London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202108941)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202108941

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

14 March 2022

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:
1. the landlord’s handling of various repairs to the resident’s property, including bathroom tiling, toilet and shower; kitchen cupboards; front and patio doors; and servicing of dehumidifiers/extractor fans.
2. the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the behaviour of its staff in respect of alleged bribery allegations related to its complaints process.
The report will also address the landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Background and summary of events

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord.

Scope of investigation

The resident has raised several separate complaints about the different repair issues, and these complaints have exhausted the landlord’s complaints process at different times and have been referred to this Service as part of two separate cases (202008372 and 202108941) which overlap and duplicate the complaint issues. This report will amalgamate the various complaints and combine these two cases and it will address the key issues as defined above. The report will only consider events up until the final complaint response dated 5 August 2021.

Policies, procedures, and agreements

The landlord’s Repair Responsibilities policy Appendix 1 confirms that it is responsible for kitchen taps and cupboard carcasses and doors, extractor fans, kitchen and bathroom floor coverings, insecure doors and snapped keys in locks. It further confirms that it is not responsible for replacing showerheads and hoses.
The repairs policy confirms that the landlord will attend to emergency out of hours repairs within four hours to lower the immediate risk, with a follow up repair to be completed ‘at the earliest mutually convenient appointment’.
The landlord’s interim compensation policy issued due to COVID 19 confirms that ‘apart from a small number of exceptions, no discretionary or proactive compensation payments will be made until further notice’.
Section 4.8 of the landlord’s compensation policy confirms a fixed compensation award of £20 for failing to keep to an appointment.
As per section 2 of the landlord’s complaints policy, complaints relating to staff conduct will be fully investigated in line with its internal policies. While it cannot divulge the outcome of these investigations for reasons of confidentiality, it will explain what its investigation involved.
Section 3 of the landlord’s complaints policy confirms that it will respond to stage one complaints within 10 working days, and final stage complaints within 20 working days. If it needs longer, it will inform the resident.

Summary of events

On 27 January 2020, the landlord’s records confirm that the resident had requested the repair of a kitchen drawer which had fallen off. The landlord scheduled an appointment for 27 March 2020 to carry out suitable repairs; however, this was subsequently cancelled due to the corona virus restrictions in place at that time.
On 4 February 2020, the landlord’s records confirm that the resident reported issues with her first-floor toilet which would not flush.
On 17 March 2020, the landlord’s records confirm that it requested an inspection of the resident’s property, to inspect the kitchen units and flooring, bathroom, and first floor toilet which would not flush. She had also raised concerns over the “dehumidifier” which had not been serviced.
On 8 June 2020, the resident submitted her stage one complaint to the landlord in respect to her kitchen units and flooring, bathroom, first floor toilet and ventilation units, which is summarised as follows:
1. She was unhappy that it had missed three appointments to repair a kitchen drawer; an appointment for 27 March 2020 was cancelled due to the corona virus restrictions in place at that time, an appointment for 22 May 2020 was cancelled as the landlord did not provide sufficient notice for her to attend, and it had failed to attend the subsequent appointment on 29 May 2020. She wanted compensation for these missed appointments, and for the appointment to be rescheduled.
2. She explained that she had previously requested a surveyor to inspect the kitchen units and flooring, bathroom flooring, first floor toilet and extractor fans; however, it had subsequently informed her during a telephone conversation on 22 May 2020, that this had not been booked. As a result, she wanted the landlord to review all of its calls to her, particularly the call on 22 May 2020, to verify her request, and additionally arrange a surveyor’s inspection as she had requested.
3. She also raised concerns that the dehumidifiers in her property required an annual service. She had previously raised concerns over the noise and smell from the units following the previous service, but she had received no formal response from the landlord.
On 8 July 2020, the landlord’s records confirm it had requested the repair of the resident’s rear patio door, which was difficult to open and close. This repair was completed on the landlord’s system on 10 July 2020.
On 9 July 2020, the landlord’s records confirm it had requested the repair of three kitchen cupboards, in addition to referring to the concrete floor in the resident’s kitchen. This repair was completed on the landlord’s system the following day.
On 20 July 2020, the landlord’s records confirm it had requested the repair of the resident’s kitchen tap. This repair was completed on the landlord’s system the following day. It raised further repairs for the same on 31 July and 14 August 2020, which were cancelled. Subsequently, further repairs were raised for the same on 21 August and 9 September 2020, which were completed on the landlord’s system on 28 August and 28 September 2020 respectively.
On 4 August 2020, the landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident in respect to her kitchen units and flooring, bathroom, first floor toilet and ventilation units, which is summarised as follows:
1. It apologised for the missed appointments and was processing shopping vouchers totalling £60 in compensation for the three missed appointments.
2. It would be arranging for a surveyor to visit her property to inspect the kitchen units and flooring, bathroom flooring, first floor toilet and extractor fans.
3. It apologised for the lack of communication and distress its poor communication had caused the resident. It acknowledged her request for a recording of the phone calls, which it declined as these were for training purposes only.
On 7 August 2020, the landlord’s records confirm it had requested a further repair of the resident’s rear patio door, which was difficult to open and close. This repair was completed on the landlord’s system on 21 August 2020.
On 24 August 2020, the resident requested the escalation of her complaint in respect to her kitchen units and flooring, bathroom, first floor toilet and ventilation units, as she had not received a formal response to her complaint in relation to the kitchen and bathroom work. She was also unhappy with the professionalism of a member of its staff during its call with her on 24 August 2020.
On 27 August 2020, the resident submitted is stage one complaint regarding her rear patio door, which is summarised as follows:
1. Despite there being a marginal improvement following its work to the patio door on 10 July 2020, its operative had informed the resident that a UPVC contractor would be required, and that this would be reflected in their report. However, on 20 July 2020, it had informed her that the report stated that the resident had been informed to report if the issue reoccurred.
2. It had further attended on 21 August 2020; however, it was not a UPVC contractor, and she was not satisfied with the repair it had carried out. Furthermore, she was unhappy that the operative failed to take responsibility for this “substandard” repair. Following this appointment, the resident had raised these concerns to the landlord, who called her to agree to send a UPVC contractor “only if [she] did not submit a complaint”.
On 1 September 2020, the resident submitted her stage one complaint in respect to her request for the repair of her kitchen tap which was “constantly dripping”. She was unhappy that the operative had failed to attend an appointment on 31 July 2020. Furthermore, the operative who had subsequently attended on 28 August 2020, had raised concerns that the tap that it had previously installed was not the standard design, and was unable to complete the repair. She wanted compensation for the missed appointment, and for a new appointment as a matter of urgency.
On 4 September 2020, the landlord’s records confirm it had requested the repair of the resident’s rear patio door, which was difficult to open and close. This repair was completed on the landlord’s system with no action on 25 September 2020.
On 4 September 2020, the landlord emailed the resident in response to her complaints regarding repairs to a kitchen drawer and her patio door, which is summarised as follows:
1. It would be speaking to the operative she had spoken with on 24 August 2020, to address her concerns. It noted that the operative had processed the £60 missed appointment vouchers and emailed its stage one complaint response to her on 4 August 2020.
2. It had arranged an inspection as she had requested, and it would contact her as soon as possible to confirm. In the meantime, it requested a picture of the dehumidifiers she felt needed servicing, as it suspected she may be referring instead to ventilation or extractor fans.
3. In respect to the patio door repair, it would address her concerns over its operatives internally. To address the repair, it had requested a UPVC contractor to inspect her patio door. It also requested the date and time of the call referred to on 27 August 2020, for it to fully address this aspect of her complaint.
On 15 September 2020, the resident requested a response to her complaint on 1 September 2020, regarding her kitchen tap.
On 25 September 2020, the landlord’s records confirm that it had requested a service of the resident’s ventilation units. This was completed on the landlord’s system with no action on 28 September 2020.
On 29 September 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord in respect to her complaint regarding the repair of her patio door. She confirmed that the UPVC contractor had visited her property on 25 September 2020 and had deemed there to be no apparent defect. She had disputed this with the contractor and reiterated her belief that the lock on the door was defective following work the landlord had carried out to the patio door. As the contractor was becoming “hostile”, they were asked to leave her property. She requested a surveyor’s inspection of her patio door, as she did not feel that the contractor had carried out a full inspection.
On 8 October 2020, the resident requested the escalation of her complaints, which is summarised as follows:
1. In response to her request for a copy of an email, the landlord had instead provided her with a transcript. This was not satisfactory, and she perceived it to be an attempt to “fabricate evidence” to conceal its failings. As a result, she had reservations that it would conduct a proper investigation into her allegations of bribery, which was made during its telephone conversation with her on 21 August 2020, between 12pm and 2pm.
2. She felt that there had been “countless occasions” where it had failed to respond to outstanding issues or complaints. It had also failed to provide her with sufficient reassurance that it would improve its service as a result of its failings. She was also unhappy that the landlord had paused discretionary compensation payments, and she would raise these concerns under a separate complaint.
3. She explained that an inspection needed to be carried out for her first-floor toilet, kitchen units, floor and drawers, and bathroom floor, tiles and fittings.
On 8 October 2020, the resident requested the escalation of her complaint regarding the repair to her kitchen tap. This is because she had received no response from her stage one complaint on 1 September 2020, or her subsequent request for a response on 15 September 2020.
On 9 October 2020, the landlord’s records confirm that it had raised a request to inspect the resident’s rear patio door and report back. This was cancelled on the landlord’s system.
On 21 October 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord to confirm that her kitchen tap had been repaired on 28 September 2020. However, there was still the outstanding issue of the two failed appointments, for which she had to take leave from work.
On 23 October 2020, the landlord responded to the resident’s request to escalate her complaints on 8 October 2020, which is summarised as follows:
1. It apologised for the delay in its response and acknowledged that although she had requested the escalation of her complaint, it would instead provide this response.
2. It was unable to send the email to which its transcript referred; as a result, it had arranged for this to be posted to her. In respect to its call on 21 August 2020, this was not recorded as it had been made from a personal mobile phone, as its member of staff was new and did not have access to its telephony system. It had since carried out additional training with the member of staff to seek to improve.
3. It had discussed her concerns regarding the UPVC contractor, who “promised to address the behaviour” she had reported, to ensure it did not happen again.
4. It apologised for the delayed repairs, which was due to her repairs being missed from the waiting list which had accumulated during the corona virus pandemic, when it was only able to carry out emergency appointments. To ensure that it addresses all of the reported repairs, it would arrange an inspection of her “whole home”.
On 27 October 2020, the landlord’s records confirm that the resident had reported that her shower head was leaking and the hose attachment was broken. It further confirms that the resident was informed that this would not be considered an emergency or critical repair. As a result, she would consider a complaint about the matter.
On 29 October 2020, the landlord’s records confirm that the resident had confirmed the completion of the repair to her kitchen tap.
On 24 November 2020 the landlord issued a Stage 1 complaint response to the resident, in respect of her complaint regarding her front door. It upheld her complaint as it had not followed up on the work it had identified as being required, following its out of hours call to the resident’s property on 27 November 2020. It had scheduled an appointment for 7 January 2021 to carry out the required work, and it would be holding discussions with its operatives who had spoken with her. It apologised for any distress and inconvenience it had caused her.
On 24 and 27 November 2020, the landlord’s records confirm it had raised requests for the repair of the resident’s front door which was not secure. Its records confirm both repairs were completed the same day.
On 30 November 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord in respect to her complaint regarding her front door, which is summarised as follows:
1. This had initially been reported for repair on 24 November 2020, due to it being difficult to close and jamming intermittently and was informed it would arrange an appointment for the repair within 48 hours. However, the resident had been called at work later that day, as her front door had been found to be insecure, as it would not lock.
2. The landlord had given her a timescale of four hours to respond to this emergency appointment; however, when she called back at the expiry of the four hours, she was informed that the contractor did not receive the repair order. As a result, it did not attend to her emergency repair until some six hours later.
3. She had called the landlord the following day, who confirmed that her request for repair remained open. Then, on 27 November 2020, her neighbour had called her whilst at work as her front door was open. This had caused difficulties at work, as she had already taken time off to attend to the first occurrence on 24 November 2020.
4. After reporting this emergency repair, she had been informed of a four-hour timescale, which was due to expire “between 8:00 and 8:30”; it subsequently attended “at 10:30 approx.”, and secured the lock, though she would need to discuss the required follow up work to complete the repair with the landlord. She had called in the intervening period on a number of occasions and felt that some of the operatives she had spoken to were “deliberately obstructive” and “antagonistic”. She believed this to be evidence that the landlord was failing to undertake both emergency and non-emergency repairs.
On 30 November 2020, the landlord’s records confirm that it had made some adjustments to ease her front door; however, a carpenter would be required to change the door mechanism.
On 1 December 2020, the landlord’s records confirm that it had requested a service of the resident’s ventilation units. This was completed on the landlord’s system on 15 December 2020.
On 3 December 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident at this Service’s request. It confirmed that once it resumed normal service following the COVID pandemic, it would arrange an inspection of her patio doors, first floor toilet, kitchen units, floor and drawers, and bathroom floor, tiles and fittings. Additionally, it would arrange for a contractor to service her ventilation unit. It had already addressed the repair of her kitchen tap on 28 September 2020. In respect to her request for compensation for missed appointments, its interim policy did not allow for this.
On 4 December 2020, the landlord’s records confirm that the resident had called to request an update on the follow up work to address her front door. It confirmed to her that this would be arranged once the corona virus restrictions were eased, as the door was currently secure.
On 7 December 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord in respect to her complaint regarding her front door. She had been informed by the landlord on 30 November 2020, that a carpenter was required, and that she would receive an appointment by 1 December 2020. She called the landlord on 4 December 2020 as she had not received an appointment and was informed that the repair was not considered to be critical as the door could lock. She was disappointed with this, as it had only secured the lock to make it safe, and it was aware of the need for follow up work to complete the repair.
On 2 January 2021, the landlord’s records confirm that it had requested the repair of the resident’s front door, as the key had snapped in the lock and she had been locked out of her property as a result. Subsequent to this, a further request was raised on 4 January 2021. Both of these requests were completed on the landlord’s system the same day.
On 13 January 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident to explain that it had replaced the cylinder in the locking mechanism on her patio door on 7 January 2021; it would still be arranging an inspection of her patio door when it was able to do so. It had also spoken with the contractor who had determined that no further work was required on 25 September 2020, and they would be carrying out a further inspection once it was able to do so.
On 19 January 2021, the resident responded to the landlord’s letter on 13 January 2021. She explained that the cylinder had not been replaced on her patio door as stated in its letter; it had been inserted to mitigate the fact that it could not fit the appropriate door lock. As a result, she was experiencing key jamming, and the door did not lock from the outside. She therefore felt that a further inspection be undertaken as a matter of urgency; however, she would not allow access for an operative of the same contracting company that had visited her on 25 September 2020, due to the concerns she had raised regarding its operative. She continued to seek compensation for the distress and inconvenience as a result of her complaints.
On 12 February 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that it had escalated her stage one complaint on 9 June 2020, and that it would provide its final stage complaint response by 12 March 2021.
On 2 March 2021, the landlord issued a final stage complaint response to the resident. It confirmed that its records showed the resident had opted out of a new kitchen, which had been included in its 2017 programme. It had also identified that the extractor fans in her property did not require an annual service. It had not received further information from her in respect to her allegations of bribery and malpractice.
The landlord issued further complaint responses on 11 and 22 March 2021 which reiterated its position with regards to the door repairs, the shower and the servicing of the extractor fans.
On 26 April 2021 the landlord’s records confirm that it had requested the repair of the resident’s front door as there was an “ongoing issue” in the door being difficult to close or lock. This was completed on the landlord’s system the same day.
On 26 April 2021, the landlord’s records confirm that it had raised a repair request for the resident’s bathroom taps and shower, as they were not working. Its associated notes confirm that the resident was informed this could be a chargeable repair. This repair was outstanding on the landlord’s system.
The landlord issued another final complaint response on 11 May 2021, which summarised the various complaints to date and reiterated its final position on each issue.
On 14 May 2021, the landlord’s records confirm that it had requested it attend the resident’s property to “make safe and replace loose tiles”, which it expected to take one hour. This request was outstanding on the landlord’s system.
On 5 August 2021, the landlord issued its final complaint response to the resident. It acknowledged that it should have managed and completed repairs sooner and provided a timely complaint response to her, and that it had fallen short of acceptable standards. As a result of its failings, it offered the resident £150 compensation, which was made up of £50 for its service failures and complaint handing, and £100 for its delayed final stage complaint response. This compensation would be offset against her current arrears.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman accepts that the COVID pandemic has had a major impact on the services a landlord is able to provide, and therefore that some normal services will have been significantly and unavoidably disrupted during the pandemic and going forwards. In considering complaints related to COVID the Ombudsman will consider the impact of the pandemic on the decisions and actions that a landlord has had to undertake during the period and take this into account when investigating complaints from residents.

Landlord’s handling of the repairs

The landlord’s policies do not contain specific timescales for the completion of routine repairs. However, this Service considers it reasonable for a resident to expect the completion of such a repair within 28 days, or for the resident to be informed of the delay and provided with a revised timescale for the completion of the repair. This Service has recommended that the landlord review its policies and procedures and consider providing its residents with a more clearly defined timescale for the completion of such repairs.
With regards to the repairs to her kitchen units and flooring, bathroom, first floor toilet and ventilation units, these repairs had been requested by the resident early in 2020 and grouped together by the landlord for it to inspect once the COVID 19 restrictions permitted it to do so.
Although it had scheduled an appointment on 22 May 2020, the resident could not attend at short notice. Therefore, it rearranged this to 29 May 2020, though it failed to attend this appointment. The landlord acknowledged the missed appointments, as referred to in the resident’s stage one complaint on 8 June 2020 and offered compensation in line with its compensation policy.
The landlord completed the repairs to the resident’s kitchen units, which were reported by the resident on 27 January 2020, on 10 July 2020. This is a significant delay in the completion for such a repair, though it is recognised that the landlord was not permitted to carry out such repairs at the time they were reported. Notwithstanding this, it was in a position to carry out such work in May 2020, as it had scheduled the appointment with the resident; however, the landlord did not carry out this work until 10 July 2020, and a failing has been identified for its contribution to the delay in the completion of this repair.
In respect to the resident’s request for the service of her ventilation units, the first record on the landlord’s repairs system is on 17 March 2020. The true nature of the issue was unclear to the landlord as the resident had referred to her ventilation units, which had been referred to by the resident as dehumidifiers. Once it understood the repair, it had requested a service of the unit on 25 September 2020. This was closed with no action on the landlord’s system, with a subsequent request being raised on 1 December 2020, which it completed on 15 December 2020. This is a significant delay in the completion for such a repair, though it is recognised that the landlord was not permitted to carry out such repairs at the time they were reported. Notwithstanding this, it was in a position to carry out such work in September 2020, as it had scheduled the appointment with the resident; however, the landlord did not carry out this work until 15 December 2020, and a failing has been identified for its contribution to the delay in the completion of this repair.
In respect to the resident’s request for the repair of her first-floor toilet on 4 February 2020, the landlord had committed to carrying out an inspection of this on 8 June, 4 August and 3 December 2020. During this time, no repair requests were raised on the landlord’s system in respect to this. Furthermore, it is unclear whether this inspection had taken place, and it had not addressed this aspect of the resident’s complaint in its final stage complaint response on 5 August 2021. Therefore, it had been ordered further below in this report for it to carry out an inspection of the resident’s property and provide the resident with a schedule for the completion of any repairs.
In respect to repairs to the resident’s bathroom, she had requested the repair of her bathroom taps and shower on 26 April 2021, and to make safe and replace loose tiles on 14 May 2021. In line with its policy as detailed in paragraph 2 it was not responsible for the shower repairs. It is unclear whether the landlord has since addressed the repairs to her taps, and it is therefore requested to include this within the inspection it has been ordered to carry out below in this report.
The resident had requested the repair of her rear patio door on 8 July 2020, to which the landlord had carried out work on 10 July and 21 August 2020. However, the work was not satisfactory to the resident, who had requested a UPVC contractor carry out the work. It subsequently agreed to this, and the contractor had found no apparent defect during its visit to the resident’s property on 25 September 2020, which the resident disputed. Ultimately, the landlord has relied on the findings of its specialist contractor who could find no defect in her patio door. A landlord would be entitled to rely on the conclusions of its appropriately qualified contractors, and accordingly its action to carry out no further repairs was reasonable in the circumstances.
The resident had requested the repair of her kitchen tap on 20 July 2020. This repair was more complex than the landlord had expected, as her kitchen tap was of an unusual design. In such circumstances, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to communicate the timescales for the completion of the repair, and keep the resident informed. It failed to do so, which added distress, inconvenience, time and trouble to the resident, and a failing has been identified for its communication to the resident on this repair. The landlord has been ordered to pay direct compensation as a result of its failings, and it has been recommended to review its staff training needs as a result of her complaint. It subsequently attended to this repair, as confirmed by the resident on 29 October 2020.
In respect to the resident’s front door, she had requested an emergency repair on 24 and 27 November 2020, as her front door was insecure. Although the landlord attended to both requests on the same day, it did not achieve its four-hour out of hours response time, and a failing has been identified for this aspect of her complaint. Additionally, it had attended to the repair requests after the resident’s key had snapped in the lock on 2 January 2021 and 4 January 2021 and responded on the same day of report.
It had carried out remedial work to the door on 30 November 2020 and committed to follow up repair work once the COVID 19 restrictions allowed it to do so; however, this was not critical as the door was secure. This was reasonable action for the landlord to take, as it had secured the door in line with its repair responsibilities, with a follow up repair to be completed. As it is unclear whether this work has since been completed by the landlord and is therefore also requested to include this within the inspection it has been ordered to carry out, further below in this report.
The landlord offered the resident £150 compensation in its final stage complaint response on 5 August 2021 for its failings of her complaint regarding her kitchen units and flooring, bathroom, first floor toilet and ventilation units. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the amount of £400 compensation would provide adequate redress for the service failures identified and is in line with our remedies guidance as well as the landlord’s own compensation policy. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests awards of between £250 to £700 where there has been failure over a considerable period of time to address repairs. In this case, the delays and poor communication prolonged the duration of her complaints, and compensation is due in view of this.

Landlord’s response to allegations about staff behaviour

With respect to the resident’s allegations of bribery, during its telephone conversation on 21 August 2020, the landlord was unable to review the call. However, it had confirmed in its further stage one complaint response on 23 October 2020, that it had carried out an investigation and additional training for the member of staff, who was new and did not have access to the telephony system which allowed for the recording of the calls. This was a reasonable explanation from the landlord for being unable to verify the exact details of the call. In the absence of this, this Service has seen no evidence to support the resident’s allegations of bribery, and no failing has been identified for its handling of this aspect of the resident’s complaint.
During the course of the resident’s complaints to the landlord, the resident has raised concerns that a surveyor had not been booked on 22 May 2020, that its operative failed to take responsibility for their repair work on 21 August 2020, that it had attempted to bribe her over the conduct of its staff on 24 August 2020, over the conduct of its contractor on 25 September 2020, and in respect to its failure to provide a copy of an email on 8 October 2020. The landlord has evidenced that it has responded appropriately to these reports, in discussing with its members of its staff where appropriate.
Nevertheless, it is of concern that the landlord has been unable to provide all of the information requested by the resident, and that there have been a number of these reports during the landlord’s complaints procedure. It has been recommended below to review its record keeping processes and staff training needs as a result of her complaint.

Landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

In respect to the resident’s complaint about her kitchen units and flooring, bathroom, first floor toilet and ventilation units, it issued its stage one complaint response 42 working days after it received the resident’s complaint. This significantly exceeded the 10-working day target and therefore a failing has been identified in this regard.
The landlord issued its final complaint response in August 2021, which was approximately 10 months after it received the resident’s escalation request. This significantly exceeded the 20-working day target and therefore there was a further failing in the landlord’s complaint handling. In the intervening period the resident went to the time and trouble of seeking assistance from this Service with progressing her complaint. This failing was acknowledged in the landlord’s final stage complaint response, with £50 compensation being offered.
In respect to the resident’s complaint regarding her kitchen tap on 1 September 2020, it had failed to issue a formal complaint response to her, nor has it evidenced it had responded to her follow up request for the same on 15 September 2020.
In summary, there have been considerable delays with both the landlord stage one and final stage complaint responses, which added additional distress, inconvenience, time and trouble to the resident, and in this Service’s opinion, increased compensation is due in view of this.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of various repairs to the resident’s property, including bathroom tiling, toilet and shower; kitchen cupboards; front and patio doors; and servicing of dehumidifiers/extractor fans.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns about the behaviour of its staff in respect of alleged bribery allegations related to its complaints process.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord had failed to carry out repairs within a reasonable timescale, or keep the resident informed of these delays.
It has evidenced that it has investigated the resident’s reports, including speaking to the members of staff directly, and communicated this to the resident.
There were significant delays in the landlord’s complaint responses.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Pay the resident £400 within four weeks, comprising of the following:
  1. £100 for its delays in completing repairs, and for its poor communication to the resident during these delays.
  2. £150 for the resident’s distress, inconvenience, time and trouble as a result of her complaints.
  3. £150 for its poor complaint handling.
  4. Additional compensation should also be considered for the two missed appointments referred to in the resident’s letter on 21 October 2020.
Carry out an inspection of the resident’s property within the next four weeks and provide the resident with a schedule for the completion of any outstanding repairs related to this complaint.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Review its record keeping processes for prolonged repairs and repair complaints, including for the retention of contact between it and its contractors, ensuring that there is a clear audit trail for these, which provides details of specifically when contact was made, what was said, what the agreed next steps, timescales and expectations were, and what actions subsequently took place.
2. Review its staff’s training needs in relation to their application of its policies and procedures with regard to repairs and complaints, to seek to prevent a recurrence of its above failures in the resident’s case. This should include consideration of this Service’s guidance on remedies, at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/about-us/corporate-information/policies/dispute-resolution/policy-on-remedies/, and the completion of our free online dispute resolution training for landlords, if this has not been done recently, at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/landlords/e-learning/.
3. Review its policies and procedures and consider providing its residents with a more clearly defined timescale for the completion of such repairs.
The landlord shall contact this Service within four weeks of this determination to confirm that it has complied with the above orders and whether it will follow the above recommendations.