guttering work was completed in November 2022. This is a delay of about a year in the expected timescales for the repair, during which time the resident suffered damp and wet walls to her property.

93. The landlord’s surveyor took the necessary action to advance the repair by  seeking quotes from contractors for the guttering replacement on 12 October 2021, shortly after conducting the survey. He also instructed the contractors on 19 October 2021 to contact him with a quote for the guttering once the scaffolding was up and if it was an easy fix to call him from the site to proceed with the works. 

94. It is not clear from the landlord’s records whether this contact ever occurred or why the scaffolding was taken down on 26 November 2021 without the guttering repair having been carried out. Confusion was also caused when the landlord created a new repair record for the guttering on 28 October 2021 which described the work required as replacement of the front and back guttering end caps and brackets. This record was inaccurate and unnecessary as a full replacement of the guttering had already been identified as required by the landlord’s surveyor on 7 October 2021. This repair record-keeping appears to have been the cause of an abortive visit from the landlord’s contractors on 7 June 2022 when the contractors attended to replace end caps and brackets to the guttering but were not equipped to carry out the full replacement of guttering required.

95. It is noted from the landlord’s Stage 2 response that its surveyor left the organisation in November 2021 which the landlord has referred to as a reason for delay. To the extent that this was a contributory factor in the delay and confusion over the guttering repair at around November 2021, this suggests a lack of proper internal communication by the landlord. Good record keeping and internal communication would have ensured a smooth handover in the event of the departure of key staff members.

96. After November 2021, there followed periods of delay in the guttering repair being carried out:

a.     between 26 November 2021 and 22 March 2022, during which period the landlord was awaiting a quotation for the works from its contractors;

b.     between 22 March 2022 and 17 May 2022, when the need for an asbestos report was identified and one was carried out by the landlord’s specialist contractors;

c.      due to an abortive appointment on 7 June 2022 when the contractors attended on an incorrect instruction to fit end brackets rather than replace the guttering and facias as required;

d.     between the appointment on 7 June 2022 and 15 August 2022 when the landlord’s contractors advised that they could not complete the works due to long term staff sickness, at which point the landlord sought alternative contractors to do the repair.

97. It is acknowledged that much of the above delay was caused by the landlord’s contractors. It is also acknowledged that the landlord’s customer services centre made consistent efforts to pursue the works, in particular, to follow up on the quotation on dates in December 2021 and again in January–March 2022 as part of the landlord’s attempts to resolve the resident’s Stage 1 complaint. However, delays caused by landlords’ contractors are considered the landlord’s delays, the effect being the same failure of service for the resident.

98. In this instance, the delay in the repair was excessive and significantly outside the timescales of 28 days set out in the landlord’s policy. During the period of delay, the resident was caused detriment of damp and wet walls to her property, the loss of personal possessions and the cost of buying and running dehumidifiers to combat the damp. The resident was caused inconvenience in having to communicate with the landlord on numerous occasions, both before and after making a formal complaint, regarding the progress of repairs to the guttering.

99. With regard to the UPVC windows and doors, this was a repair requiring specialist parts/contractors. As such, under the landlord’s repairs policy the landlord was obliged to keep service users informed of the progress of their repair and provide an update when the work would be completed.

100.         The landlord failed to act appropriately to progress the repair with its specialist contractors or update the resident during the period covered by this investigation report.

101.         The landlord’s surveyor sought quotes from contractors for the window and doors on 12 October 2021, shortly after conducting the survey on 7 October 2021. Thereafter, there is no evidence in the records provided by the landlord to this Service that a quote was received from the landlord’s contractors or that any action was taken by the landlord to follow it up prior to the resident’s formal complaint. That is notwithstanding that the resident chased the landlord on 21 October 2021 and in communications with her housing officer on 13 December 2021 and 14 December 2021.

102.         Following the resident’s complaint on 10 January 2022, the landlord’s customer services centre and senior surveyor pursued quotes for the replacement UPVC windows. It is understood from the Stage 2 response that specialist contractors attended the resident’s property on 6 April 2022 for this purpose. From information provided by the landlord to this Service on 17 August 2022, it appears that the quotation was not received by the landlord until 6 July 2022, a further unexplained delay of 3 months.

103.         As at 6 July 2022, therefore, some 9 months after the need for replacement windows and doors had been identified by the landlord, the repair had advanced only to the point of the landlord obtaining a quotation for the works. 

104.         This was an excessive and unreasonable delay by the landlord in progressing the works required to replace the resident’s windows. During this time, the resident was caused detriment. The defective windows caused wet walls, damp and mould to her property as confirmed by the landlord’s contractor at a visit on 1 April 2022. The resident also incurred extra heating bills to counteract the cold air coming through the gaps in the windows.

105.         It is understood from the resident that she has continuing concerns regarding the works which were subsequently carried out to the windows and doors of the property. As explained above, these are new issues which are outside the remit of this investigation. 

106.         With regard to the boxing and tiling work to the bathroom, the resident’s complaint to the landlord regarding the quality of this repair was reported on the day of the repair, namely 25 October 2021. The resident was concerned that the operative had not carried out the repair as required by the landlord’s surveyor.

107.         On 28 October 2021, the landlord confirmed to the resident that it had raised a repair survey. There is no record in the evidence supplied by the landlord that this survey took place or that any remedial work was done or assessed by the landlord during the period under review. In information provided to this Service by the landlord on 17 August 2022, it stated that it had raised a new works order with an external contractor on 10 August 2022 to attend the property to assess the works and that once completed, an order would be raised to complete the tiling urgently. It remains unclear at the time of this report whether the works have been completed.

108.         The landlord’s failure to take any action to address the resident’s concern in relation to this repair is particularly notable given that the resident raised it as part of her formal complaint. It was not addressed in the landlord’s responses and the resident reminded the landlord of the outstanding repair after the Stage 2 response was provided on 28 April 2022. She was informed by the CRO that he had forwarded the information regarding the unresolved bathroom repairs to the customer service centre yet this did not result in action to address the issue at that time.  

109.         The landlord’s delay in addressing the resident’s concerns regarding the quality of the repair over a period of 6 months, as at the date of the landlord’s Stage 2 response, and until the works order was raised on 10 August 2022 was excessive and unreasonable. It caused detriment to the resident who was unable to clean properly in the affected area of the bathroom. She was also caused inconvenience in having to chase the matter with the landlord.

110.         With regard to the resident’s boundary fence, the resident reported that her back boundary fence had broken on 19 November 2021 and she was advised by the landlord’s representative on 1 December 2021 that it would need replacing.

111.         The original date for the repair was fixed for 13 January 2022. After concerns were raised by the resident regarding the security of her property and children pending the repair, the landlord acted reasonably in considering the provision of  temporary fencing, although it received advice from its planning department that this was not possible. The landlord also acted reasonably in seeking to bring forward the date for repair, which it managed to do to complete the repair on 30 December 2021. 

112.         On 18 February 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that the boundary fence had broken again and that she had had to screw the gate shut to the fence post to hold it up. As an appointed repair, the landlord would be expected to complete the repair within 28 days.

113.         The landlord’s records show that the repair was not completed within this timeframe. By the time of the landlord’s Stage 2 response on 28 April 2022, the repair had been outstanding for 10 weeks. It was reasonable in these circumstances for the landlord to include the fence in the works which its CSC proactive repairs team had been asked to monitor. However, it appears from information provided by the landlord to this Service on 17 August 2022, that the fence repairs were not in fact carried out by the landlord’s contractor until 11 July 2022, a period of 5 months from the date of the resident’s report. The reasons for this further delay are not clear.

114.         The delay to repair of the fencing to the resident’s property was unreasonable and significantly outside the landlord’s expected timescales. The delay caused detriment to the resident as, during this period, she had no access via her fence gate as she had had to screw the gate shut to the fence to hold it up. The resident was also put to inconvenience in having to chase the landlord for updates on the progress of the works. 

115.         It is noted that the resident continued to have concerns regarding the quality of repair to the fence after it was carried out on 11 July 2022.  As explained above, this is a new issue which is outside the remit of this investigation.

116.         In summary, the resident had to wait for an unreasonably long time for repairs to be carried out to the roof, guttering, and fence of her property; for the landlord to progress the replacement UPVC windows and doors required to her property; and for her concerns regarding the tiling work to her bathroom to be addressed by the landlord.

117.         It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge in its Stage 2 response that there had been an unacceptable delay in works to replace the resident’s windows and doors and to renew the guttering and that this had caused damp to the resident’s home and serious inconvenience to her. It is noted that the amount of compensation offered by the landlord of £400 was in line with the upper scale of general compensation offered under the landlord’s compensation policy for a resident’s time, trouble and inconvenience in respect of a “high effort, high impact” service failure by the landlord.

118.         However, the £300 compensation offered to the resident at that stage for delayed works, and £100 offered for the inconvenience caused to the resident in chasing up the works and having to raise a complaint, was not proportionate to the adverse effect caused to her by the multiple outstanding repairs which the resident suffered in this case. It also did not fully take into account the detriment suffered by the resident by the landlord’s delay in completing the repair to her roof and addressing the repair work to her bathroom, which were parts of the resident’s complaints not addressed in the landlord’s responses. The compensation offered also appeared to take no account of the fact that the resident’s family had vulnerabilities and that this exacerbated the effect of the landlord’s failings with regard to their impact on the use of the home.

119.         In light of this, the landlord is ordered to pay a further award of compensation of £500 for its maladministration with regard to the unreasonable delay in the works and a further £100 for the resident’s inconvenience and distress caused by the delays. This brings the total compensation payable to the resident to £1,000 being made up of £800 for service failures in respect of the repairs and £200 for time and trouble.

120.         The landlord is ordered to reimburse the resident for the cost of dehumidifiers and damage caused to her possessions as it agreed to do on 4 August 2022, if it has not already done so.

121.         The landlord is ordered to conduct an inspection of the property to ensure that all works the subject of this complaint are now completed and that there are no further issues with regard to water ingress or damp at the resident’s property. 

Complaint handling

122.         The resident’s complaint was raised via her housing officer on 7 January 2022. This was acknowledged by the landlord on 10 January 2022 in an exchange of emails with the resident on that day when the resident provided further detail of the complaint.

123.         In accordance with Stage 1 of the landlord’s complaints procedure, the front line staff of the landlord discussed the resident’s concerns with her and sought to  resolve the problem within 10 working days. This is evident from the email communications between the CSO and the resident which took place between 10 January 2022 and 17 March 2022. However, after the period of 10 working days, these communications continued on for a further period of 6 weeks without effect on the resolution of the complaint, save for eliminating by agreement with the resident the need to make good the damage to the ceiling of the bathroom. This prolonged the period during which the resident sought to resolve her complaint.

124.         No formal response to the complaint was provided by the landlord at Stage 1, although one was required under the complaints policy within 10 working days, containing the elements set out in paragraph 11 above. A formal response would have given clarity to the resident at this stage as to the status of her complaint and her repairs.

125.         The resident’s request to escalate the complaint was appropriately acknowledged on 31 March 2022 by the landlord’s CRO and a response was agreed to be provided, and was provided, by 28 April 2022, within policy timescales. 

126.         The Stage 2 response addressed the resident’s complaints with regard to the delay in the guttering repair and replacement UPVC windows and doors. It also helpfully addressed the boundary fence repair which was an outstanding repair but had not formed part of the resident’s original complaint. 

127.         However, the response did not address the resident’s complaint regarding the repair to the bathroom boxing and tiling. This meant that the resident had to follow up this aspect of her complaint by email to the CRO. The response also did not address the resident’s complaint regarding the delay in repair to the roof. The response did not state whether the complaint was upheld, partially upheld or not upheld, as required under the complaints policy, which would have caused uncertainty to the resident.

128.         The Stage 2 response committed to attend to the outstanding repairs to the guttering, windows and doors as soon as possible and referred the works to the CSC proactive repairs team to monitor through to their completion. This was appropriate action by the landlord although it is noted that this commitment did not, in the event, serve to put things right for the resident. There continued to be significant delays in these repairs after the Stage 2 response, requiring the resident to pursue her complaint via this Service.

129.         The Stage 2 response did not address the additional costs incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s action or inaction, as there is scope to do under the complaints policy. This would have been appropriate as the resident had incurred additional costs of dehumidifiers and had lost personal possessions due to the damp in her home. The landlord agreed to reimburse these costs only after referral of the complaint to this Service.

130.         There were failures in complaint handling as outlined above, which meant that the resident had to spend significantly more time and trouble in seeking to resolve her complaint than would reasonably be expected. Under the circumstances, an award of £100 would be reasonable compensation to the resident. 

Determination (decision)

131.         In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the repairs reported by the resident.

132.         In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

133.         The landlord failed to deal with multiple repairs required to the resident’s property in a timely manner. The delays in repairs were unreasonable and outside the landlord’s repair policy timescales and caused significant detriment to the resident.

134.         The landlord failed to deal with the resident’s complaint fully in compliance with its complaints policy at both Stages 1 and 2. This resulted in delay for the resident in resolving the issues which were the subject of her complaint.

Orders

135.         Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:

a.     Write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.

b.     Pay the resident £1,000 compensation for its failures in handling the repairs to the resident’s property which are the subject of this complaint (inclusive of the £400 awarded through its complaints process, if this has not already been paid). This is made up of £500 for its unreasonable delay in attending to the repairs and a further £100 for the distress and inconvenience to the resident caused by the delay to repairs. 

c.      Reimburse the resident for the cost of dehumidifiers and damage caused to her possessions by water ingress and damp, if that has not already been done. If it is unable to reimburse her for damaged possessions, it should signpost her as to how she can make a liability insurance claim.

d.     Pay the resident £100 as compensation for time and trouble caused by its poor complaint handling.

e.     Carry out an inspection of the resident’s property to ensure that all necessary repairs which were the subject of this complaint have been completed and that the issues of damp and water ingress to the resident’s property have been fully resolved.

f.        The landlord should contact this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this determination to confirm its compliance with the above orders. 

Recommendation

g.     The landlord should implement staff training to ensure that those handling complaints from residents do so in compliance with the landlord’s complaints policy.

h.     The landlord should reply to this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this determination to advise of its intentions in regard to the above recommendation.