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

Sanctuary Housing Association (202219016)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219016

Sanctuary Housing Association

12 May 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. This complaint is about:
  1. The condition of the property when it was let to the resident.
  2. The landlord’s response to concerns about a neighbouring resident having access to CCTV equipment.
  3. The landlord’s communication and complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident was an assured tenant of a one-bedroom flat on the upper level of a block of four flats. His tenancy began on 16 October 2019. The resident moved out of this property in June 2020.
  2. The resident first raised a complaint about the condition of his flat on 20 March 2020, after seeing another flat being let by the landlord in his block. He believed this was in a better condition than his was when he was offered his property. He felt his flat was still not ready to live in. He was unhappy there was no underlay or carpets, that the walls were not ready to paint, that there were several cracks in the wall and floor, and that the property smelled.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord regarding a separate issue with the CCTV in his block on 2 April 2020. He was unhappy another resident had access and a key to the cabinet where this equipment was held. He raised a separate complaint with the landlord about this on 10 April 2020. The resident chased the landlord for a response or confirmation about one or both complaints on 4 April 2020, 9 April 2020, 17 April 2020, and 23 April 2020 respectively.
  4. The landlord acknowledged both the resident’s complaints on 24 April 2020, treating this as a single complaint. When doing this it advised it would be unable to respond within its usual ten working day timeframe and requested a ten working day extension. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 22 May 2020. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint and provided £125 compensation for communication failings throughout the complaints process. It rejected the resident’s complaints relating to the condition of the property when it was let, and the CCTV issues.
  5. The resident rejected this response on 22 May 2020. The resident felt the property had never been in good decorative order and the level of disrepair made it the landlord’s responsibility to complete the work needed. He also stated that no tenant should have access to the CCTV equipment and that the landlord had blocked his access to the complaints process. The landlord acknowledged this request for escalation on 26 May 2020. It provided its stage 2 response on 12 June 2020, once again rejecting the resident’s complaint about the condition of the property and the CCTV. It offered the resident £200 for its communication and complaint handling failures. The resident rejected this response on 15 June 2020.
  6. The resident referred the complaint to this Service via his MP on 14 July 2020. For the complaint regarding the condition of his property, the resident stated he wanted the landlord to provide a personal apology and make the necessary repairs before letting the property to the next tenant. For the CCTV complaint, he wanted the landlord to admit that the other resident had access to the CCTV and to confiscate their key. For the communication and complaint handling, he wished for an apology from the landlord for ignoring his evidence and not allowing him to properly access the complaints procedure.

Assessment and findings

The scope of our investigation

  1. The resident has declared his unhappiness about the condition of a neighbouring flat, which he felt was in better condition than his own. The condition of a third-party flat would not fall within this Service’s jurisdiction and has not therefore been considered in this investigation. This Service can, however, consider the state of the property that was let to the resident.
  2. The resident also raised issues with specific members of staff. As a Service, we are unable to comment on issues relating to specific members of staff. Our investigation will therefore consider the actions of the landlord as a whole entity.

The condition of the property when it was let to the resident

  1. The landlord has been unable to provide the lettable standards form from when the resident first moved into the property. It also has not been able to provide any photographs from before the tenancy began.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord review its record keeping procedure to ensure that for future complaints of this nature, it can provide this information. It should also make all relevant staff members aware of this policy to ensure the correct data retention practices are being applied.
  3. The resident first raised the issue with the landlord on 20 March 2020, five months after he moved into the property. On the tenancy agreement there were no outstanding works to be completed after the resident moved in. The resident viewed the property on two occasions before the beginning of his tenancy and had not raised issues with the condition of the property on either occasion.
  4. After moving in, the resident did raise several issues with the landlord about the property. The only one about the condition of the property was cracks in the walls. This was reported to the landlord on 16 December 2019, and the landlord agreed to undertake remedial work to look at this on 9 January 2020. However, the day before this work was due to be undertaken the resident contacted the landlord to cancel the appointment. He told the landlord the cracks were superficial, and he could undertake the work himself. Given this, the landlord would not be expected to do more to repair this issue within the property. It is not unreasonable therefore that the landlord would have expected the resident to raise any other similar issues with it in the five months prior to raising his complaint.
  5. The resident was unhappy his property did not have carpets at the time it was let. The tenancy agreement states the landlord does not provide internal decorations, or carpets for residents. The landlord has not therefore treated the resident unfairly by not providing this. Although other properties may come with carpets due to the actions of previous residents, this does not obligate the landlord to provide this to every resident.
  6. The resident also raised that the walls of the property needed to be painted. The landlord issued the resident with a decoration voucher for paint upon moving in and offered to reissue this if the resident had not received it during the complaint procedure. There is no evidence that this would, however, constitute work that the landlord would be obliged to do through the tenancy agreement or any statutory requirements.
  7. The resident also raised issues with the smell of the property. There is not enough evidence for this Service to be able to determine if the landlord has failed in relation to this issue.
  8. Overall, this Service finds no maladministration by the landlord in the condition of the property when it was let to the resident.

The landlord’s response to concerns about a neighbouring resident having access to CCTV equipment

  1. The resident complained because he was unhappy with the location of the CCTV equipment, and that another resident had access and a key to the cabinet containing this. The resident was also unhappy the landlord had to arrange access to the CCTV equipment via a neighbouring resident.
  2. The CCTV equipment was placed in a cupboard that the landlord had allowed another resident to access for storage. This meant that this resident had a key to this cupboard. It was appropriate for the landlord to request access to this cupboard when needed as it was also used by the other resident for their personal storage. In allowing another resident a key to this facility, this Service does not consider the landlord has broken any statutory obligations to the resident.
  3. The images from the CCTV can only be accessed by the landlord. Although the other resident may have access to the equipment, they are not able to view the recordings which are uploaded to a secure location. The landlord also had steps in place should there be evidence of this equipment being tampered with or turned off. There is no evidence that the landlord experienced the equipment being tampered with and there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord had concerns relating to the safety of this equipment.
  4. The landlord placed the CCTV equipment in this location due to advice that was given during its installation. This was deemed to be the most appropriate location by the party installing the equipment. Given this, the landlord has not been unreasonable in placing the CCTV equipment where it has.
  5. The landlord’s responses to the resident’s concerns appear to have been fair. Its response adequately explained the reason for the positioning of the equipment and its protocol for keeping this secure.
  6. Overall, the landlord has responded to the resident’s concerns fairly. There was no maladministration in its handling of this issue. The landlord’s actions have not resulted in detriment to the resident.

The landlord’s communication and complaint handling

  1. The resident raised issues with the landlord’s communication and complaint handling throughout the complaints process. He felt that the landlord was deliberately ignoring e-mails and refusing to allow him to access its complaints process.
  2. The landlord’s complaint procedure has two steps. After a complaint is raised the landlord opens the stage called ‘Front Line Resolution’ where it says it will acknowledge the complaint within two working days and attempt to resolve this within five to ten days where possible. If the resident remains unhappy with this response, they can then escalate their complaint to ‘Investigation’ stage. The landlord attempts to acknowledge this within two days, and to provide a response within 20 working days.
  3. The resident first raised a complaint on 20 March 2020, about the state of the property when it was let to him on 16 October 2019. He then subsequently chased the landlord for updates on four occasions. The landlord responded to his e-mails on 17 April 2020 advising that it would not be accepting either of his complaints under the grounds the letting condition had not been raised in the first five months of the tenancy, and that the location of the CCTV was a landlord matter.
  4. The landlord has acknowledged that it was wrong in taking this position. It provided the resident with £75 for failing to raise the complaint, and an additional £25 for the time and trouble taken in respect of raising the complaint. This was a reasonable offer of redress by the landlord for distress caused by its failure to fulfil its obligations under its own policies. This amount is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy.
  5. The resident also raised issues relating to e-mails not properly being answered. Due to a high volume of contact from the resident, the landlord decided it would be answering the resident once a week, in a single e-mail, via one specific staff member. However, it did not properly follow its own communication policy with replies coming from multiple parties leaving the resident feeling confused and ignored.
  6. The landlord has acknowledged it made errors in its communication protocols and offered the resident an additional £75 for instances of poor communication from the local housing team, and £25 for any upset caused by a letter from 30 March 2020. This also amounts to reasonable redress in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and in line with the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s errors.
  7. It is recommended that if it has not already paid this, the landlord reoffer this amount of compensation to the resident.
  8. The landlord should consider reviewing its communication arrangements with residents and ensure that relevant staff members are made aware of its arrangements. This would serve to reduce confusion and allow residents to better understand when they can expect to receive responses.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the condition of the property when it was let.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to concerns about another resident having access to and the security of CCTV equipment.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered in respect of the landlord’s communication and complaint handling.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already paid this, the landlord should reoffer the resident the £200 compensation offered in its complaint response from 12 June 2020.
  2. The landlord should review its record keeping process to ensure it retains the acceptable letting standards form and any relevant documentation for a reasonable period after the tenancy has begun.
  3. The landlord should consider reviewing its communication arrangements with residents and ensure that all relevant staff members are made aware of this.