Sanctuary Housing Association (202207418)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207418

Sanctuary Housing Association

19 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a disturbance from a dripping noise in the bedroom at the resident’s home.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident lived in a one bedroom first floor flat on an assured tenancy agreement that began in December 2020. The resident has since moved home.
The property is part of a general needs older persons housing scheme and contains 17 units with a scheme manager.
The resident has advised both this Service and the landlord of his anxiety and depression.
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the tenancy agreement places obligations on the landlord to maintain the property. In particular, paragraph 2(e) outlines the landlord responsibilities. In brief, and to give examples, these include to keep in proper working order the following:
1. The structure and outside of the property including roof, outside walls, outside doors and window frames.
2. Internal walls, floors, ceilings, major internal plasterwork, skirting boards, doors.
3. Installations for the supply of gas, electricity, water and sanitation.
4. Heating and water equipment where provided by the landlord.
5. Any communal areas including common entrance halls, stairways, lifts, passageways, rubbish chutes and other common parts including their electrical wiring.
The landlord’s repair and maintenance policy sets out its commitment to providing a service that ensures properties are maintained to a high standard. It has priority timescales for completing repairs of:
1. Emergency repairs – to be completed within 24 hours.
  1. Examples are main drain or sewer blockages, water leaks and heating repairs (during winter months) where there is no other heating.
2. Non-emergency repairs – to be completed within 28 days and are appointable.
  1. Examples are partial power or water supply loss and taps that cannot be turned on or off.

Summary of Events

On 12 November 2021, the landlord’s records show a report of a roof leak. It states that the resident could not sleep due to a dripping noise. It noted that the resident was vulnerable.
On 30 November 2021, the landlord’s records show that the resident contacted the landlord frustrated that he was still having issues with the noise keeping him awake at night. He was advised to contact its repairs department.
On 10 January 2022, the landlord’s records show an urgent repair for a roof leak. These state that the operative had attended and advised that it was not a roof leak and a plumber was required. This was booked for attendance on 17 January 2022.
On 17 January 2022, the landlord’s records show an urgent job recall following the landlord’s visit to the resident, stating that the noise appeared louder and the resident was unable to isolate where it was coming from.
On 19 January 2022, the landlord’s records refer to no leak being present and noting that nothing in the loft space could cause the noise apart from either the roof or commercial pipework running across the scheme.
On the same day, the landlord’s records show that the resident telephoned to discuss the ongoing issues. The landlord called him back but there was no connection and it tried again on 20 January 2022, noting that there was no answer. A voicemail message was left and a letter sent to the resident to arrange a visit. On 24 January 2022, the resident called the landlord back to arrange a visit.
On 20 January 2022, the landlord’s records refer to a constant dripping noise within the flat which was likely to be the heating pipes across the scheme. It asked for an urgent visit to be arranged as the resident was unable to sleep in the bedroom. It specifically requested that the engineer gain access to the loft space to check the pipework and investigate where the noise was coming from and either repair or report back the findings.
The same day, the resident called the landlord to say that the operative did attend but did not have a ladder to check the loft space.
On 8 February 2022, the landlord’s records show that the resident called the repairs team, asking that the housing officer call him back. The landlord telephoned the same day but there was no answer and a voicemail was left. The notes refer to a visit from the engineer that day and a comment was made that the noise could be related to the heating.
An external contractor report of 8 March 2022 confirmed that the engineer attended the property and the following was noted:
1. The roof space was checked and he could not hear any noise. He went to the boiler room and everything was working and no noise was present.
2. When the engineer went back to the flat, he confirmed that he could hear the noise coming from the back bedroom and he went into the roof space again. On investigation, it was confirmed that the noise appeared to be the expansion and contraction of the pipework. The boiler was turned down to see if this helped and the engineer commented that not a lot more could be done.
On 25 March 2022, the landlord’s records show that the resident sent a letter to it, advising of the constant drip sound in the bedroom that he had experienced since moving into the property. He was concerned that it was impossible to use the bedroom and explained that during the previous summer, the housing manager had heard the noise.
During the same letter, the resident advised the landlord that he suffered from severe anxiety and depression and his medication had to be increased due to the situation and lack of sleep. The resident went on to say that seven roofers and a heating engineer had been out and on two occasions, they had turned up with no ladders. He enclosed a doctor’s letter which advised that the current accommodation was not suitable for him as it was affecting his state of mind.
On 31 March 2022, the landlord’s scheme manager attached a letter from the resident to the landlord and advised that he would like to make a formal complaint.
On 7 and 8 April 2022, various landlord internal correspondence took place. The landlord contacted its contractor to find out if they had attended and accessed the loft space and they confirmed that they had and the report would be sent to the landlord. A discussion also took place to confirm that the heating temperature had been turned down but it did not appear to have made a difference and it went on to discuss the possibility of considering sound proof insulation and asked for advice from an officer about any other options.
On 8 April 2022, the landlord sent its complaint acknowledgement letter to the resident, advising that it would contact him within the next 10 working days.
On 13 April 2022, the housing officer sent the resident a letter. It confirmed that when the visit was carried out in February 2022, the officer did not notice the noise. It referred to work to commence to replace the roof which it said should assist the situation. The officer said that she would arrange a visit with the asset surveyor.
On 19 April 2022, the landlord’s notes refer to a call from the resident regarding the letter of 13 April 2022 and outstanding repairs. The officer agreed to chase these up and an email was also sent to its wellbeing team following the doctors letter of how the situation was affecting his mental health. A visit was arranged and this was carried out on 27 April 2022 to assist the resident to complete a transfer form.
On 22 April 2022, the landlord sent its stage one complaint response. It apologised for the problems the resident had experienced with the dripping noise. It confirmed the following:
1. The initial order for the roof leak was reported on 12 November 2021 and the roofer reported back that there was not an issue with the roof. It was suggested that a plumber investigate.
2. The order was raised on 10 January 2022 and this was booked for 17 January 2022. A further recall was raised as the resident advised that the noise was getting louder. The plumber reported back that he could not trace a leak and suggested sending a heating engineer.
3. Another order was raised 20 January 2022 for the heating engineer to attend. The report was received and it was awaiting advice on the next course of action and that it would advise the resident once it had received a response.
On 24 and 25 April 2022, the resident contacted the landlord expressing his dissatisfaction with the situation and his surprise with the stage one complaint response. He explained that he had not been able to use the bedroom for over a year and that this was affecting his health. He advised that he required suitable accommodation and reiterated that he was vulnerable.
On 29 April 2022, the resident contacted the landlord again requesting a response to his previous emails.
On 4 May 2022, a landlord internal email makes reference to a call from the resident about roof repairs and the landlord asked an officer to contact him within 48 hours. It mentioned that the resident was going to contact his MP as he felt that the drip was nothing to do with the roof.
On 6 May 2022, the landlord responded to the resident, advising that it was unable to provide a full response to the complaint as it was awaiting updates. It explained that it had chased this up and it would reply as soon as it received a response.
On 11 and 12 May 2022, the landlord’s records show internal correspondence that confirms that the resident wanted to move properties as the situation was affecting his mental health.
On 13 May 2022, the landlord’s repairs history shows an order for its heating contractor to attend to investigate the noise.
On 19 and 20 May 2022, the landlord’s records show that it received calls from the resident wanting an update on the case and to progress his complaint to stage two. The landlord acknowledged his request and advised that a response should be received no later than 21 June 2022.
On 30 May 2022, the landlord sent the resident a holding letter, advising that the officer was away from the office until 20 June 2022 and therefore it would need to extend the date of the response to no later than 5 July 2022.
On 9 June 2022, the landlord’s internal notes show that an officer suggested that there was nothing that could be done to resolve the noise and it may need to look at a move for the resident.
On 22 June 2022, the landlord’s internal emails show information was requested on the rehousing process. In another note of the same date, the landlord referred to a call with the resident where he was concerned about sleeping on the sofa as he said this had impacted the nerves in his back and he was due to go for a scan. The landlord offered an alternative contractor to attend to assess the noise again or that it could speak to the housing officer regarding an application for a move. The resident said that he wanted to move.
The next day, this was followed up with an email to the housing officer who advised that she had already been out and completed a transfer application. She offered to attend the property again if an alternative contractor visit was arranged.
On 29 June 2022, a work order was raised for an external contractor to assess the noise with a joint visit with the housing officer.
On 4 July 2022, the findings of the visit were recorded that an inspection of the loft had taken place, no damp pipes were found and the ceiling was not wet. It confirmed that it had checked the roof and this looked in good condition, apart from a soil pipe cap that was missing and it was replaced.
On 5 July 2022, the stage two complaint response was sent to the resident. It apologised for the delay recording and acknowledging the complaint at the first stage. It confirmed the following:
1. It acknowledged the delay in the roof leak order of 12 November 2021 not being inspected until 22 November 2021. It was unable to evidence the reason for this delay and it apologised that this was not in line with its repairs policy.
2. Following attendance, the contractor reported that it had been unable to identify any damp pipes or moisture to the ceiling. It had checked the roof and reported that it was in good condition apart from a soil pipe which was missing a cap and this was replaced at the time of the visit. The contractor recommended that if there were any further reported leaks, a plumber would need to reattend.
3. It said that it was unable to evidence any subsequent notes or correspondence until the resident made contact on 10 January 2022 about a potential leak.
4. The operative attended the property on 17 January 2022 to inspect for a leak. It was unable to explain the reason for the delay in its attendance and it again apologised. The operative noted that he attempted to stop the banging noise and confirmed that the noise was not because of a leak. The notes from the visit were vague and it could not establish what was done to rectify the issue at the time of the visit and it apologised about this.
5. On 17 January 2022, when the resident reported that the noise was louder, an emergency recall order was raised and the operative attended on 19 January 2022. Again, it was unable to confirm the reason for the delay. The operative noted that he was unable to identify any leaks and there was nothing in the loft space that could cause any noise apart from either the roof or the communal pipework running across the scheme. The operative requested an external contractor to assess the communal boiler and pipework.
6. An emergency works order was raised on 20 January 2022 but it was unable to confirm the date of the visit and it apologised for its poor record keeping.
7. The resident made contact on 8 February 2022 for an update and advised that the contractor did not attend with a ladder and therefore could not inspect the loft.
8. The contractor had sent their quotation for follow on works to an incorrect address and were asked to resend the quotation. It apologised for the administration error and the delays caused.
9. Follow on repairs were approved on 23 February 2022 for an engineer to reattend the property, gain access to the loft and check the pipes to investigate where the noise was coming from and repair if possible. If it was unable to carry out repairs, it required the engineer to report back to the landlord.
10. The engineer attended on 3 March 2022 when the roof space and boiler room were inspected. The noise could be heard from the back of the bedroom. When this was investigated in the loft space, the noise appeared to be the expansion and contraction of the pipework. The engineer turned down the boiler by a few degrees and advised the resident to monitor the situation over the next days as not much more could be done to rectify the issue.
11. It concluded that it had failed to diagnose and remedy the issue causing noise disturbance in a reasonable timeframe and in accordance with its responsibilities. It also acknowledged that record keeping and communication had at times been unclear and to a poor standard. It offered £375 goodwill compensation payment for the failings and inconvenience the resident had experienced. This was broken down as follows:
  1. Stage one complaint handling in respect of delays in recording and acknowledging the complaint. Unable to remedy the issue or provide a final response within 10 working days = £75
  2. Time, trouble and inconvenience in respect of delayed attendances, unclear records and communication, administration error and time taken to remedy the issue or find a suitable solution = £300
12. It had arranged a final inspection on 6 July 2022 and recommendations would be reported back.
13. It acknowledged the resident’s request to move home and advised that the application had been submitted to the council.

Summary of Events after landlord’s complaints process

The resident confirmed to the landlord that the visit for 6 July 2022 did not go ahead. Further landlord notes confirm that an error had occurred and it appears that a visit did not take place until August 2022.
The landlord’s records of 22 August 2022 show inconsistent faults on the gas boiler and the plant not correctly operating in automatic setting. It confirmed that it was reviewing the noise.
On 1 September 2022, the landlord’s records show that they were chasing the contractor as there were delays with attendance and it referenced that there may be further works required.
The resident has confirmed to this Service that he has now moved home as the landlord was unable to resolve the noise issue.

Assessment and findings

The resident first reported a noise nuisance in November 2021 and the landlord attended to investigate this six days later. The landlord has acknowledged that it did not attend in line with its repairs policy and therefore it appears that it had categorised this as an emergency order which should be responded to within 24 hours. The delay in the landlord’s response was therefore inappropriate.
The landlord demonstrated that when the contractor did attend, it had inspected the area by checking the roof space and advising that there was no leak. It reported back that a plumber was required. This was a reasonable step to take as it needed to apply a process of elimination to determine the cause of the noise disturbance.
The landlord has acknowledged that its record keeping was poor and it was not until 10 January 2022 when a job was booked in for the plumber to attend and this visit took place seven days later. Attempts were made to stop the banging and it was confirmed that there was no leak identified. It was inappropriate for the landlord to delay in arranging a plumber to attend to the property and of concern that there was a lack of record keeping during the period from November 2021 to January 2022.
The resident raised concerns that the noise was louder after the visit on 17 January 2022. An emergency job was raised and an operative attended two days later. This was again a service failure as it was outside of the landlord’s 24 hour emergency service standard.
The operative’s notes confirmed that there were again no leaks identified and an external contractor was requested to assess the communal boiler and pipework. An emergency order was raised on 20 January 2022 but there is a lack of landlord records to confirm the date of the visit. However, the resident did confirm that an operative attended but was unable to check the loft space due to not having any ladders. The Ombudsman expects landlords to keep records of key events, dates and inspection outcomes and it is of concern that these were not available. It was also unreasonable that the resident experienced unnecessary delays due to the operative attending the property without the correct equipment.
It is clear from the resident’s contact with the landlord in March 2022 that the noise situation had become intolerable as he referred to his mental health suffering and having to sleep on the sofa and a doctor’s note was provided to support him in relation to the property not being suitable. The Ombudsman expects resident vulnerabilities to be acted upon within reasonable timeframes. It was clear that this was an extremely distressing situation for the resident. Whilst the Ombudsman recognises the difficulties with resolving the noise disturbance, it expects the landlord to demonstrate that it had taken a proactive position and explored a support plan within a reasonable timeframe. The landlord has failed to demonstrate that it did this and instead it allowed the situation to continue.
There was a delay between January-March 2022 in an engineer attending the property. During this visit, the landlord’s records have demonstrated that various checks were carried out and a potential cause of the noise was identified as the expansion and contraction of the heating pipework. The temperature on the boiler was reduced to see if it helped and therefore the landlord acted reasonably in attempting to resolve the noise by adjusting the boiler and asking the resident to confirm whether this worked.
In April 2022, the resident made a formal complaint at stage one of the complaints procedure and during May 2022, he continued to chase the landlord and was clearly frustrated and distressed about the situation. The resident mentioned a move to another property as his mental health was affected and he was also experiencing physical problems with his back and reported that sleeping on the sofa was not helping. It was inappropriate that the landlord missed another opportunity to proactively manage the situation and explore alternative options, including further support to the resident.
The landlord’s stage two complaint identified its multiple service failures, including attending to jobs outside of its repair timeframes, its poor record keeping and an administrative error. Redress of £375 compensation was offered to the resident, including £300 for the various service failures with the landlord’s handling of the noise reports. Although it was appropriate for the landlord to offer compensation, the Ombudsman considers that these service failures likely had a significant long-term impact on the resident, particularly given the vulnerabilities he reported, which included physical and emotional affects, and therefore the landlord’s compensation did not offer proportionate redress.
A final inspection was arranged for 6 July 2022 but this apparently did not occur until late August 2022. Whilst the findings of this inspection have not been evidenced, a note refers to an issue with the heating boiler and potential further works. However, it is unclear if, or how, these works were in any way related to the noise disturbance. This further delay by the landlord was unreasonable and inevitably added to the resident’s frustrations with the situation. It also indicates that the landlord had failed to learn lessons from the outcome of its complaint investigation in terms of responding in adequate timescales and keeping detailed inspection outcome records.
In conclusion, the resident’s reports of a noise disturbance were evident for over a year and although the landlord made attempts to inspect the noise, albeit over a long protracted time frame, it failed to resolve the noise reports. It is acknowledged that these types of noise disturbances can be difficult to diagnose and eradicate and it is often only by a process of elimination that the cause can be established. It is accepted that not every noise can be quickly resolved, especially when it is within the fabric of the building, but this Service expects landlords to demonstrate they have taken all reasonable steps to resolve the issue, including consideration of alternative options if the noise disturbance continues.
Whilst there is some evidence that the landlord did consider alternative options such as sound insulation, it has not evidenced the extent of this consideration. It also supported the resident with completing a transfer application and referring his case to its wellbeing team but it has not demonstrated that it had done so within reasonable timeframes to ensure a speedy resolution to the distressing situation that the resident was experiencing. It is unclear if the cause of the noise disturbance was confirmed but the resident has apparently moved home since his complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaints process.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of a disturbance from a dripping noise in the bedroom at the resident’s home.

Reasons

The landlord failed to attend to reports of a noise disturbance within a reasonable timeframe and in accordance with its repair and maintenance obligations. Its record-keeping was also poor and it did not offer prompt support despite the resident’s stated vulnerabilities and reports that he could not use his bedroom.
The landlord awarded compensation but this was insufficient given the circumstances of the case and it did not demonstrate that it had learned appropriate lessons to avoid similar failures occurring in future.

Orders and recommendations

Within four weeks of this report, the landlord is to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £675 compensation (including its previous offer of £375, if it has not already done so) in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the delays in investigating the noise disturbance and reaching a resolution.
Within eight weeks of this report, the landlord is to:
1. Review the handling of repairs at this property and provide this Service with an action plan on how it intends to improve its repairs service in relation to handling reports of, and investigations into, noise disturbance in future.
2. Provide this Service with an action plan as to how it intends to improve its repairs service record keeping.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.