Newlon Housing Trust (202002899)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202002899

Newlon Housing Trust

1 February 2022

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about:
1. The landlords handling of the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs.
2. The landlords handling of the resident’s reports of high energy bills.
3. The landlord’s complaint handling with regards to these matters.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant, in a 2-bedroom ground floor flat.
The landlord provided records to show the resident has a historic vulnerability recorded on file that prioritised her for heating and hot water repairs.
The landlord provided the Domestic Electrical Installation Certificate dated 11 April 2019 that was conducted following the flat refurbishment.
The landlords Repairs Policy states it ‘aims to complete all urgent and routine repairs within 20 working days, with an average of 10 working days, prioritising ‘urgent’ repairs such as the following:
1. Loss of heating or hot water supply.
2. Electrical work.
3. Partial loss of water or gas supply.
4. Structural repairs (e.g., roof, (weather permitting) banisters, handrails).
For these types of repairs the landlord would aim to initially visit to stop further damage, carrying out the full repair at subsequent follow up visits. The landlord will aim to arrange an appointment that is mutually convenient for residents within constraints and availability.
The landlord’s complaint procedure notes complaints must be acknowledged within five working days for stage one complaints and two working days for stage two complaints. It aims to provide a response within 10 working days for stage one complaints, and 20 working days for stage two complaints. When additional time is required, this will be communicated to the resident.

Summary

In January 2020 the resident contacted the landlord to request an installation of a rail banister on the stairs. The landlord arranged its contractor to attend the property and install new rails in May 2020.
On 30 June 2020 the resident reported to the landlord that the banister rods had broken, and her child had fallen down the stairs and sustained injuries as a result.
The landlord’s emergency repairs team were notified and the repair was completed immediately.
The resident followed this up with an email dated 6 August 2020 as a formal complaint, noting her concerns with regards to repairs that needed to be done and requested a paediatric/independent review on her property due to her safety concerns. The issues related to the stair railings, the partition wall in the living room, lack of a fire door for the kitchen, a damp and heat loss issue in the bedroom, lack of railings on the external main entrance of the property and the location of the locks on the front and communal door. The resident advised that her and her son had been sick due to the dampness in the bedrooms which are located in the basement of the property. The resident also mentioned that there was an incident with her neighbours in which they poured water into the resident’s electrics late at night and a plumber and electrician had to attend. The resident said the plumber could not find any leaks and found the situation suspicious.
The resident also advised that there was a heat loss survey arranged by the landlord with the architect and the surveyor, and it was found that there was heat loss in the bedrooms however the surveyor overturned the decision for any work to be done relating to the damp. The resident advised that there were also cracks in the garden patio and walls however the surveyor said nothing could be done. The resident was unhappy that the surveyor declined to assist her with some of the issues raised.
The resident advised she was unhappy with the outstanding repairs and her living conditions which she didn’t feel were safe for her and her child.
The correspondence was acknowledged by the landlord on 11 August 2020 advising she world receive a response within 10 working days.
The landlord’s notes indicate a job to attend the resident’s property to look at the repairs was scheduled for 17 August 2020.
A complaint holding letter was sent on 20 August 2020.
On 4 September 2020 the surveyor issued his report. The notes state that the issue around dampness would be referred back to the original contractor. With regards to the stairs banister (adding further spokes) this issue would require an Occupational Therapist (OT) referral as it was not work that would be normally carried out. The surveyor did not recall any discussion around the external railings on the property and would need more information on this. With regards to the fire door for the kitchen, the surveyor notes that he needed feedback from the Fire Risk Assessment which should have already been completed on the property. The surveyor noted the issues around the wall in the living room would also require an OT referral.
The landlord tried to call the resident to provide an update and seek clarity on the external railings issues but there was no answer.
On 7 September it was clarified that there were railing poles missing from the external railings outside the building and this should have been inspected previously as the resident had raised this previously. The landlord confirmed there was a make safe order raised for the resident following her son’s accident on the stairs regarding the banister poles. The landlord sent an enquiry as to whether this was inspected to assess the current state whilst awaiting feedback from the contractor. The resident requested an assessment carried out on the property in relation to her child’s safety and was referred to Children’s services/OT to arrange this. With regards to the staircase and rods concern, the resident was advised that this would need recommendation from OT or another medical professional managing her child’s vulnerabilities
On 8 September 2020 the surveyor confirmed it would be attending the property with the contractor who did the remodelling of the property.
The resident emailed the surveyor on 15 September 2020 thanking him for visiting the property in an attempt to resolve matters. She agreed with the contractor’s advice regarding the work needed however felt that the entrance between the bedroom and wardrobe needed to be treated behind the woodwork as the damp would continue to reappear. The resident also requested the gas meter moved from the bedroom back outside where it originally was.
The surveyor continued to chase the landlord for the Fire Risk Assessment to establish whether the fire door on the kitchen was required. Building services responded to advise that for individual homes, there would be no Fire Risk Assessment as they had no communal areas. Fire Risk Assessments only covered dwellings which shared communal areas.
The contractor contacted the landlord on 20 August 2020 to confirm the damp issue appeared to be a minor condensation issue and was isolated to an area high up on an existing external wall and lintel in the lower ground floor cupboard with no apparent problems on the new infill wall that was completed during the refurbishment. The contractor could not find evidence of widespread problems in the flat and there was no evidence of mould arising from the isolated condensation spots. It confirmed that an extractor vent was installed in the wall when the resident first raised concerns about the damp however the resident advised she had often kept the fan off due to the noise. Ultimately the current contractor could not find any evidence to support negligence by the original contractor who completed the flat refurbishment. The resident would need to run the extractor fan for a few months to establish whether this would resolve the damp issue before any alternative steps could be considered.
On the same date, the original contractor confirmed there was a 1-hour fire break between the hall and flat A and that a fire exit to the rear was also provided within her flat and another exit to the front and to the rear was positioned within the 1-hour containment area within the hall. It was explained that the barriers and fire exit to the front and rear of the building were compliant with current regulations.
The landlord issued its complaint response about the damp issues on 30 September 2020. It apologized for the trouble and inconvenience caused by its Asset Management Service. The landlord confirmed the surveyor made the initial inspection on 14 July 2020 with another contractor and the resident was informed during the visit that a fire door was not required to the kitchen as per the recommendations of the fire officer. The surveyor advised the resident could exit through her garden if there was a fire and that there were heat and smoke detectors in the property. The landlord noted around 30 July 2020 the contractors inspected the damp issue and advised that the damp area was on a wall that was in situ prior to the refurbishment and there was no evidence of condensation on the new infill wall that the contractor had installed. The contractor confirmed that only cosmetic work was carried out on the existing wall and at the time of the construction there was no evidence of significant damp in this location. The surveyor suggested that any subsequent damp issues should be logged through the landlord’s repair team. This was arranged and the repairs surveyor attended the property on 17 August 2020 and the landlord was currently waiting for the feedback from its repairs surveyor. It explained it still had not received this information due to leave and absences and was waiting for details from external contractor. It hoped to have this information within 10 working days. The landlord advised it could not finalise any compensation amounts however, as soon as it received all the details, it would be in contact to advise the resident of the next steps.
On 20 November 2020 the landlord updated the resident to confirm the contractors would be in contact to book in the works to the front basement bedroom and adjoining walk-in cupboard. It confirmed there were no plans to relocate the gas meter as it found no damp readings around this. It agreed that it would check the drains to the front of the property to ensure that there was no escape of water and the contractor responsible for this investigation would be in contact with the resident to arrange the visit. The landlord advised it had arranged for a specific Fire Risk Assessment be done on the resident’s properties due to her concerns. It explained that it did not carry out work to the garden paving as its policy only states it will maintain the pathway leading to the entrance door. It asked the resident to send photos of the garden wall so that it could be assessed.
The resident raised a complaint about her high energy bill on 26 November 2020 as she felt that this was due to the wiring and the outstanding repairs required to the property.
A Job report from the landlord’s electrical contractor dated 21 December 2020 indicates that the energy supplier visited the resident’s home and found no issues with the meter. During December 2020 the landlord’s contractor investigated and tested all wiring in the resident’s home and indicated there may be faults with the wiring in the property above. As there was a case of covid in the flat above the resident, the inspection was postponed until 25 January 2021, and following attendance, no faults were found with the neighbour’s wiring.
The original contractor confirmed the works that would be carried out on 11 January 2021 which was the date agreed with the tenant. These were:
1. Treat painted wall and joinery with mould growth solution within cupboard.
2. Prepare outside wall approximately 2sqm ready to receive 27mm Thermal board.
3. Fix 27mm Thermo board.
4. Re-fix skirting and decorate wall.
5. Re-fix fan.
6. Extend flow and return heating pipes from radiator in bedroom.
7. Install new radiator within cupboard.
8. PC Sum camera survey gully at front of property.
On 13 January the contractor contacted the landlord to advise that the work appointment due on 11 January 2021 had to be cancelled because of covid therefore the work would potentially be passed to another contractor that dealt specifically with damp issues. The resident was informed of this. The resident also advised the landlord that an electrician had inspected the property and she was waiting for an update on this. The landlord said it would look into this and update her shortly.
Following the resident’s referral of the complaint to this Service and our subsequent contact with the landlord, it responded to us on 9 February 2021 to confirm that an appointment was agreed with the new contractors for 26 January 2021 and since receiving their report, works had been raised. The landlord was awaiting confirmation of the work appointment between the contractor and the resident. It confirmed that a thermostat device was installed in the resident’s property in February 2020 to assist with maintaining the heat in her home. The landlord also advised that it was still waiting for the resident’s energy bills which it requested on 11 December 2020 and was yet to receive to assess her high energy concerns.
On 9 February 2021 the landlord contacted the resident with updates about the ongoing repairs. The resident confirmed the contractor attended and advised that the gas pipes could be the issue. The landlord advised it would follow this up with the surveyor. The landlord also confirmed it would follow up on the electrical work as the resident stated the electrical contractor did attend but they were unsure what they were supposed to be doing.
The landlord’s records show that it requested an update from the surveyor regarding the work order and damp survey.
The resident spoke with the landlord on 12 and 16 February 2021 as she had not received updates from the contractor. The landlord advised that following the inspection of both her flat and the one above her, there were no issues found with the wiring however the resident disputed this as she said the contractor who visited her advised the job was for two people and he was not qualified to do the job on his own. The landlord agreed to chase this up and try to arrange for a supervisor visit to confirm the electrical system was safe.
The landlord’s records show that it chased the contractors for updates about the damp and electrical surveys.
The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 25 February 2021 as she felt the landlord was not doing its job correctly. She mentioned that she had requested copies of the reports regarding the internal wiring and the damp, but no one could provide this. She was unhappy that an appointment was booked for 18 March 2021, but no one could tell her what works would be done. She felt this should have been treated as an emergency appointment due to the potential gas leak. The resident was unhappy a fire door was still not installed, and she was still experiencing heat loss in the property. She also said she was still dealing with condensation in the bedrooms and the garden patio and walls had not been repaired. She was also unhappy that the landlord had not arranged to pay her high energy bills due to faults in the property.
On 10 March 2021 the landlord responded to the resident regarding her repairs in the property. It confirmed a surveyor arranged for its contractors to attend the property and following the inspection a report dated 4 February 2021 was issued. The report detailed the following works to be carried out:
1. Undertake a CCTV drains survey to look for cracks, leaks, and blockages,
2. Investigate front entrance hall and renew floorboards where needed,
3. Renew pipe duct with plywood casing and decorate to match and install a ventilator, making good where needed and installing pipe insulation.
4. Investigate any access points for rodents,
5. Investigate bathroom window,
6. Endeavor to get access to flat above so it can be checked for cracks.
7. The report noted that the tenant’s belongings needed to be moved prior to work starting.
The landlord also acknowledged the resident’s reports of a gas leak however could not see any reports of a gas leak since April 2020 that was booked for a safety inspection. The landlord explained it would not investigate this matter further unless the resident provided more information.
The landlord advised that the proposed work should resolve the residents damp concerns. The repair works were due to begin on 18 March 2021. It also noted the resident’s comments about lack of a fire door in the kitchen however it could find no job for this. The landlord advised it would enquire about this with the Fire Safety Officer.
Regarding the heat loss concerns, the landlord said records indicated that a last record of contact from the resident regarding heat loss was in March 2020 and the complaint was closed in July 2020 due to no further contact being made by the resident. It advised the resident to contact the Service Centre if she wanted to raise new issues.
The landlord also looked through repair records and advised that there were no repair records reported about the garden patio or big cracks. The landlord advised it would check this with its surveyor however the resident should report it to the Service Centre to raise as a new issue.
With regards to the resident’s concerns about the small wall in the living room, the landlord advised there was no repair record for this issue. It confirmed it would liaise with the surveyor who arranged the repair works to check if he was aware of this issue and what he proposed.
The resident responded on 16 March 2021 to query whether she was going to be temporarily decanted to another property whilst the works took place as the report indicated that her belongings had to be moved. She said her and her child could not reside at the property whilst major works were being carried out. The resident also requested an update about what could be done as she had applied for an urgent move and had been refused as the landlord did not provide emergency accommodation. The resident advised that no one had contacted her about the faulty internal wiring and faulty circuit board.
The landlord’s Quality Officer responded on 23 March 2021. It confirmed the latest report it had about the electrics was completed on 9 February 2021 and the operative switched off the fuse board and checked all plugs and lights in the property. The operative advised all readings and testing came back with sufficient power however believed that the issue was to do with the meter which the supplier would need to investigate. The landlord confirmed that it would check if there were any more recent electric reports.
The resident responded explaining that the damp issue resulted in her having pneumonia and her and her child had constantly been ill due to the damp, heat loss and condensation. The resident confirmed that the contractors attended and found drill holes in the water pipe above the exposed faulty wiring and circuit board which were very dangerous. She queried why the landlord had not received the first report which indicated issues with her internal wiring and circuit board. The resident explained the operative who attended on 9 February 2021 advised he was not qualified to do an internal check and two operatives were meant to attend the property to do a further investigation however this did not happen. The resident requested the landlord speak with the original contractors to obtain the correct information.
The resident advised the landlord that the contractor who attended to do the repairs burst a pipe in her bedroom which soaked the walls and the carpet, and she was left without heating for a day. She said the plumbing company would not send out an emergency plumber at the time, even though she had medical conditions and a child under 5. The resident requested compensation for the trauma and negligence she had suffered over the last 2 years.
On 29 March 2021 the landlord sent its second response about the repairs and on 30 March 2021 the landlord provided the resident its second response regarding the high energy bills.

The landlord’s repairs complaint outcome

The landlord apologized that the first outcome did not address all the issues that the resident had raised and for the lack of responses to some of the resident’s enquiries, it confirmed these aspects were considered in its compensation. It accepted that some communications could have been more efficient and apologized for the service failures in its handling. The landlord advised the resident that with regards to an assessment of the property with regards to her child safety, this would be something she would need to arrange with her occupational therapist and report by contacting her local authority. The landlord explained, following this, any recommendations made by the OT would be sent to it, and the landlord would arrange for any adaptations recommended. If the proposals were for significant works, a disability grant application may be required towards the funding and the grant application would usually be arranged by the local authority or the landlord. This response covered the residents’ concerns around loose fitting banister rails, door lock positioning, external railings, and no gate to the road.
With regards to a kitchen fire door, the landlord explained that the flat was open plan by design and passed all the safety measures for the work. The landlord advised it relied on independent expert advice associated with the refurbishment work and the fire door was not required as part of the advice. The landlord explained that on further consideration a Fire Risk Assessment was not felt to be necessary given the recent refurbishments for which a full fire safety specification would have been incorporated.
The landlord explained there was no evidence that the damp arose from a leak and was more to do with ventilation in the property. It confirmed the works that the contractors had arranged and that following the delay in January 2021, these were later carried out, with further works in hand.
The landlord provided evidence to the resident to show that its electrical contractors could not find any issues with the residents internal wiring. It confirmed an electrical certificate was also issued in 2019 at the time of the refurbishment and was valid for 5 years. The landlord noted there was a report of surging when the electric cooker was used however it appeared to be something to do with the cooker than the electrical wiring.
The landlord reiterated that cracks in the paving were not to be repaired by it as the maintenance of the garden was the resident’s responsibility under the tenancy agreement however, if there were cracks in the wall, these would be for the landlord to repair. The landlord was unable to find any details about cracks in the wall across the surveys done over the year and asked the resident to send in pictures.
The landlord advised it could not find any evidence of the resident being discriminated against and no evidence to suggest she was unable to use one of the bedrooms due to damp. Therefore, the landlord would not be making a compensation award specifically to this.
The landlord confirmed the resident’s complaint file would remain open until all works had been carried out.
The landlord compensated the resident:
1. £25 – Delays in advancing damp works between August to December 2020.
2. £25 – Delays in advancing damp works between January to March 2021.
3. £25 – Late notice cancellation of works by Barclay Bros in January 2021.
4. £25 – Goodwill for stress and worry.
5. £25 – Delay in supplying stage 1 complaint response.
6. £25 – Failure to cover all issues raised at stage 1.

The landlord’s high energy bills complaint outcome

The landlord confirmed that it considered the energy equipment, the user and choice, the unit cost and energy supplier, and the energy rating.
The landlord advised the resident that if she smelt gas, to contact Transco and they would attend on an emergency basis. It confirmed gas safety checks were conducted on a yearly basis and was speaking with its contractors to confirm the outcome of this. The landlord also confirmed that an electrical safety certificate was issued in 2019 following a flat refurbishment. The certificate was valid for 10 years. In response to the resident’s concerns about faulty wiring, the landlord arranged its contractors to investigate, and it found no issues with the wiring in the property and could find no evidence that the wiring had been tampered with. The landlord requested the resident to provide her meter readings for the last quarter to compare her usage in KW to see if this was more than average.
The landlord assured the resident that the thermostat which controlled the temperature within the flat was a cost saving device and would not have contributed to the high energy bill. It also confirmed the extractor fan would only contribute minimally to the energy bill. It advised that the high energy use items would include the gas boiler, any electric heaters used and the electric cooker. It had an intention to install a sealant additive to the pressurized heating water system that would cut down on small leaks and hair getting into the system which usually resulted in ‘pipe hammer’ noises. It advised it would check for updates on the job. With regards to the cooker, the landlord confirmed it had not seen any breakdown reports and, in any event, the cooker belonged to the resident therefore it was her responsibility to repair or replace it. The landlord advised that due to the resident’s chosen temperature setting of 24/23 degrees for the central heating, this may be the reason that her energy bill was high. The resident made a separate complaint to her energy supplier and the landlord confirmed they would be best to discuss the resident’s energy meter operation. The landlord advised it would recheck that the contractors carried out the necessary works in the property as it was unclear whether or not the flat needed insulation.
The landlord apologized for the delays in communication and its failure to fulfil her information requests throughout the complaint.
By way of redress for service failures in handling the complaint, the landlord offered the resident:
1. £25 failure to follow through on noisy pipes repair
2. £25 delays in confirming the electrical safety position
3. £25 delays in advising on heat loss
4. £25 goodwill towards the stress in handling this matter
Following on from the response, the resident still felt that there was an issue with the wiring in the property. Evidence also shows that the landlord had been trying to arrange a Fire Risk Assessment with the resident however the landlord’s contractor asserted it had tried to contact the resident however the resident disputed this.

Assessment and findings

For this investigation, the Ombudsman has only assessed the repair issues raised and dealt with up until the landlord completed its internal complaints procedure. Any further event or repair reports made after the final response have not been considered within this complaint. The resident is advised to exhaust the landlord’s process with regards to any incidents that occurred following the final response, to allow it to investigate the matter before the Ombudsman can consider the complaint.
The Ombudsman appreciates that the concerns the resident raised about the heat loss in the property and the wiring have a direct relation to the high energy bills concern.
The landlord has shown that the wiring was investigated by its contractors and provided the electrical certificate from the time of the refurbishment. The Ombudsman notes the resident feels that there is still an issue with the wiring, however, the landlord has to rely on the reports and information that it has been provided by its contractors. Therefore, following the inspections by its contractors, the landlord had not been advised of any faults or concerns that required remedial action. The Ombudsman notes that the resident has suggested that the report was tampered with however, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence to indicate that this was the case.
The landlord has asked the resident for copies of her energy bills however it is unclear on whether she has submitted these. It is reasonable that the landlord requested this to be able to look at the resident’s tariff and usage. The landlord has shown that it has attempted to consider all the aspects that would contribute to a high energy bill and from its end, it has not found a fault. The Ombudsman appreciates that the resident has requested the landlord pay her bill however, based on the evidence available, there is insufficient evidence to show that this high cost was due to the landlord’s failings.
The resident initially raised her concerns about repairs that needed to be carried out on 6 August 2020 including her concerns about heat loss in the property. The surveyor attended the property on 17 August 2020 and a report was issued on 4 September 2020. Although the surveyor said he did not recall any discussion about the external railings at the front of the property, the resident’s email does show that she had raised concerns about this. The landlord did provide clarity around the resident’s concerns about the external railings on 7 September 2020, but the notes indicate that it was unclear whether this was inspected. There has been no evidence to show if the external railings were inspected and the outcome of this. The resident felt that the gaps between the railing were too big, and her child could fall through them. The landlord has advised in its final response that any amendment to the current railing would need to be recommended by the OT.
The landlord was correct to advise the resident that issues around the property with regards to her child safety would require an OT referral. The Ombudsman can see this advice was given to the resident however, it is unclear whether she has submitted the referral request as per the landlord’s advice. As the landlord is a housing association, any specific adjustments to the property required to accommodate the resident’s child’s need, would have to be recommended to it from the local authority through an OT or health professional.
Although the resident’s child safety concerns were not covered in the first response, the landlord did advise the resident on more than one occasion that she would need to refer particular issues relating to making the property more appropriate for her child to the OT or another medical professional in order for it to consider modifications to the flat in line with her child’s needs.
The Ombudsman appreciates that there was a delay in the landlord explaining its stance with regards to the fire door for the kitchen as it was initially unclear whether a Fire Risk Assessment was completed on the property. It was later confirmed that a Fire Risk Assessment would not normally be done in properties that did not have any communal areas. The landlord initially offered for this to be done due to the resident’s concerns however, later explained within the final response that it did not feel this necessary as the property was built in an open plan design and fire safety would have been considered at that time of the refurbishment in 2019. The building contractors responsible for the refurbishment also explained the fire safety considerations that were taken at the time. The Ombudsman acknowledges the landlord’s reasons for deciding not to proceed with the Fire Safety Assessment and it is reasonable for it to consider the advice of the contractor as well as the layout of the property. As the landlord explained to the resident, if the OT recommended a fire door was required for the resident’s child’s safety, and proposals were for significant works, a disability grant application may be required towards the funding.
Evidence indicates that the landlord was in contact with its various contractors with regards to the different repairs raised by the resident. The Ombudsman also notes that there were a few surveyor visits to establish work that needed to be carried out. Whilst the resident feels that the original refurbishment was not done correctly, evidence shows that the property was reinspected by a separate contractor and there was no evidence to support negligence by the original contractor that completed the refurbishment.
The Ombudsman does acknowledge that the landlord failed to progress the works to resolve the resident’s damp concerns in line with its repairs policy. The job that was booked for 11 January 2021 was cancelled by the contractors due to the pandemic restrictions however, records indicate that the resident was only advised of this after the date agreed. The landlord should ensure that residents are kept up to date with regards to repair works planned and both the contractor and the landlord should have ensured that the resident was advised of the delay prior to the date it was due to commence. The Ombudsman also notes that the resident had made requests for the damp and electrical reports, however the landlord delayed in providing these.
The landlord confirmed that the majority of the work done to resolve the dampness, heat loss and ventilation issues had been attended to in its final response. However, The Ombudsman notes that the landlord also explained that there may be some ongoing repairs to complete however it is unclear exactly what these are. The landlord should have provided clearer details about the remaining works for clarity to the resident and the Ombudsman.
The resident states that the issue was affecting her and her child’s health due to the damp conditions in the bedroom. However, the Ombudsman is unable to establish a causal link between reports of the health issues experienced by complainants and the actions of landlords. The resident may wish to seek legal advice about this, as a personal injury claim may be a more appropriate way of dealing with this aspect of her complaint.
Our position here is in accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Scheme which provides that: ‘The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure’.
The landlord did acknowledge its failings with regards to the handling of the resident’s repair concerns. The landlord considered each aspect in which a failing was identified. To put matters right, it apologised for the delays within the repairs complaint and the high energy bill complaint and offered a total of £150 compensation which was broken down as below;
1. £25 – Delays in advancing damp works between August-December 2020
2. £25 – Delays in advancing damp works between January–March 2021
3. £25 – Late notice cancellation of works by Barclay Bros in January 2021

With regards to the repairs complaint, and;

£25 failure to follow through on noisy pipes repair
£25 delays in confirming the electrical safety position
£25 delays in advising on heat loss

With regards to the high energy bill complaint.

The resident raised her stage one complaint on 6 August 2020 and the landlord acknowledged the complaint within five working days. It sent a holding letter on 20 August 2020 and provided its first response 10 working days later. The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 25 February 2021, and this was acknowledged by the landlord on 9 March 2021 with the final responses being issued on 29 March 2021 and 30 March 2021.
Although we can see that a holding letter was sent, it is unclear whether the landlord provided a full explanation to the resident for the delay. The landlord also failed to acknowledge the residents request to escalate her complaint in line with its complaint policy. During its investigation, the landlord identified that it did not provide a timely responses to the resident’s reports. It also confirmed that not all of the aspects the resident raised were covered in the stage one response.
The landlord has acted fairly in recognising the distress and inconvenience of not providing a timely and detailed response and offered compensation for its failure in service. The combined offer of £100 for this aspect of the complaint is appropriate and proportionate to the severity of the service failure and is consistent with this Service’s remedies guidance. The £100 was broken down as below:
1. £25 – Goodwill for stress and worry.
2. £25 – Delay in supplying stage 1 complaint response.
3. £25 – Failure to cover all issues raised at stage 1.

With regards to the repairs complaint, and;

£25 goodwill towards the stress in handling the resident’s concerns.

With regards to the high energy bill complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in respect of the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs. This, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in respect of the resident’s reports of high energy bills. This, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

The landlord has shown that it has arranged surveyors for the electric and dampness concerns and repairs have taken place. Whilst there were delays in the work getting completed, the landlord acknowledged this and offered compensation for its failings that is in line with its compensation policy.
With regards to the high energy bill, the landlord has shown it has considered the different aspects that could potentially lead to the resident’s high bills. It did agree that there were failings in regard to providing the resident with information about the electrical safety of the property, the heat loss, and the delay in looking at the pipes. It offered compensation for this and requested the resident send in her energy bills in order to try and understand the reason for the resident’s high energy bills.
The landlord acknowledged its failings with regards to its complaint handling and offered the resident compensation in line with its compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends the landlord:
1. Pays the compensation offered in its stage 2 responses if it has not already done so.
2. Provides the resident with a list of outstanding jobs and estimations as to when they will be completed.