Golding Homes Limited (202220971)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220971

Golding Homes Limited

8 April 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. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damage to her front door.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, residing in a two-bedroom first floor flat.
  2. The resident initially advised the landlord in September 2021 that her front door had been damaged, and then raised a formal complaint in October 2022. Overall, her complaint was that she advised the landlord that she had not been able to lock her front door and that it was hard for her to open it from the inside. She advised that being unable to lock her door had caused her anxiety when she was away from her property because it was unsecure and unprotected, and that when she was in her property she felt anxious because she believed that her door was a fire hazard. She wanted £3,000 compensation in recognition of the delay and because her door had yet to be replaced.
  3. The landlord’s overall complaints response was that it acknowledged that the resident had reported the damage to her door in September 2021 and that it had missed several opportunities to put things right. It acknowledged the frustration that she had felt and apologised for this, and for its failings, and awarded her £450 compensation. It advised her that it was willing to make a temporary repair to the door to make it safe, and that its fire safety lead was also willing to attend and provide her with reassurance on the fire safety point that she had raised, and that it had made an appointment for her door to be replaced on 16 December 2022. The resident declined the landlord’s offer to make the door temporarily safe because she said she had been advised on previous occasions that the door could not be repaired any further.
  4. The resident then contacted this Service because the door had yet to be replaced and because she was unhappy with the amount of compensation offered by the landlord.
  5. The landlord replaced the resident’s door on 6 January 2023 and increased the amount of compensation that it was offering to £1,500, which was subsequently paid to the resident.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damage to her front door

  1. The landlord does not dispute that the resident had to wait a significant amount of time for her damaged front door to be replaced. It apologised for this and for the distress and inconvenience caused to her, and ultimately awarded her £1,500 compensation in total.
  2. It should be noted that under the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, £1,500 compensation would only be considered in a case where there had been severe maladministration by the landlord which had been caused by a significant failure that resulted in seriously detrimental and long-term impact on the resident.
  3. In this case, there was clearly a significant detriment to the resident, because of the security risk and potential fire safety hazard due to the damage to her front door. The resident reported the damage to her front door to the landlord on in September 2021 and the door was then not replaced until 6 January 2023 so there was also a long-term impact on her. This would therefore be considered a serious failure by this service and as such the £1,500 offered by the landlord would be an appropriate level of compensation in accordance with this service’s remedies for this level of failure. As such, together with the landlord’s acknowledgment and apology, and that the door was ultimately replaced, the landlord has provided reasonable redress to the resident for its failures in this case.
  4. Additionally, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns about her front door being a potential safety risk and a potential fire hazard. It offered to make a temporary repair to her door in relation to the safety risk, in December 2022, but the resident declined this offer because she said she had been advised previously that no further repairs to the door could be made. In relation to her potential fire hazard concern, the landlord also advised the resident that its relevant staff member was willing to attend her property in order to provide her with reassurance. Both of these responses were reasonable and sought to alleviate the resident’s understandable concerns, and while they do not lessen the significance of its failing they were appropriate temporary measures.

Determination

  1. Under paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.