Home Group Limited (202120696)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120696

Home Group Limited

27 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Major works to the property and the necessary decants for the works to be carried out.
2. The conduct of the contractors carrying out the work at the property.
3. The level of compensation offered by the landlord.
4. This Service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy with a housing association. The property is a two storey, three bedroom semi–detached house with a ground floor kitchen extension to the rear. The resident lives in the property with her partner and two children. There are no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident or her household.
In 2015, following concern from the resident that the living room floor in the property was sloping, the landlord instructed a surveyor to complete a structural report for the property.
The report concluded that the sloping floor was likely to be as a result of the concrete slab under the floor settling onto poorly consolidated material. This resulted in distortion to the ceilings and the floor above.
It also concluded that it appeared that the floor had been in that state for some time and that there had been no recent signs of movement. The report suggested the following:
1. Do nothing and live with the distortion.
2. Lift the floor slab back to its original position using Uretek repair method of grout injection.
3. Apply a self-levelling screed to the floor slab throughout the ground floor.
4. Break out the existing ground floor slab and reinstate on a suitably consolidated material.
In December 2015, the landlord’s insurers instructed a technical report on subsidence. This report concluded that the only evidence of external cracking was to the junction of the main building with the single storey kitchen extension. But that this was likely to be quite old and due to the settlement of the extension following its construction.
The report further noted that the sloping into the centre of the property was due to the settlement of the ground floor slab. There was no evidence found of cracking between junctions internally, and it concluded that the movement was historic. The type of movement that had occurred was not covered under the landlord’s insurance.
The landlord acknowledged that the work would need to be done by a specialist contractor and proceeded to go out to tender. But noted that this would take some time. The landlord subsequently went out to tender for the required work and planned it into its repairs schedule.

Scope of Investigation

Whilst this Service acknowledges that the resident raised concerns about the property in 2015, this report will focus on the complaints raised in 2019 following the start of the works to rectify the sloping floor. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred

Relevant policies and procedures

The landlord’s complaints policy does not mention how many complaint stages there are. But, from the evidence received as part of this investigation, it appears that it operates a two stage complaints process. The policy does not state how quickly the landlord will respond to complaints, but states that responses are provided in a ‘timely manner and in accordance with legislation, regulation and appropriate Ombudsman Services.’
The complaints policy also states that the landlord may make discretionary compensation payments but that this is not automatic, even when mistakes have been made. In addition, it states that if a contractor fails on its duty and agrees that compensation is due, it is the contractor’s responsibility to agree the level of compensation with the resident. The landlord will support the resident and liaise with the contractor to arrange this. Injury or damage to personal belongings, property or homes are dealt with as insurance claims and the landlord reserves the right to re-direct insurance claims to contractors as appropriate.
The discretionary compensation policy sets out that compensation is usually awarded as a result of service failure but that there is no obligation on the landlord’s part to make this award. The policy does not provide any guidelines for levels of payment, but does note that its offers of discretionary compensation are “primarily modest monetary awards”.
It also sets out that compensation offered by contractors is paid directly to the customer by the contractor. It is the contractors responsibility to arrange the payment but the landlord will monitor the progress of the payment.
In addition, the policy states that insurance claims can be made directly against the landlord where a customer suffers any loss, damage to possessions or injury where they believe the Landlord to be negligent or at fault. The policy further sets out the process for making an insurance claim.
The property management policy affirms that the landlord is committed to ensuring homes are safe, decent and properly maintained. Under the responsive repairs section, the policy states that the landlord takes the “right first time” approach and completes repairs within pre-defined timescales from the date they are first reported. This Service has not seen the timescales within which the landlord aims to complete repairs.
It also states that where repairs or other works have not been completed satisfactorily or within pre-defined timescales, the landlord will offer compensation in line with Right to Repair schemes and its own compensation policy.
In addition, the policy states that contractors are competent, registered and demonstrate the landlord’s values. They are accountable for the work they do and the work they sub contract, and will be challenged if they fail to meet the agreed standards.
The decant policy document describes the different types of decants and the situations when they are likely to be used. A planned decant is arranged when a resident needs to move out of their property in order that major repair work can be completed.
The policy explains that for all decants, the landlord will consult with the resident as early as possible in the process, to ensure the alternative accommodation meets their needs.
In addition, the policy states that residents are not charged rent on decant properties and that the landlord considers it good practice to ensure that residents are not left out of pocket as a result of the decant.

Summary of events

The landlord arranged for the resident to be decanted out of the property on 27 September 2019, so that the living room floor could be excavated and re-laid. The resident was originally advised that she would be able to move back to the property on 4 October 2019. This date was initially extended by one week as the work had not been completed, it was then delayed further. After having been advised by the contractor that the property would be ready on 25 October 2019, the landlord arranged for the carpet fitter to attend on 23 October 2019.
On 21 October 2019, the landlord visited the property to inspect the work, but there was still work outstanding, and the property would not have been ready in time for the carpet to be fitted on the agreed date. The resident was unable to move back to her property on 25 October 2019, as had been agreed.
On 23 October 2019, the resident submitted a complaint regarding the time it was taking to do the work and the impact it was having on her family.
On the same day the resident also made a complaint to the landlord about an operative working for the company manging the decant move. This was reported to the decant contractor, who confirmed that an investigation would take place and the necessary action taken.
The work was eventually completed on 25 October 2019 and the carpet fitter booked to attend the following week.
On 31 October 2019, the landlord noted that the sink and shower were leaking, and agreed that this would be fixed before the resident moved back into the property.
The resident moved back into the property on 8 November 2019 and the landlord issued its stage one response, in which it acknowledged and apologised for the delay in carrying out the repair to the floor. It also apologised for the disruption she experienced.
On 20 November 2019, the landlord and the contractor met the resident at the property to inspect the work. They acknowledged that the floor was still not level. It was agreed that the family would be decanted after Christmas so that the work could be re done. The landlord apologised to the resident and stated that it would seek to minimise any further disruption. The resident was unhappy that the work had not been done to an acceptable standard and escalated her complaint to stage two.
On 12 December 2019 the landlord contacted the contractor to arrange a date for the following work to be completed post-Christmas:
1. Lounge floor screed.
2. Hallway screed.
3. Skim the lounge ceiling and replace alcove coving.
4. Living room light pendants to be dropped and redundant spurs removed from the alcove.
5. Provide a fire spur point.
6. Install lockable door knob sets to the rooms upstairs so that the resident can keep her belongings locked in the rooms.
7. Insulation to the roof space in the kitchen extension.
The contractor confirmed that the work would start on 20 January 2020, and that it would use a rapid set self- level concrete that would dry in three hours.
The landlord confirmed the date with the resident and agreed that the resident would be decanted on 20 January 2020.
The resident was decanted as arranged, but the work at the property didn’t start until 22 January 2020, and only partial sections of the floor were screeded which didn’t achieve the desired effect.
Two days later the whole floor was re-screeded and the contractor advised that it was unlikely to be dry in time for the carpet to be fitted on the agreed date.
The carpet fitter was re-booked to attend on 29 January 2020, and the resident moved back in on 30 January 2020.
The resident was still unhappy that not all the work had been completed and asked to escalate the complaint further. The landlord advised that the complaint was already at stage two and there was no further escalation process until the stage two complaint was complete. It also explained that the complaint would be passed to the Head of Maintenance.
The landlord acknowledged that there were still outstanding issues, and that although the work wasn’t needed structurally, if the resident wanted the work re– done for aesthetic reasons, then this would be possible. But she would need to be decanted again.
On 5 February 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to confirm that she would like the work to be re-done. She stated that she wanted the floor levelled throughout, the living room wall replastered, and insulation put in the roof space above the kitchen.
The following day the landlord contacted the contractor to express its disappointment with the work completed on both occasions. It instructed the contractor to do all the work from scratch.
The landlord met with the resident to discuss the work needed, and once again confirmed that there would be minimal disruption.
An internal email confirmed that the following work had been proposed:
1. Dig out and level the hall ‘prop up’ the unlevel staircase then re screed along with the lounge.
2. Inject and damp proof the chimney breast
3. Install a loft hatch into the kitchen and insulate the kitchen ceiling.
4. Re fix the hall radiator with new brackets
5. The contractor offered to move all furniture in and out, if a disclaimer was signed.
6. The door adjusting
On 3 March 2020, the resident expressed that she would prefer to wait until after Easter for the work to start. She also requested an update about the incident with the decant contractor reported in October 2019. The landlord responded that it had been dealt with by the contractor and that the operative had been disciplined. In addition it passed on apologies from the contractor.
On 26 March 2020, the landlord updated the resident and advised that due to the national lockdown it would not be able to start the work as planned.
Between 13 May 2020 and 4 June 2020 the resident contacted the landlord on various occasions to advise that she had noticed that the stairs were moving and that cracks had started to appear in one of the bedrooms, the bathroom and in the hallway by the front door.
The landlord acknowledged this and informed the resident that her stage two complaint was still active.
On 26 June 2020, the landlord instructed a surveyor to carry out a structural survey. The purpose of the survey was to assess the extent of the cracking and review the report prepared in 2015. The survey noted that the new floor slab in the living room was uneven, which appeared to be due to poor workmanship rather than further settlement of the ground. In addition, it noted more recent internal cracking around the property at first floor level, in particular in the rear corner of the ground floor extension.
The survey expressed two areas of concern: The settlement to the rear corner of the ground floor extension and; the settlement of the dividing wall in the main house. It recommended that the former appeared to be movement that was ongoing and that it should be addressed immediately. And that the settlement of the dividing wall appeared to have stopped as there was no evidence of recent movement.
The survey made the following recommendations:
1. Inspect the drains at the rear corner of the extension to ascertain their condition.
2. Further investigation to ascertain the form of construction.
3. Excavate to confirm the type of foundations.
4. Subject to further investigation, underpin the rear corner of the extension.
5. Monitor the movement in the main house and in particular the dividing wall that runs parallel to the front elevation.
An internal email dated 23 August 2020 states that the original contractor was no longer being used and that the landlord had instructed a new contractor.
The landlord emailed the resident on 16 September 2020 to update her on the work that was needed. On 10 November 2020 the landlord went to the property to carry out a test dig at the back of the property to assess the foundations, to establish if the underpinning was necessary.
On 21 December 2020, the landlord contacted the resident to advise that the contractor would be at the property on 4 January 2021 to fix a collapsed drain. It advised that it was still waiting for a complete quote for the underpinning and that once this was received, and the work to make the property structurally sound was completed, it would progress with the additional work to the property.
The landlord considered various different properties as potential suitable decant options for the resident and was mindful of the previous experiences that the resident had had with regard the length of stay in those properties. It eventually offered a two bedroom property, which was available for the duration of the work and longer if necessary. The resident agreed to the property on 18 January 2021 and the landlord confirmed that it would provide carpets, a cooker, curtains, mixer tap with hose for the shower, and blinds.
The landlord set a date of 11 March 2021 for the decant so that the work could start at the property on 17 March 2021. The decant went ahead as planned.
On 6 April 2021, the landlord contacted the resident to advise that the work was progressing as expected. It also stated that additional structural work was needed, but that it was anticipated that it would only add 4 extra days to the schedule. The landlord updated the resident again three weeks later.
On 6 May 2021, the resident contacted the landlord expressing that she was concerned about water ingress into the property and that she was concerned that the new carpet would be ruined if it wasn’t dealt with before fitting the carpet.
On the same day an internal email shows that the landlord expected all work to be completed by 7 June 2021.
On 14 May 2021, the resident’s neighbour contacted the landlord with concerns that the roofing contractor was throwing things from the roof, rather than using the chute provided. And that both their own car and the resident’s car had been damaged. The neighbour also reported that they had witnessed one of the operatives urinating in the garden.
The landlord asked the contractor to investigate both allegations. An internal email, demonstrates that the contractor had started to investigate the incident.
On 8 June 2021, the landlord contacted the contractor again to express its disappointment with the progression of the work up until that point. Also listing all of the work still outstanding.
Between 22 June 2021 and 23 June 2021, there was an email exchange between the main contractor and the roofing contractor regarding the reports of rubble being thrown from the roof and damaging the cars below. The roofing sub-contractor assured the main contractor that it would investigate both this incident and the report of an operative urinating in the garden. It confirmed that if it had damaged the car, it would take responsibility and repair it. In addition, it confirmed that if any of its operatives had urinated in the garden they would be dismissed immediately.
On 12 July 2021, the resident visited the property and found a leak from the upstairs toilet. Dehumidifiers were installed at the property to dry out the water damage. Three days later the landlord visited the property and noted that it was still damp and that the dining room door would need to be replaced, and some areas would need to be redecorated.
On 16 July 2021, the resident requested that the carpets were either professionally cleaned or replaced. The landlord agreed that they should be professionally cleaned and that the lino would be re-laid. It also confirmed that the water damaged doors and skirting would be replaced.
The landlord’s internal notes from a meeting that took place on 20 July 2021 states that it expected all work to be completed at the property by the following week and that the contractor would send a list of snagging works that afternoon. The notes also stated that the contractor was formally investigating the incident with the damage to the car and that any claim would be dealt with through insurance, and that a compensation offer would be made to the resident as the sub-contractor had admitted liability. The internal notes also show that the landlord anticipated that the contractor/sub-contractor would also award a compensation payment for the urinating in the garden incident.
At the same meeting, the landlord stated that it was unsure what caused the leak, but that the toilet and cistern were being replaced. The landlord also acknowledged that it needed to learn from this and that communication throughout the works had been poor, resulting in a negative experience for the resident.
The landlord updated the resident on the same day. And again on 23 July 2021, and explained that the carpets would be cleaned later that week. An inspection was planned for 26 July 2021, and it would then be able to provide a more definite completion timescale.
It is unclear from the information provided if the inspection took place on 26 July, as arranged. But there are notes relating to a joint inspection that took place on 4 August 2021, in which it became apparent that the areas affected by the water damage, needed to dry out further. It was also noted that the property had been cleaned and there was some debris to remove from the roof. The landlord scheduled a further inspection for 10 August 2021. But the resident was unable to attend. It was re-arranged for 18 August 2021.
On 18 August 2021, an internal email listed the outstanding snagging works and also stated that the landlord was waiting for a compensation offer from the sub-contractor who accepted liability for the damage to the car. On 24th August, the landlord contacted the resident to confirm that the property would be ready to move back into on 2 September 2021.
The landlord issued its stage two response on 29 November 2021. It stated that it had investigated the resident’s dissatisfaction with its response to the stage one complaint and that it noted that the resident remained dissatisfied with the following:
1. The standard of excavation works previously carried out at the property by the first contractors.
2. The completion of the required works to a good standard.
3. The delays and disruption experienced in relation to this.
In its response, the landlord confirmed the following:
1. That the resident submitted a formal complaint in October 2019, following the first occasion that she was decanted. It confirmed that the decant had been planned for one week but that there were several delays to the work being completed, which meant that the resident was decanted for six weeks. The landlord responded to this complaint on 8 November 2019. The resident remained unhappy with the response and the standard of the work completed.
2. Following a visit to the property the landlord escalated the complaint on 20 November 2019 and noted that there was various outstanding work to complete and that it agreed this would be done after the Christmas period.
3. A second decant was arranged for 20 January 2020 for the outstanding work to be completed. The landlord anticipated that all works would be completed on that day. The response acknowledges that there was a delay in the work being completed and that the resident was decanted for 10 days.
4. It acknowledged that the resident remained unhappy with the standard of work completed. The complaint was still at stage two but it was also escalated to a Department Head.
5. It was agreed that all the work would be re-done, which meant that the resident would need a further decant. But that this was delayed due to the national lockdown.
6. That there was a change in staff coordinating the works and also a change in contractor. It also acknowledged that it experienced a further delay in agreeing a start date with the contractor and that this caused difficulties finding a suitable decant property.
7. That there were further delays in finishing the work and that a potential move in date set for 7 June 2021 was exceeded due to work not being completed.
8. That there was a leak in the toilet which pushed the schedule back further and required further remedial work.
9. The resident returned to the property on 21 September 2021 and all snagging repairs were complete as of 27 November 2021.
10. In relation to the incidents involving the roofing sub-contractor, the landlord stated that they had been investigated by the main contractor in line with their internal procedures and that it understood that compensation had been arranged separately in relation to that.
11. It acknowledged that there had been service failures and lessons would be learned to prevent similar issues in the future, and to improve the services it provides.
12. It offered discretionary compensation of £3650 for: service failures by the landlord; service failures by contractors; disruption; time and effort chasing repairs/updates; overall delays. A sum was awarded for each of the years 2019 – 2021.
The discretionary compensation offered was broken down as follows:
1. A total of £750 for service failures by the landlord, which is equal to £250 per year from 2019 to 2021.
2. A total of £750 for service failures by the contractor, which is equal to £250 per year from 2019 to 2021.
3. A total of £1050 for disruption, which is equal to £350 per year from 2019 to 2021.
4. A total of £450 for time and effort chasing repairs updates, which is equal to £150 per year from 2019 to 2021.
5. A total of £650 for overall delays, equal to £250 for each of the years 2019 and 2021, and £150 for 2020.
As a result of this Service investigating the complaint, in July 2022 the landlord asked the main contractor the outcome of the investigation into the incident with the sub-contractor. It contacted the sub-contractor who advised that it had visited the property and disputed any damage to the vehicle, it did not mention the alleged urinating incident. With regards the investigation that took place at the time of the event, the only information the contractor held in relation to the incident was the email trail between 22 June 2021 and 23 June 2021. The contractor also confirmed that it did not pursue the incident further as shortly after the email exchange, it ceased their sub-contract agreement with them.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:

Be fair
Put things right
Learn from outcomes

This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified .

How the landlord handled major works to the property and the necessary decants for the works to be carried out.

The landlord’s property management policy states that it takes a ‘right first time’ approach and aims to complete repairs within pre-defined timescales. However, it is clear from the evidence provided that it did not get things right first time and nor did it complete the repairs within the specified timescale. The job was originally scheduled to be completed in one week, but over ran by five weeks. When the resident complained that the work hadn’t been completed to an acceptable standard, the landlord acknowledged the mistakes and sought to rectify them. The contractor was re-booked and the second attempt at the work took a total of ten days. Unfortunately, there were still issues with the standard of the work, which resulted in the job being rescheduled for a third time. On the third occasion, the landlord’s expectation was that all of the work would have been completed by 7 June 2021. However, it took a further five and a half months for all of the work and snagging to be completed. In total it took the landlord a total of three attempts over two years, to get the work completed to an acceptable standard.
During each of the three occasions the resident was decanted from her property, the repairs were not completed within the timescales given, and even new deadlines were exceeded. Whilst this Service acknowledges that the landlord failed to meet the required service standard, it learned from this, kept lines of communication with the resident open and proactively sought to put things right.
It is clear from the evidence provided that both contractors made mistakes on all three occasions, which led to unnecessary delays and distress. In its final complaint response to the resident, the landlord stated that it had made significant changes within its maintenance team and the roles and processes involved.
It is clear that standards weren’t met, but it is also clear from the evidence provided that the landlord questioned the contractors when things went wrong, and set out its expectations to ensure standards were met. However, the landlord failed to respond appropriately to the issues raised by the resident regarding the contractors conduct. It was inappropriate of the landlord not to have followed through its processes and ensured that the contractors failings were actively managed. This was to the detriment of the resident who was left without a clear resolution to this part of her complaint.
The landlord has not provided any information about the first two decants, due to the officers involved in the process at the time having left the organisation. However, with regard the third decant, this Service has seen evidence that the landlord took reasonable steps to agree a suitable decant property with the resident and had learnt from failings through its process.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord 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 response was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes, and whether any compensation offer was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
In its final response, the landlord acknowledged that it had made mistakes. It accepted that there was poor communication and service failures and that lessons would be learned in order to prevent similar issues occurring in the future. It made an offer of £3650 for the various service failures, which the Ombudsman considers is proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused. The discretionary compensation offered by the landlord for each of the failings, overall disruption, delays, and the time and effort involved in chasing repairs is in line with the Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress.

The conduct of the contractors carrying out the work at the property.

There were several instances during the period of the complaint where contractors did not behave in a competent or appropriate way. And whilst the landlord raised its concerns with the contractors and instructed them to carry out internal investigations. The landlord did not always follow up the outcome of the investigation. The landlord’s complaints policy states that if a contractor fails on its duty, the landlord will support the resident and liaise with the contractor to arrange compensation. In addition, it states that damage to personal belongings is dealt with as an insurance claim and the landlord can re-direct insurance claims to contractors. The landlord’s discretionary compensation policy further re-iterates that the landlord will monitor the progress of any contractor compensation award
In its final response, the landlord apologised for the issues relating to operative conduct and stated that it understood that compensation had been arranged separately in relation to the incident in May 2021.
However, it has since been found that the contractor did not accept liability for the damage to the car and has not paid any compensation to the resident. The landlord has therefore failed to adhere to its own policy in which it states that it will support the resident to liaise with the contractor to arrange compensation and monitor any compensation offer agreed.
It is not within the remit of this Service to determine liability for damage to a resident’s belongings. However, in its policy the landlord states that it will support the resident to liaise with a contractor regarding payments of compensation. The landlord has failed to adhere to its own policy in respect of this and the Ombudsman finds maladministration.

The level of compensation offered by the landlord.

The landlord has made a total offer of compensation of £3650. The amount is to reflect the various service failures, the disruption to the resident, the overall delays and time and effort the resident spent chasing repairs, and covers the period of the complaint.
Whilst the landlord’s compensation policy does not provide any guidelines for levels of payment. The offer of compensation made by the landlord for it’s service failures is in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (available on our website) and is in line with the Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code sets out requirements for landlords to enable them to respond to complaints effectively and fairly. All members of the Scheme are expected to self- assess against it.
Whilst it was apparent from the evidence provided, that on this occasion the landlord operated a two stage complaints process. Its complaints policy does not clearly set out the complaint stages or timeframes for responding. Section 2.3 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states that a landlord’s complaint policy must “detail the number of stages involved and what will happen at each stage and the timeframes for responding”. It is therefore not sufficient for a landlord to state that response will be provided in a “ timely manner”.
It took the landlord more than two years from the date of accepting the stage two complaint to issuing its final decision. This far exceeds the 20 working day timeframe recommended by the Ombudsman in its Complaint handling Code.
The evidence suggests that the landlord delayed the response as it was awaiting repairs to be completed. However, the landlord needs to ensure that it does not allow complaints about repairs to stay open indefinitely whilst waiting for them to be completed. This runs the risk of residents being blocked from escalating their complaints should repairs continue to be delayed.
The Ombudsman’s position is that a response can normally be sent detailing the landlord’s assessment of the service provided so far and its proposed plan to put things right. Progress of this plan should still be monitored even if a complaint response has already been sent.
The complaint should have been resolved at the earliest possible opportunity and it was not appropriate, timely or in accordance with Ombudsman’s guidance to only issue its final response once all the repairs had been completed. The Ombudsman finds maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service accepts that the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress to the resident in respect of how it handled major works to the property and the necessary decants for the works to be carried out.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the conduct of the contractors carrying out repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the level of compensation offered by the landlord is in line with the Ombudsman’s awards set out in the remedies guidance. This Service finds that there was reasonable redress.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaints handling.

Reasons

This Service has seen evidence that the landlord has acknowledged its failings in how it handled the major works to the property and the necessary decants for the work to be carried out. The landlord has offered compensation as redress for its failings.
In relation to the handling of resident’s complaint regarding the contractor’s conduct, the landlord failed to follow its policy position and failed to provide the resident a clear resolution to this part of her complaint.
This Service has seen evidence that the landlord has offered reasonable redress. The landlord has learnt from its failings and taken into account the impact of distress and inconvenience, time and trouble and not just the service failing, and has offered appropriate compensation for each element.
There was a significant delay in the landlord’s response to the stage two complaint and the process was unnecessarily protracted. The landlord failed to meet its policy position and its actions were not in line with this Service’s Complaint handling code.

Orders and recommendations

100.Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:

Apologise to the resident for the failures highlighted in this report.
Pay the resident a total of £4250, comprised of:
1. £3650, which was the total amount of discretionary compensation offered in the landlord’s final response. If the landlord has already paid this amount to the resident, then it can be deducted from the total amount payable.
2. £600 for its failure to respond to the stage two complaint within a reasonable time frame.
Self-assess against the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling code paying particular attention to section 3.11, which provides guidelines for appropriate timeframes. And make any necessary amendments to its complaints policy in line with this.
Support the resident in seeking compensation from the contractor for the damage done to her car.
Report back to this Service, compliance with the above orders.