Hyde Housing Association Limited (202106440)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202106440

Hyde Housing Association Limited

13 January 2021

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 landlords handling of:
1. Repairs to the residents guttering, garden and communal entrance of the property and the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. The associated complaint.
3. The resident’s concerns about the conduct of a contractor in November 2021, issues related to the ownership of the garden and the delay in removing the scaffolding from the property.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

The resident’s concerns about the conduct of a contractor in November 2021, issues related to the ownership of the garden and the delay in removing the scaffolding from the property.

Paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme states:
1. The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
In her recent correspondence with this Service, the resident has advised that she has raised a separate complaint regarding the conduct of a contractor, who knocked down her TV aerial in November 2021 when repairing the guttering. She has also raised concern about information she has been provided about who would be responsible for the upkeep of the garden at the property. She had recently been informed that the garden would be the responsibility of the flat above hers despite previous communication stating that it would be a tenancy breach if she did not maintain the garden.
The resident also raised concerns about the delay in removing the scaffolding from the property following the repair to her guttering. The scaffolding was erected on 6 November 2021 and removed on 7 December 2021 without an arranged appointment. The resident advised that this had caused inconvenience as it had interrupted a meeting and the contractors had been swearing loudly while working on the scaffolding.
As these are separate issues to the complaint raised through the landlord’s internal complaints policy, this is not something that this Service can adjudicate on at this stage, as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to these issues in line with its internal complaints procedure. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to resolve these matters. If she remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, she may then contact this Service so that the matter can be considered as a new complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a ground floor flat within a block of flats.
The resident raised several repair requests to the landlord on 29 September 2020 and explained the following:
1. She said there was a tree on a raised level of the garden. The wall in the garden was leaning as a result of the roots of the tree pressing on the wall. She was concerned that it the wall broke, the tree would collapse onto her kitchen roof. She asked for someone to attend with a view to removing the tree.
2. The fence at the back of the garden which backed onto a public highway was broken. She asked that this was fixed as foxes were entering her garden and it was also a security concern. She asked that the landlord also installed a security gate in the garden.
3. She added that there was a wall near the communal entrance of the property which was leaning and the top had broken away from the steps. She asked the landlord to fix this and asked for the possibility of a handrail to be installed on the steps for medical reasons.
4. She said that the guttering that ran along the front of the property seemed to leak excessively when it rained. She believed that this was the cause of damp and mould on the interior walls. She asked that the guttering was fixed, the external walls to be cleaned and the internal damp and mould to be assessed, rectified and the decorations made good.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s requests on 12 October 2020 and apologised for the delayed response. It confirmed that its inspection team would contact the resident within two working days to advise further.
The resident emailed the landlord on 25 October 2020 and attached evidence of her medical conditions. She said that the mould in the property was not helping her lung condition and was unsure why the repair request had not been treated as urgent from a health and safety perspective. She expressed concern that she had not received an update in relation to her repair requests and asked the landlord to provide an update.
The landlord’s records show that a surveyor visited the property on 18 November 2021 to assess the repair issues raised. The landlord’s internal records confirm that several repairs were raised on 1 December 2020, including clearing the guttering at the front and back of the property, repointing the side of the living room window, mould wash and treatment in the living room and rehanging a fence panel in the back garden. A work order to cut the tree in the garden was raised on 2 December 2020.
The resident contacted the landlord on 2 December 2020 and asked for a complaint to be raised. She said that the surveyor who attended on 18 November 2020 only had one repair on their list. Despite this, they assessed all of the repair issues. The surveyor agreed for works to be carried out and said that the resident would be contacted. She expressed dissatisfaction that it had now been two weeks and she had not received a response. She attached the communication she had previously sent in relation to her lung condition and felt that the landlord should be prioritising the repair concerning black mould in her living room as this was a health and safety issue. She asked the landlord to provide an update on the repairs.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s communication on 9 December 2020 and said it would respond within ten working days. A survey of the trees in the resident’s garden was completed on the same day. The report identified that one tree could cause damage to the adjacent wall if it was not removed. Several other trees also needed work completing to ensure they remained safe.
The resident emailed the landlord on 27 December 2020 to express dissatisfaction that she had not received a complaint response within its complaints policy timescales. She had also heard nothing about the outstanding repairs and said she would be looking to take matters further. At this stage she was made aware that the landlord’s offices were closed over the Christmas break until 4 January 2021. The resident sent a further email to the landlord on 30 December 2020 asking for compensation for the delays and a plan of action regarding the repairs.
The landlord emailed the resident on 5 January 2021 and apologised for the delay. It had asked its contractor and surveyor to investigate the issues and contact the resident directly.
The landlord’s records show that repair orders were raised for the affected trees on 11 January 2021. The work to cut back the trees was completed on 12 January 2021. On the same day, it was established that scaffolding was required to complete the work to the guttering and this would need to be sourced. The landlord’s records show that contractors attended the resident’s property on 13 January 2021 to complete a mould wash treatment to the internal walls. The boundary fence in the resident’s garden was made safe and an order was raised to replace the fence panels as they had broken. The landlord sent a further complaint acknowledgement letter to the resident on 14 January 2021.
A phone call took place on 21 January 2021 where the resident said that contractors had turned up at her property unannounced on 13 January 2021 to complete works, the landlord apologised for this. It said that its service was running slower than usual due to the impact of Covid-19 and staff absence. It confirmed it would update the resident when it had a date for the scaffolding and gutter work appointment.
The landlord’s records confirm that the boundary fence at the back of the resident’s property was renewed on 5 February 2021.The landlord wrote to the resident on 9 February 2021 and said that it was waiting for the contractors to provide more information related to the complaint and needed more time before it could issue a response. It hoped to reply in full by 23 February 2021.
On 10 February 2021, the contractors confirmed to the landlord that the scaffolding would be erected on 12 February 2021 to clear the gutters at the property but there is a lack of evidence to confirm whether this visit went ahead. The work to remove the tree in the resident’s garden was completed on 16 February 2021.
The landlord called the resident on 17 February 2021. She confirmed that, the fence work was completed, the lounge had been cleaned and treated, the tree work had been done on 12 January 2021 but the garden works were still outstanding and the guttering still needed clearing. The landlord apologised for the time it had taken to schedule the works and said that the scaffolding required was also taking some time to source. The resident also raised concern about a concrete area in her garden which did not drain water.
The landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident on 17 February 2021 and explained the following:
1. It apologised that the resident had needed to chase for responses to her repair requests. It understood that all internal work needed had now been completed and it would be visiting the property to review the works in the garden.
2. It acknowledged that it had not communicated effectively with the resident regarding the repairs and said that its response time to complaints had been longer than expected due to the Covid-19 pandemic. It further explained that the repairs were sent to its contractors on 1 December 2020 but their staffing levels had also been impacted by the pandemic which meant there was a delay in booking appointments. It apologised and offered £50 compensation for its lack of communication and £25 compensation to the time and trouble the resident had spent chasing repairs.
3. It said that it had no record of the correspondence sent on 2 December 2020 but understood that the resident had sent an email on 30 December 2020 which was responded to in line with its response timescales on 5 January 2021. It then acknowledged the complaint on 14 January 2021 which was within its complaint response policy timescales.
4. It confirmed that work would be done to clear the guttering at the front and back of the property and repoint the side of the living room where water had run down the wall. It had also completed a mould wash and treated the damp inside of the property which was caused by the water running down the external wall. It confirmed that it had trimmed the trees in the back garden and renewed the back-fence panel. The garden wall was due to be reassessed by its contractors as well as the resident’s report that an area of the garden retained water.
The landlord’s records show that it raised a repair order to inspect the concrete area in the garden, which was not draining properly on 25 February 2021, an appointment was arranged to carry out this repair for 2 March 2021.
The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 4 March 2021 for the following reasons:
1. Her original complaint was sent on 2 December 2020 and included an attachment of the acknowledgement email she had received at the time, which stated that she would receive a response within ten working days. She added that her email on 30 December 2020 was a follow-up email as she had not received a response.
2. She understood that there were likely to be delays due to the pandemic but she felt let down as she had reported the issues in September 2020. She had also explained her medical conditions and how her health was affected by the damp and mould. She felt that this had been disregarded as this was not mentioned in the landlord’s complaint response.
3. She felt that the jobs should have at least been booked in when raised and would have understood if these then needed rearranging due to staffing issues. She expressed concern that nothing was done initially. She added that the issue with the guttering had not been fixed as water was still flowing onto her living room window.
4. She said she had not received any notification of the appointments that had been booked by the landlord and had several contractors turning up unannounced. She said that she was extremely clinically vulnerable and had been told to shield. She said that she would have preferred to have warning in advance of the appointments so that she could be prepared for contractors entering her property with minimal contact and have a friend present to communicate with the contractors. She added that she had needed to postpone a hospital appointment and take unexpected time off work due to the unscheduled appointments.
5. She advised that the remaining work was not just the wall in the garden, it was also the steps in the garden that were very steep and unsafe, and the wall at the front of the property which was leaning. She was not happy with the inaccuracies and omissions in the landlord’s complaint response letter.
The resident sent a further email on 15 March 2021 as she had not received an acknowledgement to her escalation request. The landlord responded on 16 March 2021 and explained that the resident’s initial email on 2 December 2020 was responded to by its contact centre rather than its complaints team. This request was sent to its repairs team to action the repairs and was not addressed as a stage one complaint. It apologised that the resident did not receive contact regarding the repairs. It noted that the resident felt it had disregarded her health and said it would ask its repairs team to call her concerning appointments as this should be done. It confirmed that it had asked its surveyor to look into the repair issues and there was inevitably going to be delays due to the Covid-19 pandemic. It also said that as the guttering was still leaking it would arrange for this to be looked into.
The resident emailed the landlord on 26 March 2021 and asked for information regarding the stage two complaints process and timeframe. She asked when the guttering was going to be fixed properly. She said that she could not have her windows cleaned due to the water and mess the previous contractors had spilt on the window.
The landlord responded on 30 March 2021 and said that the resident could contact the surveyor directly regarding her repairs. It explained that escalations were taking longer than expected to complete due to a backlog and apologised for the delay. The resident responded on the same day and expressed dissatisfaction that she was now being sent to another person for an update on the repairs she had raised in September 2020. She said that this was affecting her health and she should not be expected to carry out additional work to chase and follow-up for the repairs.
The resident emailed the landlord on 13 April 2021 and asked for an update on her complaint and outstanding repairs. She expressed dissatisfaction that there had been no progress and the landlord appeared to be ignoring her. The surveyor responded on the same day and confirmed that the contractors should contact the resident for the outstanding repairs to the guttering, wall and steps and the area at the back of the property where water was pooling.
The landlord emailed the resident on 23 April 2021 and explained that it had left a voicemail for her that day. It formally acknowledged her escalation to stage two and said it would provide a response by 24 May 2021.
The resident sent an email to the surveyor on 29 April 2021 and said that she had not received any communication regarding the outstanding repairs. She expressed dissatisfaction that she had been waiting for over six months for the repairs to be completed and asked for these to be followed-up.
On 13 May 2021, contractors attended the resident’s property to carry out a water test and establish the source of the leak. The original contractors were then asked to reattend to repair the issues. The landlord emailed the resident on 25 May 2021 and explained that it was taking longer than expected to gain information relevant to her complaint. As such, it was not able to provide a response that day as planned. It said it would update the resident as to when she would receive a response.
The landlord’s internal records show that the contractors had confirmed that scaffolding would be erected on 3 June 2021 and the work to renew the guttering would be completed on 4 June 2021.
The resident advised that the contractors attended without an appointment on 25 May 2021 and placed some scaffolding. The landlord’s records show that repairs to the guttering were carried out on 3 June 2021. The contractors confirmed on 4 June 2021 that they had attended, erected the scaffolding, replaced the guttering and hoppers, completed a water flow test and removed the scaffolding on the same day. They noted that the downpipes were in good working order so were not replaced and provided photos of the completed work.
The landlord issued its stage two complaint response to the resident on 8 June 2021 and explained the following:
1. It confirmed that the work to the guttering had now been completed and a quote for the repair of the garden wall and steps was waiting approval. It acknowledged that it had not completed the repairs when it should have and failed to communicate with the resident or provide reassurance on how it was going to repair the issues. In recognition of what happened, it said it would increase its offer of compensation to £200.
2. It apologised for any upset caused by its failure to mention how the issues may have affected the resident’s health in its initial response. It acknowledged that the condition of the property may have had a negative impact on the resident’s health but said that its complaints procedure did not cover issues such as personal injury claims. It confirmed that the resident could contact its insurer regarding this and provided the necessary details.
3. It confirmed that its surveyor and contractors had attended the property on 18 May 2021 and were quickly able to establish where the leak was coming from as it was raining. It said that during the visit, it had explained that there was nothing wrong with the area of concrete where water was pooling and the water was draining in the right direction. It acknowledged that the resident had agreed with this explanation on the visit. On 3 June 2021 scaffolding had been erected and the guttering to the front, side and back was renewed. The landlord did not replace the downpipes as they were found to be in good working order following the water test.
4. It confirmed that its surveyor would now be the resident’s point of contact regarding the outstanding repairs and a quotation for the work to the steps and walls was waiting for approval. It said that the resident’s stage two complaint escalation was slightly premature but agreed that the resident had waited longer than she should have for the works to be completed and it had consistently failed to communicate with her about the repairs.
5. In regard to its handling of the resident’s complaint, it said that the initial communication was dealt with as a service request in an attempt to resolve the repairs sooner. It acknowledged that the complaint should have been handled better and there was an argument that the case should have been raised as a stage one complaint initially on 2 December 2020. However, it did not feel it had mismanaged the resident’s initial request. It explained that it had recently changed its complaints process, giving customers a choice between informal and formal complaints and felt that the new process was better equipped to manage and direct the contact it received. It said that the resident’s request to escalate her complaint was slightly premature, but acknowledged that she had waited longer than usual for the issues to be resolved and it had not communicated effectively. It apologised for any inconvenience caused.
The resident responded to the landlord on 8 June 2021 and expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord had said that the work to the guttering had been completed. She explained the following:
1. The contractors had turned up unannounced on 25 May 2021, placed half the scaffolding and said that they would return on 26 May but did not return. She had then received a phone call from the contractors saying they would reattend on 3 June 2021 to place the rest of the scaffolding, they said that the work would then be completed on 4 June 2021.
2. On 3 June 2021, the contractors attended the property, when the noise stopped the resident had checked as they had not placed scaffolding around the front window, where the damaged guttering was. The contractors had removed the scaffolding and left. She called the contractors that day as she was concerned that the work had not been completed and they said they would get back to her but she had not received a response.
3. She added that she had asked for information about the complaints process on multiple occasions but had not been provided with this information. She expressed concern that the landlord was “oblivious” to the status of the repairs despite this going to stage two of its complaints process. She asked for a response and confirmed that she would be taking the matter further.
The resident sent a further email to the landlord on 14 June 2021 and explained the following:
1. She said that the landlord’s record of events regarding conversations about the water pooling did not align with her own recollection. She had been told by the contractor that the landlord was not likely to pay for work to be done as it would cost too much. The contractors had mentioned inspecting the drains but she had not heard anything since. She added that she had spent considerable time sorting out the garden, only for it to be unusable due to the flooding. She did not believe that the water was draining correctly.
2. She also advised that she had not heard from the contractors regarding the outstanding works and it had been over a week since she had informed them that the scaffolding had been taken down. She asked for clear communication regarding appointments. She did not want contractors turning up unannounced.
The landlord responded on 15 June 2021 and apologised that its record of events was not correct. It confirmed that this was the information it had been given and said it would raise her concerns with the contractors. It attached information related to its complaint process and said it was unaware that she had asked for this information previously. It noted that the information was available on its website. It confirmed that it would pass her concerns regarding the water drainage to its repairs team to review. It said it was not able to provide the dates for the outstanding works to the walls until the quote had been reviewed. The resident responded and confirmed that she had not heard from the contractors. She sent a further email on 18 June 2021 and attached pictures of the water flowing down her front window.
The landlord’s records suggest that an inspection was carried out on 20 August 2021. An internal email was sent on the same day confirming that the small wall by the communal entrance stairs had a major lean and would need to be rebuilt. Repairs to the guttering were also identified and it was not the guttering itself that was leaking but the joint between the gutter and the downpipe. The email stated that the landlord had agreed to remove a build up of vegetation in the garden due to the damage it could be causing. It said it would cut out the damaged area of bricks to the back-garden wall but it was otherwise structurally sound.
The landlord’s records show that a repair order was raised on 10 September 2021 for scaffolding to be erected to repair the guttering. Another repair was raised to unblock the drain at the back of the property and repair the external cracks in the walls at the front of the property.
The resident emailed the landlord on 13 September 2021 and explained that the work to the guttering remained outstanding. She expressed concern that the contractors would not make an appointment and show up unannounced. She said that the wall at the front of the property had been built but was not the same height as the previous wall. She added that there were gaps in the concrete and no one had returned to fix the broken steps which were unsafe and sloped. She expressed concern that the contractors had not removed the rubbish as agreed. She added that the drain still appeared to be blocked as it had not cleared excess water despite the dry weather.
The resident sent a further email on 7 October 2021 and said that she remained dissatisfied with the quality of work completed to the walls at the front of the property. She maintained her position that the steps in the garden were unsafe. She said that someone had attended to clear the debris in her garden but had not had the correct tools to complete the work as required. She said that nothing had been done to rectify the guttering issues and expressed dissatisfaction that it had now been over a year since she had reported the issue.
The resident emailed the landlord on 20 October 2021 and asked for someone to contact her regarding the guttering repairs. She had spent significant time contacting the landlord and the contractors and the sub-contractors believed this work was completed. She said that she had photographic evidence that the issue was ongoing and said that this was impacting her health.
The resident referred her complaint to this Service as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the repair issues and her formal complaint. She advised that some repair issues were still outstanding including the repairs to the guttering, steps and drainage on the concrete area of her garden. She added that there were inaccuracies in the landlord’s complaint responses and the landlord had not adhered to its repair or complaint handling timescales. She also felt that the landlord had disregarded her health conditions and should have prioritised repairs due to her vulnerabilities.
In recent correspondence, the resident has confirmed to this Service that the leaks in the guttering appeared to be resolved by contractors on 9 November 2021. This resulted in a new complaint being raised about the contractor knocking down her satellite TV dish. She added that the repairs to the steps in the garden remained outstanding.
On 8 December 2021, the resident advised that despite the repairs, the guttering was still leaking. She emailed the landlord on 7 December 2021 to advise of the ongoing issue and expressed concern that black mould would return as the underlying issue had not been resolved.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

The resident has said she considers that the issues affecting her property have impacted her health. She has provided medical evidence in support of this view. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments about her health. However, it is beyond the remit of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the issues affecting the property and the resident’s health. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. It is noted that the landlord has provided its insurance details for the resident so she can make a personal injury claim if she wishes to. This was an appropriate response by the landlord as personal injury claims fall outside the landlord’s complaints policy and are better suited for consideration by the landlord’s insurer. The Ombudsman does not investigate insurance matters and therefore we cannot comment on this process further.
Whilst we cannot consider the effect of the landlord’s actions or inaction on the resident’s health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord in its handling of the repairs and her subsequent complaint.

Policies and Procedures

The landlord’s repairs policy states that the landlord would be responsible for repairs and maintenance needed to the external structure of the building including the guttering and drains, external pathways and steps to the communal entrance to the building, boundary fencing which adjoins to public land and external walls. It would also be responsible for removing dead, diseased or dangerous trees in back gardens after an assessment. Resident’s would usually be expected to treat mould in the property themselves, although the landlord would be expected to carry out an inspection to determine the cause of the mould and take action where appropriate, for example where there is a repair fault causing the issue.
In line with the repairs policy, the landlord is required to attend emergency repairs within four hours and make safe the immediate risk within 24 hours. Non-urgent repairs should be attended to within 20 working days. For routine repairs, contractors are required to contact the resident 24 hours before an appointment and text or call when they are on their way. In some cases, a pre-inspection is required to identify the work required and whose responsibility the work is. Some repairs can take longer as they may require specialist materials such as scaffolding and a more in-depth amount of planning. The landlord would be expected to maintain regular communication with the resident and provide updates on the status of a repair, especially where there are likely to be delays.

Repairs to the residents guttering and the resident’s reports of damp and mould

The resident initially reported that the guttering at her property was leaking and that there was black mould on an internal wall on 29 September 2020.The landlord confirmed that the mould inside of the property was linked to the guttering leak and water running down the external wall following an inspection in November 2020. There was a significant delay in treating the mould until 13 January 2021. The resident maintains that the mould issue should have been addressed sooner due to her health concerns, which she had made the landlord aware of on 25 October 2020.
It was reasonable for the landlord to treat the mould inside of the property, however there was significant delay in rectifying the underlying cause. Once the landlord was aware of the resident’s health concerns, it should have looked to prioritise the repairs in view of this, but there is no evidence that the landlord did so. This has been considered when looking at compensation.
There were also delays in fitting scaffolding to the building to carry out repairs to resolve the damp issue. The scaffolding was due to be erected on 12 February 2021 although from the evidence provided this did not appear to have been completed as the landlord said it had experienced difficulty sourcing the scaffolding.
The landlord has stated that the leak in the guttering was identified on 18 May 2021 and the scaffolding had been erected on 3 June 2021 where the guttering was renewed. The resident disputed that the work had been carried out as she noted that the scaffolding was removed on 3 June 2021 and reasoned that the work could not have been completed on 4 June 2021 as she had been informed by the contractors. The records provided by the contractors suggest that all work to renew the gutters were completed on 3 June 2021, however, this was not communicated to the resident by the contractors or the landlord on the day, which left her under the impression that the repairs were not completed. The resident then spent significant time and trouble pursuing a response from the contractors and the landlord on this matter.
Another inspection was arranged on 20 August and following this there was a further delay and lack of communication from the landlord. The resident sent multiple follow-up emails chasing this work and expressed concern that contractors would tun up unannounced as they had previously. The records show that work to repair the guttering was carried out on 9 November 2021 once the scaffolding was erected and this appeared to resolve the issue. However, the resident reported in December 2021 that the issue was ongoing. If it has not done so already, the landlord should carry out an inspection in response to the resident’s recent reports that the issue is ongoing and it should carry out any repairs that are identified as necessary following this inspection.

The landlord’s communication with the resident about the repairs

It is noted that the landlord explained that its service had been heavily impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic. Some delay is understandable as a result of the pandemic, which was outside of the landlord’s control. However, this does not account for the entirety of the delays in this case. Furthermore, the landlord would have been expected to keep resident regularly updated on progress of works and to explain the reasons for any delays at the time. It has not demonstrated that it had done so. The landlord has acknowledged that its communication with the resident regarding the repairs had been poor and that there had been unreasonable delays in completing the repairs.
In line with its repairs policy and industry best practice, the landlord was expected to give the resident adequate notice of appointment times in advance. In this case the resident has advised that she was not made aware of appointment dates and contractors turned up to the property unannounced on several occasions. This was likely to have caused a higher level of inconvenience to the resident than others in a similar situation as she was shielding due to the pandemic and needed to make arrangements to minimise the risks to herself when allowing access to her property for repairs to be carried out. The resident made the landlord aware that she was shielding on 4 March 2021.
Whilst the landlord has somewhat acknowledged the delays and poor communication, its offer of £200 compensation was not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident as a result of its errors, as set out above.
The Ombudsman’s approach to compensation for distress and inconvenience is set out in our service’s Remedies Guidance, which is published on our website. The Remedies Guidance suggests awards of between £250 and £750 in cases where the Ombudsman has found considerable service failure or maladministration, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant. Examples include, a complainant repeatedly having to chase responses and seek correction of mistakes, necessitating unreasonable level of involvement by that complainant and failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs.
In this case, the resident needed to repeatedly chase the landlord for updates and the landlord failed to complete repairs over a considerable period of time. The landlord should increase its offer of compensation for errors in its handling the repairs to £350 in view of this.

Repairs to the resident’s garden and the communal entrance of the property

The resident raised concerns to the landlord about a broken boundary fence, the wall and tree in her garden on 29 September 2020. She also asked whether a handrail could be fitted to the steps at the front of the property due to her mobility issues. A tree survey was carried out on 9 December 2020 and work to cut back the trees was carried out on 12 January 2021. The boundary fence was made safe on 13 January 2021 and replaced on 5 February 2021. The tree was removed from the garden on 16 February 2021.
The resident added concerns about the steep, unsafe nature of the communal entrance steps in the garden (front) on 2 December 2020 when she raised a complaint. She raised these concerns again in her escalation request on 4 March 2021.
On 13 September 2021, the resident reported that repairs to the wall in the back garden and at the front of property had been completed. However, the resident remained dissatisfied with the quality of work done on the wall at the front of the property. The Ombudsman cannot comment on the quality of the works carried out by the contractors as it is our role to assess the landlord’s handling of repairs rather than the quality of the repairs themselves. However, the landlord would be expected to investigate any concerns raised by the resident about poor workmanship and respond accordingly. The landlord does not appear to have responded adequately to this point and it has not addressed resident’s request for a handrail of her concern about the safety of the steps. If it has not done so already, the landlord should consider these issues now and carry out any repairs which are identified as necessary within the timescales listed in its repairs policy.
Further concerns about drainage in the garden were raised on 17 February 2021. This did not form part of the resident’s initial complaint but was raised in February 2021. Therefore, the landlord has had the opportunity to respond to this issue through its complaints process and it can be considered as part of the Ombudsman’s investigation.
It is not disputed that there was a delay in carrying out the garden work and the landlord’s communication with the resident regarding the repairs was poor which had been acknowledged by the landlord. This has been considered as part of the Ombudsman’s overall award of £350 compensation for errors in the landlord’s handling of repairs.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord’s complaint policy states that it has an informal complaint stage at the start of its complaints process. The cases that can be considered under this option should be quick to resolve and require no investigation. Actions may involve re-booking a missed appointment, completing an outstanding repair, offering an update or reviewing the management of a service request. Informal complaints should be resolved within five working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, the complaint should be escalated formally to stage one of the landlord’s formal complaints process. At stage one, a response should be issued within ten working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint to stage two, which is the final stage of the landlord’s internal process. At stage two, a response should be issued within 20 working days.
In this case, there has been maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint. There was a delay at stage one and the resident needed to follow-up on multiple occasions for a response. The resident had been under the impression that she raised her complaint on 2 December 2020 and there was a lack of clear communication regarding this matter. The landlord has explained that the resident’s email of 2 December 2020 was handled as a service request rather than a complaint. Given that the resident had already requested the repairs on 29 September 2020, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have handled her concerns in line with its formal complaints procedure at this stage. The resident was not informed that her complaint was not being handled in line with the landlord’s complaints procedure at the time which is likely to have caused her distress and inconvenience.
The resident sent follow-up emails to the landlord on 27 and 30 December 2020 as she had not received a response. At this stage, the landlord’s offices were closed for the Christmas break. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint as a formal stage one complaint on 14 January 2021. The landlord somewhat managed the resident’s expectations by informing her that further time was needed and providing a new date for 9 February 2021 for a response, however, its overall communication regarding the complaint had been poor.
The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 4 March 2021 as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She sent a follow-up email on 15 March 2021 and on 26 March 2021, she asked for information related to the landlord’s process for handling stage two complaints as she had not received an acknowledgement. The landlord responded on 30 March 2021 and explained that escalations were taking longer than usual to process due to a backlog and apologised. The resident sent a further follow-up email on 13 April 2021 and the landlord formally acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 23 April 2021 and said it would respond by 24 May 2021. On 25 May 2021, the landlord said that it needed further time to complete its response. The landlord’s stage two complaint response was issued on 8 June 2021.
There was a significant delay at stage two of the landlord’s complaints process where the resident needed to chase for responses and information. It is noted that the landlord had said it’s service was heavily impacted by Covid-19. However, it would have been expected to effectively communicate any delays to residents and in this case, it has not done so satisfactorily. It was not pro-active in providing updates and it did not manage the resident’s expectations about when she would receive a response.
It was not appropriate for the landlord to state that the resident’s request to escalate her complaint was ‘slightly premature’ in its stage two complaint response. The landlord has no specific guidance on the timeframe in which a resident can escalate their complaint, but it is common industry practice for escalation requests to be submitted within 20 working days of the stage one response, whilst the issues are still ‘live’ and evidence is available. The resident received the stage one response on 17 February 2021 and asked to escalate the complaint on 4 March 2021 which was within a reasonable timeframe. The landlord’s suggestion that the resident has requested an escalation too soon was not helpful and may have added to the resident’s frustration concerning the complaints process. There was a significant delay in acknowledging this request and providing a response. As such, the landlord had an extended period of timeto resolve the matters and was not denied the opportunity to do so.
Whilst the landlord apologised for any inconvenience caused to the resident, its overall offer of £200 compensation was not proportionate to the impact the repair delays and its poor complaint handling had on the resident or the inconvenience caused. In view of this, the landlord should offer additional compensation to the resident for errors in complaint handling as detailed below. It is also recommended that the landlord considers carrying out training for staff members handling complaints to ensure that resident’s expectations are adequately managed in the future. It should also ensure it has processes in place to manage complaint cases effectively in view of staff absence.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in regard to its handling of the repairs to the residents guttering, garden and communal entrance of the property and her reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in regard to its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

There were significant delays to the repairs and a lack of communication from the landlord. On several occasions, contractors attended without giving any notice despite the fact that the resident despite was shielding, and the landlord was aware of this. The landlord has acknowledged that it has made errors but it’s offer of compensation is not sufficient in view of the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced because of these errors.
The landlord did not address the resident’s request for a handrail, in view of her mobility issues or her concerns that repairs to the steps are outstanding. The landlord should address this now.
There were delays in the landlord’s complaint responses and it was not always clear what stage the complaint was at. The resident had to repeatedly chase the landlord for responses, which would have added to her distress and inconvenience.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that the following actions are taken within four weeks:
1. The landlord is to pay the resident £550, comprised of:
  1. £350 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the delayed repairs and poor communication regarding repairs and appointment dates.
  2. £200 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling.
  3. This compensation award includes the £200 compensation offered by the landlord previously, through its internal complaints process. This amount can be deducted from the total compensation if it has already been paid.
2. The landlord is to contact the resident and confirm its position regarding the steps at the front of the property and her request for a handrail to be installed.
3. The landlord should carry out an inspection in response to the resident’s recent reports of a problem with the guttering and carry out any repairs identified as necessary to this area within the timescales given in its repairs policy.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord considers carrying out training for staff members handling complaints to ensure that resident’s expectations are adequately managed and they are provided with a new timescale where there is likely to be a delay. It should also ensure it has processes in place to manage cases in light of staff absences.
Unless the issues have already been resolved, the landlord should continue to liaise with the resident concerning her recent complaint about staff conduct, issues related to the ownership of the garden and the delay in removing the scaffolding from the property.