Great Places Housing Association (202108718)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202108718

Great Places Housing Association

7 April 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 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:
1. Repairs to and the replacement of the resident’s back door.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord at the property. The property was newly built in 2017, and the defects liability period ended in 2018.
The resident historically raised several repair issues with the landlord regarding the back door to the property since moving there in March 2017. Multiple repairs to the door subsequently took place by it, and discussions around replacing the door began in January 2020. A repair order to replace the resident’s back door was raised by the landlord in March 2020, and an appointment to measure the door for a replacement was carried out in April 2021. Following this, several appointments were made and then rearranged by it throughout June and July 2021 to replace the door.
The resident raised a stage one complaint with the landlord in July 2021, and a final stage complaint in August 2021, regarding the recurring issues with the back door, and the delay in completing the replacement work. She noted the multiple appointments and a lack of clear communication from it. The resident had previously asked the landlord for a compensation claim form for the carpet cleaner which had broken, as she had needed to use this daily in view of the water leaking into the property from the door. She disputed its advice to raise a claim via her contents insurance as she had previously been informed that the door had been installed incorrectly, causing the water leak. The resident also expressed concerns regarding the mould growth around the current door and carpet underlay.
In response to the resident’s complaints in August and September 2021, the landlord apologised for the delay in issuing a stage one complaint response. It explained that this was due to a high volume of complaints and offered her £20 compensation for the delay. The landlord additionally apologised for the delay to the replacement of the resident’s door, and it acknowledged that more could have been done to reduce the delays. It explained that there had been some delay caused by the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, but that it had improved its handover process, reminded its planning team to notify residents of appointments, and was looking to review its monitoring of lead and delivery times of materials.
The landlord also explained that there was a long lead time for the manufacture of doors, and that it had additionally had difficulty with a new appointment scheduling system. It acknowledged that the gap under the door had been identified at the end of the property’s defects period in 2018 and noted that water leak from this may have been an issue since then. The landlord confirmed that the door was due to be replaced on 27 September 2021, and it offered the resident £100 compensation in recognition of the delay. It also offered to either arrange for the carpet to be professionally cleaned, or to compensate her with an additional £40 towards this cost.
The resident then referred her complaint to this Service, as she remained dissatisfied that the landlord had not addressed her concerns regarding mould on the skirting board and the effect of water leaking onto the carpet underlay. She also expressed concerns that the new door had been installed to open outwards rather than inwards. The resident added that the landlord had not addressed her claim for compensation for her damaged carpet cleaner or her response to its advice to claim for this via her home contents insurance.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

While the resident complains that she has reported issues with her back door to the landlord since 2017, under the Housing Ombudsman Scheme this Service cannot investigate complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period of normally within six months of the matters arising. Therefore, as her stage one complaint to it was made on 13 July 2021, the scope of this investigation is primarily limited to considering the period from approximately six months prior to that date onwards.
In her communications to this Service, the resident also raised concerns that the new back door was fitted incorrectly by the landlord and was opening the wrong way. As this is a new issue that occurred after the complaint raised with the us exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure and has not yet exhausted this itself in its own right, this is not something that this Service can determine at this stage, as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to this. This is because, under the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we cannot investigate complaints that are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to and the replacement of the resident’s back door

The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord would be responsible for repairs needed to external doors and frames. Its responsive repairs policy states that emergency repairs should be attended to within 24 hours. The landlord aims to carry out routine repairs in as little time as possible. Planned repairs such as door replacements can take a longer timescale to complete, however it would be expected to provide regular updates to the resident and provide an expected timescale for completion.
The responsive repairs policy states that the landlord will ensure that it has sufficient public liability insurance, but that residents are strongly recommended to take out suitable contents insurance to cover their personal belongings that are their and not its responsibility. Its compensation policy gives it discretion to recognise and recommends compensation of up to £50 for delays in completing repairs, and the value of the damaged items on production of receipts for damage to residents’ belongings that could not reasonably be expected to be claimed on their contents insurance.
In this case, it is not disputed that there was a significant delay in replacing the resident’s back door between the discussions about this January 2020 and the door’s replacement on 27 September 2021. It explained that the door required approval to be replaced and this was not completed before the lockdown restrictions as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic were imposed in March 2020. There were likely to have been significant delays due to the impact of Covid-19, and the landlord confirmed was carrying out an emergency only service from March 2020. The back door replacement would not be considered an emergency repair issue, as this was otherwise secure. As such, it was reasonable that little progress was made throughout 2020, as this was outside of the landlord’s control.
The landlord has acknowledged that, following the easing of lockdown restrictions, the door replacement was not picked up until the resident had reported the issue again in 2021. This was as a result of the member of staff responsible for approving the door replacement leaving the business and the work being overlooked. This amounts to a failure by the landlord in that it did not have the correct handover process in place for when a member of staff leaves the business. It apologised to the resident for this, and said that it had now taken steps to improve the handover process to prevent jobs being missed in future, which was reasonable.
Following an appointment to have the door measured in April 2021, there was a further delay before the door replacement was completed in September 2021. The landlord attributed this delay to the long lead time for the replacement door to be manufactured. However, the evidence from its internal correspondence suggests that the door was available on 25 May 2021. As such, the door manufacturing time is unlikely to have contributed significantly to the delay. The landlord also confirmed that there had been contractor absences meaning that routine repairs were taking longer than usual to complete. While this was somewhat outside of the landlord’s control, there is a lack of evidence to show that it kept the resident regularly updated, which would have been appropriate in order to manage her expectations.
As part of her complaint escalation request to the landlord, the resident also raised concerns about mould growth below the carpet and in the skirting boards as a result of the water ingress into the property. She has since advised this Service that the mould in the skirting board is still apparent, and that she has not heard anything further about this from the landlord. There is no evidence to suggest that it had addressed the resident’s concerns regarding mould affecting the skirting board and the possible effect on the carpet underlay.
The landlord would have had the opportunity to confirm its position and investigate the resident’s concerns about her carpet underlay and skirting boards prior to the back door being replaced in September 2021. It would have been appropriate for it to have arranged an inspection of the skirting boards, and beneath the carpets by the door, given the delay in replacing the door and the reported water leak experienced by her during this time.
In this case, the landlord demonstrated that it learnt from outcomes by improving the handover process when a member of staff leaves the business to ensure that repairs are not overlooked. It also confirmed that it had provided feedback to its planned maintenance team to ensure residents are made aware of appointment changes, and that it was looking to review how it monitored timescales for the supply of materials, so that it could better manage customer expectations. The landlord also attempted to put things right in accordance with its compensation policy by offering the resident £100 compensation for the repair delays, and an additional £40 towards a professional carpet cleaning.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance nevertheless states that amounts in this range are proportionate where there has been failure, but this was of a short duration and may not have affected the outcome for the resident. In this case, however, the delay was not of a short duration but was from January 2020 to September 2021, albeit outside of the landlord’s control for part of this period due to the Covid-19 pandemic restrictions, and is likely to have caused the resident significant inconvenience. Its offer of £140 total compensation was therefore not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience that would have been experienced by the resident in relation to its failings in this case.
Under the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, a higher award of compensation would be considered proportionate where there has been considerable failure, which the landlord’s compensation policy gives it discretion to award. For example, where the resident needs to repeatedly chase responses and seek correction of mistakes, necessitating an unreasonable level of involvement by her, or a failure by it over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy.
The landlord should therefore pay the resident additional compensation, as set out below, in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings. It should also confirm how she can make a claim to it for the damage to the property’s flooring under its public liability insurance or compensation policy, arrange an inspection of the mould growth around the door, and carry out remedial works accordingly.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord’s customer feedback policy states that it has a two-stage complaints process. At stage one, it should respond to complaints within ten working days, and at stage two within 20 working days. If, at any stage, there is likely to be a delay, the landlord would be expected to contact the resident, explain the reason for the delay and provide a new response timescale.
The landlord would be expected to address each aspect of the resident’s complaint within each complaint response. Its compensation policy states that, where damage has occurred to her property or belongings that could not reasonably be expected to be claimed back through contents insurance, monetary compensation to the value of the items damaged would be considered on the provision of receipts. The policy also gives the landlord the discretion to award compensation of up to £20 to recognise time and trouble taken to pursue a resolution to a complaint that could not be considered reasonable.
The resident initially asked for a stage one complaint to be raised on 13 July 2021, but the landlord did not acknowledge the complaint until 4 August 2021, after it had been asked to do so by this Service. It also provided its stage one complaint response to her on 18 August 2021, which was 16 working days outside of its ten-working-day timescale for a response at this stage. The landlord nevertheless issued its stage two complaint response within a reasonable timeframe following the resident’s escalation request on 18 August 2021 by responding to this on 14 September 2021, which was within its 20-working-day timescale to do so.
While the resident did not express concern about the damaged underlay and flooring underneath the carpet as part of her stage one complaint, the landlord had the opportunity to address her concerns about this in her escalation request as part of its stage two complaint response and to confirm. its position. However, there is no evidence to suggest that it did so. Similarly, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord addressed the resident’s further concerns in her escalation request about claiming via her own home contents insurance for her damaged carpet cleaner.
It is not the role of the Ombudsman to determine liability or to award damages for the resident’s damaged items because we do not have the authority or expertise to do so in the way that a court might. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered and responded to her concerns about this in its stage two complaint response, and to have provided its public liability insurance information as she had made clear that she believed that it was, at least in part, liable for the damaged items. Failing this, it could have also considered reimbursing the resident on the provision of receipts, in line with its compensation policy.
The landlord’s failure to address these aspects of the resident’s complaint would have caused her additional time and trouble to pursue a resolution to her complaint that could not be considered reasonable, and she has confirmed that these issues remain outstanding. Its offer of £20 compensation to her for its delay in responding to her stage one complaint was appropriate to recognise the delay, being in line with the amount recommended for this by its compensation policy, but this was not proportionate to put right the impact on her of its other complaint handling failings.
This is because the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance recommends higher levels of compensation to recognise significant failures by the landlord to follow the complaint procedure, including failing to address all relevant aspects of the complaint, leading to considerable delays in resolving this. It should therefore offer the additional compensation outlined below for this to the resident in recognition of the additional time and trouble caused to her by these failings, which its compensation policy gave it discretion to award.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs to and the replacement of the resident’s back door.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident total compensation of £350 within four weeks, comprised of:
  1. £250 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the repair delays and poor communication, including the previous offer of £140 if this has not already been paid to her.
  2. £100 in view of the time and trouble caused by the poor complaint handling, including the previous offer of £20 if this has not already been paid to her.
2. Contact the resident within four weeks to provide her with information to enable her to submit a liability insurance claim to it or its insurers for her damaged items and/or to raise a claim for these under its compensation policy.
3. Contact the resident within four weeks to arrange to carry out an inspection of the mould growth and flooring around the back door and any remedial works required for these.
The landlord shall contact this Service within four weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above orders.