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

Sage Housing Limited (202221052)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202221052

Sage Housing Limited

19 September 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;
    1. repairs to the communal pipework.
    2. damage to communal areas.
    3. the resident’s request for a replacement carpet and skirting boards in her property.
    4. the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord, under a shared ownership scheme. She lives in a one bed ground floor flat and moved into the property on 22 December 2021. The property was a new build property. There are physical health issues noted on file.
  2. The resident reported a leak from the pipework in the communal hallway on 16 April 2022, due to a burst pipe, which damaged the carpet and skirting boards in the area. This also penetrated the resident’s property and caused damage to her carpet and skirting boards. Whilst the landlord attended to the leak shortly afterwards, there was a further leak on 8 July 2022.
  3. The resident submitted a Stage 1 complaint on 25 August 2022. She complained about the burst pipe on 16 April 2022 and 8 July 2022, which she had been advised were due to an incorrectly installed pipe. She complained that the burst pipe caused damage and damp to the  carpets in the communal area, that the skirting boards were damaged and that the area smelt of damp and that the communal electrical cupboard had black mould in it. She advised that although the burst pipe of 8 July 2022 was reported the same day, that nobody came to inspect until 12 July 2022, and that it was not repaired until 15 July 2022. She was concerned that no work had been carried out to remedy the damage caused by the burst pipe and that she had spent a considerable amount of time chasing these repairs and that this caused a deterioration in her health conditions. She also complained about various other issues in the property but these have now been resolved and the resident does not wish the other matters to be investigated.
  4. The landlord responded to the resident’s Stage 1 complaint on 23 September 2022. It advised the resident that the developer was responsible for defects in the defect liability period (as this was a new build property) and as the developer had not handed over the property to the management company, the developer was responsible for repairing damage to the burst pipe. It advised the resident that the developer had attended on 2 September 2022 and the carpet in the communal area had been cleaned. It advised it would email the resident to keep her updated on any follow on works.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 9 October 2022. She complained about the length of time she had waited for feedback following from the leak of 16 April 2022. She also complained that the communal carpet was still mouldy and needed replacing. She further complained that the carpet in her property was damp, due to the burst pipe and that the contractor had replaced the skirting boards in her property onto a damp carpet.
  6. The landlord responded to the resident’s Stage 2 complaint on 6 December 2022. It confirmed that it had closed her original complaint as it is the landlord’s practice to close complaints after issuing a complaint response and that it has systems in place to monitor any outstanding issues. It acknowledged that the resident’s carpet cleaning and unpainted skirting boards were still outstanding and that it had chased this up with the property developer. It advised that in respect of the communal areas, the landlord’s contractor had completed a damp survey and found no issues. It advised the resident that it had asked it senior defects surveyor to share the report with her. It further stated that the developer was responsible for resolving defects during the defects liability period and that it was working with the developer to ensure it carried out any necessary works. It acknowledged it had not kept the resident updated on progress and that it would highlight its concerns with its senior management team.
  7. There was further various communication between the resident and the landlord from December 2022 to June 2023, where the resident expressed her continued dissatisfaction with the pipework and that remedial works to the communal area and to her own property had not been completed further to the leaks. She asked the landlord to commission an independent plumber to survey the pipework and for the landlord to replace the communal carpet and her own carpet and skirting boards.
  8. The landlord issued a Stage 2 complaint addendum response on 6 June 2023. The landlord advised that the communal carpet had been professionally cleaned but had agreed to replace the carpet as a gesture of goodwill. It also agreed to replace the carpet and carry out decorating works in the understairs cupboard. It refused to carry out a replacement of the resident’s own carpet or skirting boards as it advised that the carpet had been professionally cleaned and the skirting boards in her property had been treated with a mould agent and been repainted with a damp seal and satin wood. It advised that the communal pipes had been inspected by the water company and the local authority and that it met the necessary standards. The landlord apologised to the resident for its complaint handling and offered the resident £250 compensation for this and a further £25 as an apology, which she accepted.
  9. The communal carpet has been replaced and the hallway has been decorated. As an outcome to her complaint, the resident would like her own carpet to be replaced and an independent plumbing company to survey the pipework.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal pipework.

  1. The landlord’s Defect Management Procedure – New  Homes policy states that it is committed ‘to procure homes with no defects and resolve defects that arise within a reasonable time and with the least amount of disruption to customers as possible’. It goes on to say that when reporting a defect or repair ‘wherever possible communications with both residents, developers and contractors will be conducted through a shared online portal, giving residents live updates and maintaining a system based audit trail’
  2. The policy goes on to say that where the resident or the developer are unable to access this system, the defect advisor will communicate via the most appropriate method available. ‘The Defect Advisor will contact the resident to confirm receipt with the following timescales:’
    1. Emergency Defects – 4 working hours
    2. Urgent defects – 1 working day
    3. Non urgent (routine defects ) – 5 working days.
  3. The policy goes on to state that once a defect is reported ‘the Defect Advisor will check the developer’s progress at regular intervals’ and chase where required- updating the shared online portal, which the resident can view, or will update residents directly if they are unable to use the portal.
  4. Although the landlord did attend to the first reports of the burst pipe in April 2022 within its published timescales, the pipe burst again on 8 July 2022 and in February 2023 so the landlord did not carry out a lasting and permanent fix. The repeated leaks and chasing this repair caused the resident anxiety, frustration and time and trouble.
  5. Furthermore, when the pipe burst on 8 July 2022, the resident reported this immediately but nobody attended until 12 July 2022, to survey the issue and the pipe was not repaired until 15 July 2022. It is inappropriate that a contractor was not sent out to attend until 12 July. Although this service understands that repairs may take some time to fully repair, it is not reasonable for the landlord not to have attended sooner to assess the extent of the leak.
  6. Furthermore, the records show that the pipe had burst again as it had previously been replaced with the wrong parts. Additionally, in its Stage 1 complaint response to the resident, the landlord advised the resident that the developer was responsible for damage to the burst pipe as the building was under the Defects Liability period. Although the Ombudsman fully understands that this is the case, the landlord’s policy states that the landlord’s defects advisor will raise issues with the developer, so this service would have expected the landlord to have pursued this with the developer.
  7. While this service would expect the pipe repair of July 2022 to have been a full and permanent fix, the pipe burst again on 23 February 2023, which would suggest that the previous repairs were not effective. This caused the resident additional anxiety, stress, frustration and time and trouble. It also caused the resident to lose confidence in the landlord and to request an independent plumber to survey the pipework for further assurance.
  8. Although, in its Stage 2 complaint response addendum, it is appropriate that the landlord reassured the resident that the pipes had been thoroughly inspected by both the water company and the local authority and that they met necessary standards, neither this service nor the resident has seen copies of these reports. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to share the inspection report findings with the resident. Furthermore, it offered the resident no financial redress for the time and trouble in pursuing the repair and for the stress suffered by the resident. As such, a finding of service failure is made, along with orders for redress.

The landlord’s handling of damage to communal areas.

  1. The resident first reported the leak from the pipework on 16 April 2022. She reported to the landlord that this had damaged the carpet and skirting boards in the area. She reported a further leak to the area on  , which caused further damage to the carpet and cupboard in the communal area. In the resident’s Stage 1 complaint, she complained that the area smelt damp and that the communal electrical cupboard had mould in it. The landlord responded that the developer was responsible for defects in the defect liability period and that the developer had attended on 2 September 2022 and that the carpet in the communal area had been cleaned. It reiterated this in its Stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 6 December 2022, as well as advising the resident that the developer had carried out a damp survey and found no issues.
  2. Although the resident first reported damage to the carpet in the communal area on 16 April 2022, the developer did not attend to survey and clean the carpet until 2 September 2022. Although this Service appreciates the developer is responsible for defects during the defect liability period, as per the landlord’s defect management procedure, this Service would have reasonably expected the landlord to pursue the developer to carry out any outstanding works so that these were carried out in a more timely manner.
  3. However, the landlord apologised to the resident for this, had originally had the carpets dried and cleaned in September 2022 and, as a gesture of goodwill, replaced the carpets in July 2023. It further decorated the communal hallway and replaced the carpet in the understairs cupboard. This provided reasonable redress to the adverse effect to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a replacement carpet and skirting boards in her property.

  1. The resident reported damage to her carpet and skirting boards, following the leaks from the communal pipework on 16 April 2022. She reported further damage, following the subsequent leak to the pipework on 8 July 2022. The resident complained that following the leaks, the carpet in her property was damp and the contractor had replaced the skirting boards in her property onto this damp carpet. In its Stage 2 complaint response addendum of 6 June 2023, the landlord refused to replace the resident’s carpet or skirting boards. It advised the resident that the leak had been from clean water, her carpet had been professionally cleaned and that the skirting boards in her property had been treated with a mould agent and been repainted with a damp seal and satin wood.
  2. Although the Ombudsman understands the resident’s frustration and disappointment at the landlord’s refusal to fit a new carpet to her home, the landlord acted appropriately in employing a trusted contractor to dry and clean the carpet. As the leak was from clean water, this was a reasonable response from the landlord. Furthermore, the landlord painted the resident’s skirting boards in the affected area and applied a damp seal. This service would reasonably expect the resident to pursue any claim for a replacement carpet with her own insurer.
  3. However, it took the landlord a significant amount of time to clean the carpet and paint the resident’s skirting boards. The records show that this was not agreed until 5 December 2022, some months after the resident raised the issue and she chased the issue several times between raising her complaint on 25 August 2022 until this was agreed. This caused the resident adverse effect in terms of stress, anxiety, the inability to fully enjoy her home, and time and trouble in chasing the issue. As such, an order of service failure is made, along with orders for redress.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints policy;
    1. Stage 1 – where the resident will receive an acknowledgement within 2 working days and a formal response within 10 working days. The formal response will include a timetable for outstanding actions.
    2. Stage 2 – A customer service manager will coordinate and handle the review of the complaint. An acknowledgement will be sent within 2 working days and a formal response will be provided within 20 working days. The complaint will be reviewed by at least one manager who was not involved in the original decision.
  2. There is no dispute that the landlord did not act within its own policy and published timescales. Contrary to its policy, it provided no timetable of outstanding actions further to its Stage 1 complaint response. This was a failing on the part of the landlord and caused the resident frustration and time and trouble in pursuing the substantive issue. Furthermore, the resident submitted her Stage 2 complaint on 9 October 2022. This was not acknowledged as a Stage 2 complaint by the landlord until 25 October 2022 and she did not receive a response until 6 December 2022. This was 42 working days and significantly outside the published timescales. This caused the resident frustration, distress and time and trouble in pursuing the outstanding issues in her complaint.
  3. Following this Service contacting the landlord on 3 April 2023 to advise of the resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman, the landlord provided a Stage 2  complaint addendum response to the resident on 6 June 2023. The landlord appropriately apologised to the resident for its complaint handling. It acknowledged it should have provided her with a timetable in its original complaint responses, advised it has launched a complaints process review and training material. It also advised it had learned lessons from the resident’s complaint, had recruited additional staff to the defects team and provided additional telephone numbers so residents could contact defects staff. It also stated that it had reinforced its expectations of the developer and its obligation to provide a good service. Furthermore, it offered the resident financial compensation of £250 for the complaint handling failures and an additional £25 as an apology. As the landlord has taken these actions to remedy the adverse effect caused to the resident, a finding of reasonable redress is made.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal pipework.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b)  of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of damage to the communal areas.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a replacement carpet and skirting boards in her property.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b)  of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to do the following within four weeks of this report:
    1. Pay the resident £200 compensation. This is broken down as follows:
      1. £100 for its handling of its communal pipework repairs.
      2. £100 for its handling of the resident’s request for a replacement carpet and skirting boards in her property.
    2. Provide the resident and this service with the pipework inspection report findings from the local authority and water company.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to pay the resident £250 in respect of its complaint handling if it has not already done so.