Basildon Borough Council (202107854)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202107854

Basildon Borough Council

31 August 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 the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about:
1. taps not being fitted correctly.
2. roof and gutter leaks and holes related to a rat infestation.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is also the local authority.
The landlord’s tenant handbook confirms it is responsible for repairs to taps and parts of the structure as the roof, gutters and fascia. The landlord handles repairs as priority one repairs which are attended within two hours, and as priority two repairs which are attended within 28 days and at a tenant’s convenience.
The landlord operates a three stage complaints procedure, and aims to respond within ten working days at each stage. The landlord awards £20 per missed appointment, and may award compensation between £25 and £500 dependent on the impact of a service failure on a resident, although awards in excess of £500 may also be paid.

Summary of events

The landlord’s repairs records advise that on 14 September 2020 the resident reported a number of repairs. He reported that a kitchen tap leaked; a waste pipe under a sink leaked; and a pipe to the toilet dripped. He reported that the roof had leaked for years and that scaffold was put up for this but the issue was never fixed. He reported that a front gutter was leaking.
The landlord’s repairs records advise that on 14 September 2020:
1. It raised a repair for the plumbing issues, for which an operative attended on 25 September 2020 and carried out works that included renewal of some bathroom taps. On 21 October 2020, the landlord then raised a repair for a report of gaps in the bathroom taps that had been fitted, which water dripped through and leaked under the bathroom sink. The resident’s account advises he made this report on 28 September 2020 via a repairs webform. On 27 October 2020, an operative inspected the taps. The resident’s account advises that the operative told him the taps had been fitted incorrectly and needed fixing; while the landlord’s repairs records advise that the operative formally reported the taps were in good order and fitted correctly.
2. It raised a repair for an inspection of the gutter and roof, for which an operative attended on 17 September 2020 and reported: “Wall rafters rotten and split needs reraftering and fascia put back and they have overcladded asbestos soffit will need carpenter and scaffold.” The information provided suggests the resident was subsequently informed that another visit would be carried out.
The landlord’s repairs records advise that on 3 November 2020, it raised a repair for a report that there was some ‘wild life’ in the resident’s loft, for which it was arranged for a pest control contractor to attend on a weekly basis for several weeks.
The pest contractor attended on 4 November 2020 and their report noted that there were rat droppings in various areas and traps were placed in the loft. They noted there was a large hole in the roof and recommended in a ‘Further Recommendations’ section for roof repairs to be carried out, although they noted the resident said “roof repairs are imminent.” The report attached a photo of the loft interior that shows daylight coming through a hole, and a photo of a downpipe and gutter to the property exterior that was noted to show a hole.
The pest contractor attended on 11 November 2020 and their report noted that no activity was found in the traps, although the resident reported he still heard noises in the loft. The pest contractor noted in the ‘Further Recommendations’ section that there was a large hole in the roof that required repair and that the landlord was going to be onsite later (on 13 November 2020).
On 13 November 2020, the contractors attended again in relation to the repair raised on 14 September 2020 for an inspection of the gutter and roof. The records advise the same operative as 17 September 2020 attended and reported: “Did inspection…roof looks ok and gutter is ok tenants wants inspector oull.”
The pest contractor attended on 19 November 2020 and noted no current activity was found and traps remained clear. They noted a further visit would be carried out to clear a heavy build-up of old rat droppings and remove traps. The resident’s account advises that the same day, he called the contact centre about repairs to the roof and learned that the operative that attended for the taps on 27 October 2020 had reported the taps were fitted correctly.
On 20 November 2020, the resident emailed the contractor to advise of his shock at learning it had been reported the taps were fitted correctly. He attached a photo to show a matchstick fitted through a gap at the bottom of the taps and detailed how water poured out of the bottom of the sink as a result. He stated that the contractor was obviously unwilling or unable to fix the taps, and he requested a copy of the report to decide his next actions.
The pest contractor attended on 25 November 2020 and their report noted that traps were removed and no further pest activity had been observed or reported.
On 27 November 2020, the resident emailed landlord staff about a lack of response to his 20 November 2020 email to the contractor about the taps. He raised concern about not being taken seriously by the contact centre and this delaying progress on fixing the roof that he said leaked and allowed rats into the loft. He asked for someone from the landlord to visit and inspect the taps. The landlord’s repairs records advise that the same day a further repair was raised for the taps, which was attended on 25 January 2021 as summarised at paragraph 18 of this report.
On 13 January 2021 the resident made a complaint.
1. He explained the bathroom taps had been fitted with gaps that water ran through and onto boxing and a floor underneath; an operative had visited and agreed the taps were not fitted correctly; and he had then been informed it had been reported they were fitted correctly. He notes he was told pictures taken at the visit did not show gaps, but he highlighted that pictures he had taken showed gaps. He noted the issue just involved a leak of a bit of water when washing, however he raised wider concerns about a ‘fake report’ being made; and felt the lack of records for his account had resulted in him being branded a liar and was affecting other repairs he was attempting to progress.
2. He explained he had roof leaks and had rats in his loft recently and needed a surveyor inspection. He had arranged with the contact centre for a surveyor to attend on 13 November 2020, however they did not turn up and there was no record of this.
3. He expressed dissatisfaction at being informed by the contact centre that he had to make new requests for the two jobs and a surveyor inspection, when he had been trying to progress them for weeks. He noted that after emails to the contractor and landlord in November 2020, and mentioning the issue to an operative who attended for a separate repair, he had not heard anything.
4. He stated that his desired outcome was for the taps to be fixed; for the roof to be repaired to stop leaks and wildlife; for the ‘fake report’ to be removed from the system; and to be compensated for being called a liar and the impact of the issue on him.
The landlord’s repairs records advise that on 21 January 2021, it raised a further pest control works order, and on 22 January 2021 it raised a repair for the roof to be checked, both in response to the complaint. The resident’s account then advises that on 22 January 2021, he spoke to someone who said they would pass on that the infestation had only been temporarily dealt with and required a roof repair to stop future infestations. The landlord’s records subsequently advise that on 28 January 2021 the further pest control works order was closed with the note: “TNT has complained about leaking taps and roof leaks due to holes…[he] does not have a rodent issue but does want his leaks resolved… we have cancelled ths job.”
On 25 January 2021, the landlord’s repairs records advise that its contractor attended in response to the taps repair raised on 27 November 2020, noting that the resident was not in.
On 1 February 2021, the contractors attended for the roof check raised on 22 January 2021. The landlord’s repairs records advise that a “Slight leak to cowling around the vent pipe to roof” was identified and, the same day, works were carried out to seal around a pipe.
On 10 February 2021 the landlord issued its stage one response to the complaint:
1. It advised that an issue with the taps was reported on 21 October 2020 and an operative attended the same day. It apologised the resident was advised that work was required for the taps, to later discover that this was not what had been reported, and said this was not the level of service it aimed to provide. It said that following the complaint, it had arranged for its contractor to attend on 25 January 2021 to carry out necessary work to the taps.
2. It advised that on 17 September 2020 contractors attended and identified works and scaffolding required for the roof; a further inspection on 13 November 2020 identified no work was required; and an inspection on 1 February 2021 following the complaint identified a repair to a downpipe that was done the same day. It advised that if a roof leak was still being experienced the repairs team should be contacted.
3. It advised that on 28 January 2021 a contractor had attended and reported there was no evidence of an infestation at the time of the inspection.
On 22 February 2021, the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the response:
1. While he felt the landlord had confirmed the contractor had submitted a ‘fake report’ and ‘lied,’ the stated attendance the same day the issue with the taps was reported was untrue, and showed the contractor was trying to blemish his character. He reported that the taps were not fixed on 25 January 2021 and explained he was not informed of a visit; did not hear a knock; and only learned of the visit when he went out and found a leaflet on the outside of the letterbox. He asked the landlord to confirm that it was not true that contractors had attended the same day and actually took a month to re-attend.
2. He stated that a report of a pest control inspection on 28 January 2021 was not true, as no one visited on that date, and made it sound like he made up having rats in the loft. He detailed the pest contractor’s attendance in November 2020. He noted he did speak to someone on 22 January 2021, who had said they would pass on his report the previous infestation had only been temporarily dealt with, and required a roof repair to stop future infestations. He said that the landlord needed to talk to the pest contractor as there were still large gaps in felt that needed repairs so wildlife could not return, which he attached photos of to evidence. He asked the landlord to confirm the pest contractors had attended for rats in the loft, and to tell him what it was going to do about the holes and gaps to prevent further wildlife entering the loft.
3. He detailed a belief that his roof leaked and the loft boards repeatedly got soaked then dried out, which caused a damp smell in the summer. He acknowledged he did not experience ceiling ingress and had no evidence for the leaks. He detailed a belief that six years prior contractors did not complete all the works a surveyor had recommended. He detailed that in September 2020, he had then contacted the landlord about the roof leaks, and operatives who had attended had said they would submit a report about a request he made for a surveyor and a wildlife problem he mentioned was in the loft. He later contacted the landlord for an update and was informed there was nothing on record about a surveyor or a wildlife problem. This led to the pest contractors being arranged, who confirmed the presence of rats and gaps in felt. He later contacted the landlord to “get my roof sorted” and was informed roofers and a surveyor would attend on 13 November 2020. However, only roofers came and during a subsequent call he found out about a ‘fake report’ for the taps. He confirmed that operatives attended on 1 February 2021 and noted they informed him rats could not get in through gaps in felt, which contradicted what the pest contractor told him. He also noted that the operatives only put their head through the hatch to look at the loft, and queried how they could tell there was a leak and holes in the felt if they did not go into the loft. He asked the landlord to confirm work was not completed following reports over five years prior, and to confirm he was informed on two occasions that a surveyor would attend.
4. He concluded that there were still gaps in the tap, gaps in the felt where rats could get in, and a roof leak; and he still felt he was being called a liar. He also raised concern about contractors attending without prior notice and asked to be contacted by email.
On 23 March 2021, the landlord issued its stage two response to the complaint:
1. It advised that it had not disputed the length of time for the taps to be correctly fitted. It clarified that the contractor re-attended for the taps on 27, not 21, October 2020. It apologised that he was dissatisfied with its previous response and also that the leak from the basin had not been picked up by an operative who had attended in December 2020 for a separate repair.
2. It apologised that it did not acknowledge the resident had a rat infestation in November 2020. It advised that further to its stage one response, there was no evidence of a current infestation at an inspection on 28 January 2021. It advised that it inspected the loft and roof on 1 February 2021 and a hole around the vent pipe in the roof was found and filled the same day. It advised that it had received no further reports of holes in the loft that may allow access to rodents, but asked the resident to contact its repairs team if he experienced any issues with rodents in the loft.
3. It advised that within the last five years it had received ten reports from the resident about roof issues, including rodent infestation, for which its operatives had carried out all necessary work.
4. It apologised he was informed that surveyors would inspect the roof on 17 September 2020 and 13 November 2020, and said it should have ensured these appointments were kept.
5. It confirmed it had asked for future appointments to be confirmed with him by email following concerns he had raised.
On 7 April 2021, the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the response:
1. He said the taps had still not been fitted correctly, and the landlord had not acknowledged that an operative attending the same day as a report on 21 October 2020 was a lie by the contractors. He said he had evidenced they had taken four weeks, and he requested confirmation that the contractors had lied for the stage one response.
2. He queried the response that it had received no further reports of holes in the loft that may allow access to rodents, as it had taken no notice of his original complaint. He explained that no one had listened to his attempts for someone to inspect holes in the felt that allowed access to rodents, and no one apart from the pest control had been in the loft to see the holes, which is why he kept requesting a surveyor. He restated that the contractors who attended on 1 February 2021 did not go into the loft to inspect his reports of holes and only inspected from the outside. He highlighted that he could “see daylight in several places” in the loft.
On 8 April 2021, the landlord internally noted the resident had not specifically requested escalation and that the best action would be for a manager at its contractor to visit the resident to discuss the complaint. The same day, the contractor contacted the resident and after he expressed a preference for a call rather than face-to-face meeting, he was informed a manager would call him later that day. The following day, the resident reported to the landlord that he had not received a call from the contractor. On receipt of this, the landlord escalated the complaint and asked the resident to complete a form with information or evidence it had not already seen, which requested detail about his dissatisfaction with the previous outcome and what would resolve it.
The resident completed this form on 16 April 2020 and in this queried why he was told operatives would contact a surveyor; why an operative agreed the taps were fitted incorrectly but did not take proper photos to show the gaps and submitted a ‘fake report;’ why the contact centre said a surveyor would attend in November 2020; why an operative refused to go in the loft even though he reported there were holes; why the contractor had lied for the stage one response by saying they attended the same day as a report he had made; and why he was not called by a manager at the contractor when he was told he would be.
The landlord subsequently internally discussed the complaint. It noted a desire to address issues not addressed previously and made enquiries to its contractor about the notes from the 17 September 2020 inspection that reported “Wall rafters rotten and split needs re-raftering and fascia put back and they have over cladded asbestos soffit will need carpenter and scaffold.” The contractor responded that the inspection on 13 November 2020 found the roof and gutter to look ok, and the inspection on 1 February 2021 identified a “slight leak to cowling around the vent pipe to roof” for which work was carried out the same day.
On 1 June 2021, the landlord issued its final response to the complaint:
1. It advised it had reviewed works schedules, and detailed works on 14 September 2020 that included renewal of taps to a wash hand basin. It advised that it arranged for a plumber to check the taps on 25 January 2021 but were unable to gain access to the property, including after attempts to call the resident. It advised that it had arranged for the contractor to contact him to attend and refit the taps and an appointment had been made for 4 June 2021.
2. It noted that on 14 September 2020 the resident reported his roof had been leaking for years, and that scaffolding had been erected without repairs taking place. It advised that a roofer attended on 17 September 2020 to see what works needed to be undertaken, then “an initial inspection” was carried out on 13 November 2020 which confirmed the roof and guttering looked ok. It noted the resident had requested an inspector to attend to recheck the roof, and on 1 February 2021 a supervisor confirmed there was a leak to cowling around a vent pipe to the roof, for which a repair was carried out the same day.
3. It acknowledged concerns the resident raised about a lack of records to support his accounts. It advised it had discussed retrieving calls between him and the contractor, but that calls were unable to be recovered due to the working practises the contractors had put in place for the Covid-19 pandemic.
4. It advised that no one suggested the resident had ever lied. It advised that the contractor had checked their systems and it appeared that reports were returned to the office in a timely way. However, it said that reports that were supposed to have been submitted were not, which it said had been addressed with the person responsible and it had apologised for previously. It also noted that “there was also a slight delay with the scaffolding erection which delayed the roofing works being completed,” which had been escalated internally.
5. It restated previous responses that attendance by a pest control contractor on 28 January 2021 reported there was no evidence of a rat infestation at the time of inspection.
6. It acknowledged the resident’s report that he had not received a call from a manager at the contractor in April 2021, but advised that the manager attempted to call him on the day he requested as well as the following day.
7. It advised that it could not locate any missed operative appointments, but acknowledged the resident may have experienced missed appointments from surveyors. It noted that the resident did not want apologies but said it would compensate him with £40 in recognition of these.
The resident subsequently brought the complaint to this Service. He expressed dissatisfaction with the experience he had progressing his complaint through the landlord’s complaints procedure and with the landlord’s responses being littered with errors and inconsistencies. He disputed that the manager at the contractor had called him, or had called him on the correct number, as his landline phone had no record of their two reported call attempts. He was unhappy that the landlord kept saying there was a pest control inspection on 28 January 2021, when there was not, and made it sound like there was not a roof leak.
He has detailed that the main focus of his dissatisfaction was the operative’s submission of the ‘fake report,’ which he believed was because the operative did not like the complaint and the resident. He queried the landlord’s final response saying reports that were supposed to have been submitted were not, giving the impression there was no report that the taps were correctly fitted. He detailed how the contact centre had informed him the operative had reported the taps were fitted correctly, and told him they could not see any gaps in pictures the operative had submitted. He has explained this made him feel humiliated; made him feel like he was a liar and was pretending he had gaps; and made him realise that he was having trouble getting a surveyor around because he was not being believed and was being ignored.
He recently advises that the taps remain unfixed and that he informed an operative who last came round and took pictures that he wanted to leave the issue until the complaint process was concluded. He confirms the issue is minor and has not resulted in damage to boxing or flooring. He advises that he still hears noises from the loft, but has not been up there since the timeframe of the complaint to confirm if there is still light coming through holes or evidence of more recent rat droppings. He advises that he thinks the landlord’s repairs to the downpipe may have fixed the roof leaks, as he has not smelled the smell he reported previously.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident was informed that a request for historic repairs information was outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction as it was not raised in the original complaint, which is also applicable to some other issues that the resident raised. The Information Commissioner’s Office investigates complaints about an organisation’s handling of information, and so would be the most appropriate body to consider concerns about request for historic repairs information.
This investigation notes that the Ombudsman’s remit for complaints is set out by its Scheme, which advises that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord within a reasonable period. This reflects that it is normally considered reasonable for complaints to be made closer to the time of events complained about, as the longer time goes on, the more the ability to conduct an effective investigation may be impacted. This means that this investigation focuses on recent events rather than historic events referred to in respect to issues such as the roof.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about taps not being fitted correctly

The evidence advises that after the landlord renewed bathroom taps on 25 September 2020, the resident reported these were badly fitted on 28 September 2020 via webform. The landlord later attended on 27 October 2020, and an operative reportedly informed the resident that the taps were badly fitted, and informed the landlord that they were fitted correctly. The resident subsequently complained about the length of time it took for the landlord to respond to the report on 28 September 2020; about the first complaint response saying the tap gap issue was attended on 21 October 2020 the same day as reported; and about the contractor that attended on 27 October 2020 making a ‘fake report.’
In its responses, the landlord clarified that the operative attended on 27 October, not 21 October 2020; said it did not dispute the length of time it took; and apologised that what the resident was told about work being required for the taps was not what was reported. It has confirmed this was not the level of service expected and advised this was addressed with a person responsible. In regards to the practical works, the landlord said in its first response that it had arranged for its contractor to attend on 25 January 2021, then advised in its final response that it had arranged for its contractor to attend on 4 June 2021.
This Service understands the resident’s main focus of dissatisfaction is the ‘fake reports’ made by contractors which he feels blemished his character and affected the response to other repairs, and recognises these affected and caused distress to him. However, there is no evidence that there was intention or malice in it being reported the taps were fitted correctly on 27 October 2020, or in it being stated that an operative attended the same day the issue was reported. The evidence suggests that any statements the resident feels are ‘fake reports’ were errors.
This Service understands that mistakes can happen, and the landlord generally responded in a way that would be expected by acknowledging the errors, apologising, and confirming some steps to address issues. The landlord’s initial response in conjunction with effective actions to ensure the tap gap issue was resolved could have reasonably helped draw a line under the concerns about ‘fake reports,’ however this is not what occurred.
The landlord’s responses were not satisfactory in how these considered the appointment arranged for 25 January 2020. The first response was two weeks after the appointment, however it did not establish that this was unsuccessful and take any action to try to progress the repair. The final response considered if procedure was followed on the day; but it did not demonstrate it considered if the resident was effectively informed about the appointment beforehand.
The landlord provided some acknowledgment of the length of time it took, however it did not explain why the resident’s report on 28 September 2020 was not raised until 21 October 2020 and not attended until 27 October 2020. The 27 October 2020 visit does not constitute a failing as this was in line with the landlord’s 28 day completion timeframe for a non-urgent repair, however the landlord could consider how it communicates and manages expectations in respect to and following repairs reports.
This investigation understands that the tap issue is minor and the resident took the decision to postpone further visits from the landlord until this Service’s decision. However, the landlord does not demonstrate it did not all reasonably could to avoid the issue becoming unnecessarily protracted and remaining unresolved, which leads this Service to find a service failing in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about taps not being fitted correctly.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about roof and gutter leaks and holes related to a rat infestation

In its responses, the landlord has advised that an inspection on 17 September 2020 identified works and scaffolding were required for the roof; a further inspection on 13 November 2020 identified no work was required; an inspection on 28 January 2021 found no evidence of a current infestation; and an inspection on 1 February 2021 identified a repair to a downpipe that was done the same day. The landlord stated in its final response that “there was also a slight delay with the scaffolding erection which delayed the roofing works being completed.” In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s responses were not satisfactory.
The resident informs this investigation that no scaffolding has been erected in recent years, which raises questions about the accuracy of the final response’s referral to delays in the erection of scaffolding.
The evidence advises that the inspection on 17 September 2020 identified that repairs were required for “Wall rafters rotten and split needs reraftering and fascia put back and they have overcladded asbestos soffit will need carpenter and scaffold.” The later inspection by the same operative on 13 November 2020 which noted “roof looks ok and gutter is ok” seems contradictory, and this investigation has seen no satisfactory explanation about why these works were not carried out/not considered required. This is not satisfactory given the level of repairs detailed.
The evidence advises that on 4 and 11 November 2020, pest contractor reports noted a large hole in the roof, and included a photo of the loft interior showing daylight coming through a hole, and a photo of a downpipe and gutter to the property exterior noted to show a hole. The evidence does not demonstrate the landlord gave specific regard to these reports, including in the inspection on 13 November 2020 that identified that there were no issues with the roof and gutter, and the resident advises the loft was not accessed since pest contractors attended.
The evidence advises that works in relation to a downpipe were not completed until 1 February 2021. The pest contractor report noted issues with a downpipe in November so this represented two months in excess of the 28 day timeframe for non-urgent repairs if this was the same downpipe. The evidence does not however demonstrate that this was in response to the pest contractor reports, which is not satisfactory.
These raise concern about the landlord’s processes for recommendations by its pest contractor for its housing stock, and these lead to doubt about whether all repairs to the roof identified in the pest contractor reports have been carried out, which is not satisfactory.
The landlord has stated in all three of its complaint responses that a contractor attended on 28 January 2021 and reported there was no evidence of an infestation at the time of the inspection. The resident has repeatedly disputed attendance of contractors on 28 January 2021, and the landlord’s records show that a repair for the issue was closed, not attended, on 28 January 2021, with reference to the resident’s reported concerns about holes in the roof. The continued claim there was attendance on this date is not satisfactory, and this will have caused frustration to the resident and led to him feeling repeatedly ignored.
The resident acknowledges that there has been no sign of water ingress and his suspicion for leaks has been based on recurrence of a smell in summer months, which he recently informed this Service had now stopped. This and the information provided offers limited evidence for leaks at the property.
However, the evidence overall shows that the landlord’s response to reports about roof and gutter leaks and holes related to a rat infestation was not appropriate. The landlord identified repairs that involved rotten wall rafters and scaffolding, which were then not done without any satisfactory explanation why. There is no evidence that proactive, timely and appropriate attention was given to pest contractor recommendations to repair holes. There was a two month delay in a repair to a downpipe if this was the same downpipe mentioned by pest contractors. The evidence leads to doubt about whether all repairs to the roof identified in pest contractor reports have been carried out, which is not satisfactory.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The evidence shows that the landlord’s complaint handling was not reasonable, and it missed opportunities to effectively resolve matters and avoid them escalating and becoming protracted.
The landlord’s stage one and two responses were ten working days late and its final response was twenty working days late. The landlord did not provide any acknowledgement or apology for this in its formal responses, when this would have been appropriate.
The landlord should exercise care in its responses and ensure these are accurate, particularly given complaints of the resident’s nature. It is not satisfactory that while the landlord appropriately corrected its account in relation to 21 October 2020, it did not take opportunities to correct its account that a pest contractor inspected on 28 January 2021, which the resident repeatedly disputed and the evidence confirms did not occur. It also referred to delays in erection of scaffolding which seems another inaccuracy, given there is no evidence scaffold was required or erected at the property in the timeframe of the complaint. The various inaccuracies throughout the complaint are inappropriate and shows that the landlord would benefit from a review of this aspect.
The landlord should also take the opportunities presented by the complaints procedure to effectively resolve issues, however its handling at different stages lacked sufficient customer and resolution focus, particularly given it said it upheld failings about repairs and its service. It is not satisfactory that the landlord has not acknowledged issues such as the lack of follow up to the 25 January 2021 tap visit at stage one; lack of scrutiny of the outcome to the 17 September 2020 roof inspection at different stages; lack of consideration of the November 2020 pest contractor visits and report recommendations at different stages; and lack of regard to the resident’s continued dispute of a pest contractor visit on 28 January 2021 at different stages.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about taps not being fitted correctly.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about roof and gutter leaks and holes related to a rat infestation
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

There is no evidence that there was intention or malice in it being reported taps were fitted correctly, or in it being stated that an operative attended the same day the issue was reported. The evidence suggests that any statements the resident feels are ‘fake reports’ were errors, some of which the landlord, acknowledged, clarified and apologised in respect to. However, the landlord does not demonstrate it did not all reasonably could to avoid the issue becoming unnecessarily protracted and remaining unresolved. The landlord did not identify the repair visit was unsuccessful at stage one and take appropriate steps to try to progress the repair. The landlord considered if procedure was followed to contact the resident on the day of an unsuccessful repair visit, but it does not demonstrate it established if the resident was effectively informed of the visit beforehand.
The landlord identified repairs that involved rotten wall rafters and scaffolding, which were then not done without satisfactory explanation why. There is no evidence that proactive, timely and appropriate attention was given to pest contractor recommendations to repair holes. There was a two month delay in a repair to a downpipe if this was the same downpipe mentioned by pest contractors. The evidence leads to doubt about whether all repairs to the roof identified in pest contractor reports were carried out, which is not satisfactory.
The landlord delayed in its complaint responses which it did not acknowledge in its responses. The landlord did not take opportunities to ensure its responses were accurate, or identify learning in respect to this. The landlord did not take opportunities presented by the complaints procedure to consider and take action for a number of aspects which could have helped progress matters.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord to pay the resident:
1. £300 compensation for its handling of the resident’s repairs reports.
2. £100 compensation for its complaint handling.
The landlord should provide evidence it has taken steps in respect to the above within four weeks of this decision.
The landlord to, within four weeks of this decision, liaise with the resident and send a surveyor to:
1. inspect the roof and inside the loft for holes, particularly where pest contractor reports identified these, and consider any works required;
2. inspect the areas where the un-progressed works were identified on 17 September 2020, and consider any works required;
3. inspect the gap in the taps, and consider any works required.
The landlord should provide evidence to this Service that it is taking steps in relation to the above within four weeks of this decision. The landlord should then, within four weeks of the inspection, inform the resident and this Service about the outcome to the inspection and any action it is taking, and monitor any works to completion.
The landlord to review processes for pest contractor visits at its own properties, and how it will ensure pest contractor recommendations are referred to then reviewed, actioned and monitored by its housing repairs function.
The landlord to review its processes and staff training needs for ensuring complaint responses accurately reflect information such as system repairs records.
The landlord to advise this Service of the outcome to the above within six weeks of this decision.

Recommendations

The landlord to review:
1. the processes for residents being informed about repairs appointments in a timely and effective manner.
2. how it communicates and manages expectations in respect to and following repairs reports.