GreenSquareAccord Limited (202209779)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209779

GreenSquareAccord Limited

6 February 2023


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

  1. This complaint is about the level of compensation the landlord offered to the resident following repairs to the property.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured non-shorthold tenant of the landlord since October 2014 and lives in a ground floor flat.

Policies & Procedures

  1. Under the landlord’s compensation policy, it offers discretionary compensation for loss or inconvenience due to a service failure, additional costs incurred due to the landlord’s inaction or action and poor complaint handling. Examples of discretionary payments are reimbursement of costs incurred, refund of rent or service charges, payments to compensate for the partial loss of use of home, payments for inconvenience or distress (usually to the value of £25) and damage to decorations: The policy states: “We will usually make good damage to decoration. Where this is not the case: Decoration – up to £50 per room. Replace flooring up to £200 per room. Increased use of utility: In the event of a water leak for example additional use should be evidenced through the provision of bills.”
  2. The landlord has a Responsive Repairs Policy where emergency repairs are attended to within two hours, and appointed repairs are carried out at a time that is convenient to the residents. The landlord also offers ‘property MOT’s’, in cases where, “properties require a comprehensive package of repairs as identified through excessive repairs reporting or from knowledge of disrepair.”

Summary of events

  1. On 22 December 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to report that her downstairs toilet and bathroom sink tap were leaking and, over two months later, on 16 March 2022, an operative attended to carry out the necessary repairs. The operative noted that follow-on works would be required.
  2. On 24 March 2022, the operative re-attended the property and reported that the floor in the upstairs bathroom needed to be fixed down, and the landlord booked follow-on works for 29 March 2022. However, because the works order had been deleted in error, the operative did not attend the property on 29 March 2022 to carry out the repair.
  3. On 4 April 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to report a leak that was coming from the upstairs bathroom. An operative visited the property on 7 April 2022 but was unable to find any sign of a leak. He suggested that the damp was either as a result of condensation or because of the previous repair.
  4. On 10 April 2022, the resident called the landlord’s out–of–hours service to report that there was a leak coming from the bathroom, and into the hallway. An operative attended the same day but stated that, because it was Sunday and he was not able to obtain the materials, he would have to come back the next day.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord on 11 April 2022 to report that the stain and bowing to the ceiling was getting worse and the landlord advised it would look into this and call the resident back. On 14 April 2022, the resident contacted the landlord again because it had not returned her call.
  6. On 21 April 2022, the resident’s MP sent a complaint to the landlord on her behalf, which stated that:

a)     she had noticed her water bills were higher and, after inspecting the property, her water supplier told her there was a leak coming from the upstairs bathroom, which the resident reported to the landlord in November 2021;

b)     the plumber attended the property on 24 March 2022 but did not know why he was sent there;

c)     the landlord failed to attend on the arranged day, to lift up the floor;

d)     an operative who attended on 7 April 2022 claimed there was no leak and he started to belittle the resident, telling her the raised floor was due to surface water rather than a leak;

e)     on 10 April 2022, the resident found that her hallway was wet and water was dripping from her ceiling;

f)       the plumber who attended could not get materials to lift the floor because it was a Sunday and said he had to return the following day;

g)     when the resident called the landlord to say the operative had failed to attend, it told her it would call her back but she had heard nothing since then.

  1. The resident also gave details of outstanding repairs to her front door, kitchen and driveway.
  2. On 22 April 2022, the resident called the landlord and reported that a severe leak had caused the hallway ceiling to collapse, exposing steel and electrical wires. The landlord booked an emergency repair and an operative attended on the same day to fix the leak.
  3. The resident called the landlord again on 24 April 2022 to report that the leak had come back. A supervisor visited the property, found that the previous plumber had used the wrong fitting and he ensured the pipework was properly repaired on this occasion. The landlord came back the following day to deliver a dehumidifier.
  4. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 17 May 2022, and confirmed the following:

a)     It apologised for the time it took to carry out the repair that was reported on 22 December 2021.

b)     It stated that the internal repairs system had not been updated with the reason why an operative attended on 24 March 2022 and that this had been fed back to the relevant department.

c)     It apologised that the work arranged for 29 March 2022 was deleted in error, for the attitude of the operative who attended the property on 7 April 2022, for the inconvenience caused as a result of an incorrect fitting and that the operative did not attend at the arranged time on 6 May 2022.

d)     It advised the resident that, in future, after a telephone appointment is made, a follow-on text or email will be sent to her to confirm the date and time of the appointment.

e)     It gave details of the works to be carried out in the bathroom and offered the resident £100, which it referred to as a gesture of goodwill towards the cost of replacing the floor in the hallway and living room.

f)       It also apologised that there was no record that the front door had been inspected on 23 March 2021 and advised that the works had been requested, and the resident would be contacted within seven working days.

g)     It acknowledged that the kitchen upgrade would be completed in the 2022/2023 financial year and that works to the driveway would start on 13 June 2022.

h)     In addition to the £100 offered towards replacing the resident’s hallway and living room floor, the landlord offered an additional payment of £400, for the failures it had identified in its response, making a total compensation payment of £500.

  1. The resident contacted the landlord to say she was unhappy with the landlord’s offer. In response, the landlord sent a follow-up stage two response on 25 May 2022, which confirmed the following:

a)     The landlord gave a detailed breakdown of the £400 compensation it had offered. In addition, it awarded an additional payment of £50 for the behaviour of the member of staff the resident felt had belittled her, and a further £100 for distress.

b)     It upgraded its offer towards the replacement of the hallway and living room floors to £200, a contribution to the cost of running the dehumidifier and offered a payment equivalent to 10% of the rent for the 33 days from when the ceiling collapsed and the bathroom was unstable. The total revised offer was £822.86.

c)     It confirmed that, as the resident was £542.11 in arrears, the payment would first be added to her rent account and the remaining £280.75 paid directly to her.

d)     It asked the resident to send it copies of her utility bills so it could establish if they were higher than the previous year and consider whether further compensation should be awarded.

  1. The resident remained unhappy with the level of compensation offered and the landlord sent a stage three response on 27 May 2022, following an executive review. The landlord stated it was satisfied with the compensation it had offered, apologised again for the impact its failings had had on the resident and outlined the learnings identified, and the steps it had taken to ensure improvements were made.
  2. The resident wrote to her MP on 6 July 2022, stating she was unhappy with the level of compensation and with the standard of works carried out. The MP forwarded the complaint to the Ombudsman on 2 August 2022.
  3. The works to the resident’s front door, driveway and kitchen were completed on 9 July, 27 June and 10 June 2022 respectively.

Assessment and findings

  1. It took the landlord far in excess of what would be reasonable to book an appointable repair, after the resident reported repairs to her downstairs toilet and upstairs bathroom. There is no evidence the Repairs team contacted the resident to arrange a suitable time for the plumber to attend and it was only after the resident chased this up in March 2022 that the job was finally booked. Although it is understandable a large backlog of works may have built up due to Covid restrictions, the delay of nearly four months was excessive and therefore amounted to a service failure.
  2. There is evidence of poor record keeping and system failures. The landlord’s internal repairs system had not been updated with the reasons as to why the plumber attended on 24 March 2022. In addition, follow-on works booked for 29 March 2022 had been deleted in error and there were instances where the landlord did not attend, or call the resident back when it should have done.
  3. The landlord’s failure to act quickly enough to repair a leak in the upstairs bathroom was largely caused by a lack of coordination by different operatives, who failed to properly communicate with one another about the leak. This led to confusion and the resident being given mixed messages as to whether or not there was a leak. The resident reported she was made to feel belittled and, despite contacting the landlord on several occasions, the hallway ceiling finally collapsed. In addition, it took two attempts for the landlord to fix the leak because an incorrect part had initially been used. This amounted to service failure.
  4. Although it did not have any adverse impact on the resident, the Ombudsman notes there is no evidence the landlord dealt with the resident’s complaint at stage one of its process. Instead, it automatically escalated the resident to stage two and responded within 18 working days instead of 10. Although there was a slight delay in the landlord’s initial response, it sent both of its further two responses within 10 working days.
  5. There is evidence there was a delay in completing works to the resident’s front door, but the landlord acted quickly to give assurances in its complaint response that the repairs would be carried out and, along with planned works on the kitchen and driveway, these were completed by July 2022.
  6. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord has put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  7. It is not disputed that the landlord should have kept better records and acted sooner to prevent the leak in the bathroom from causing the ceiling below to collapse. The landlord acknowledged the failures in its service, offered apologies for each failure it had identified and outlined what measures it was going to put in place to improve its service. It also acknowledged the impact this had on the resident and made an offer of redress, which was in line with its compensation policy. This was fair and proportionate to the length of time and the impact on the resident.
  8. While this service acknowledges the distress and inconvenience the resident suffered, the landlord acted fairly in admitting its mistakes and apologising to the resident. It put things right by investigating the resident’s concerns and awarding £822.86 compensation.
  9. It was appropriate and transparent that the landlord broke down the compensation it offered as follows|:
  1. £50 for delays in repairing the leak;
  2. £50 for poor record keeping;
  3. £150 for missed appointments and call-backs;
  4. £50 for staff errors;
  5. £150 for staff attitude and poor communication;
  6. £100 for distress;
  7. £200 to replace the laminate flooring, which is in line with the landlord’s Compensation Policy;
  8. £46.86, which is a payment equivalent to 10% of the rent for the 33 days from when the ceiling collapsed and the bathroom was unstable;
  9. £24 contribution to the cost of running the dehumidifier.
  1. It is noted that the total of £822.86 quoted in the landlord’s letter appears to be an incorrect calculation of the abovementioned breakdown, which totals £820.86.
  2. The compensation award was in line with the landlord’s own compensation policy for a high impact on the resident and appropriately took into account various different aspects of the complaint. This amount is also in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance, and amounts that the Ombudsman may award in similar circumstances.
  3. Furthermore, the landlord demonstrated that it had learnt from outcomes by seeking to implement new systems to ensure better record keeping and that work orders are not deleted in error.
  4. For the reasons set out above, the landlord has, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, offered redress to the resident, which resolves the complaint satisfactorily. The measures taken by the landlord to address what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident. Had the landlord not offered compensation or taken the steps it took to put things right, the Ombudsman would have made a finding of maladministration.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress in respect of the level of compensation it offered to the resident following repairs to the property.

Reasons

  1. The landlord has acknowledged that it could have acted sooner in responding to the resident’s concerns about a leak below her bathroom floor and in dealing with a number of other repair issues. The landlord has demonstrated that it has attempted to put things right and learn from the resident’s complaint, and has offered £822.86 compensation, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion is proportionate to the impact on the resident.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should to pay the resident the £822.86 it has agreed to offer in compensation within four weeks of this report, if it has not done so already.
  2. The landlord should contact the resident to request utility bills, so it can consider whether or not it should offer any further compensation.
  3. Taking into account the resident’s comments about the works that were completed after the landlord’s final response to her complaint, the landlord should carry out an inspection of the works that have been completed to satisfy itself that they have been completed to a good standard.
  4. The landlord should notify this service of its intentions regarding these recommendations.