Arhag Housing Association Limited (202200702)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202200702

Arhag Housing Association Limited

28 July 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 the resident’s requests for:
1. Repairs to fix a leak.
2. Adaptations to the property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord which began in 1995. The property is a ground-floor flat in a nine-storey block.
The resident is in their 70s and has a number of health conditions which are known to the landlord, including arthritis. They live with their adult family member, who has acted as their representative in their dealings with the landlord and this Service. For the purposes of this report, both the resident and their representative are referred to as ‘the resident’.
The landlord’s tenancy agreement and repairs policy state that it is responsible for keeping in good repair the structure of the premises (including internal walls, floors, ceilings, doors, door frames and skirting boards) and any installations provided for sanitation and the supply of water (including basins, sinks, baths, toilets, waste pipes and water pipes). The repairs policy states that new fixtures and fittings will usually be installed within 28 days. This is the maximum timeframe for repairs that are the landlord’s responsibility, with the response time for burst pipes and minor leaks being 24 hours and five days respectively.
The landlord’s aids and adaptation policy states that it is committed providing a transparent, equitable, efficient and culturally sensitive aids and adaptation service, having regard to relevant legislation. It aims to provide a high standard of service for its tenants; to meet their needs for independence, privacy and dignity; and to assist them to remain living comfortably in their homes as they become frail or more reliant on physical aids. The policy refers to the legal requirement for local authorities to carry out a needs assessment for people who are disabled or in need of community care services, including identifying needs that could be met by making adaptations to their property.
The landlord’s safeguarding adults policy defines safeguarding as “protecting a person’s right to live in safety, free from abuse and neglect”. It states that the landlord has a duty to identify and take account of the needs of its tenants, and that its values include “maximising quality of life” and “providing flexible and proactive services”.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that, when a tenant first tells it that they are unhappy with something, it may try to resolve the matter informally as a ‘service dissatisfaction case’. If this is not possible, the landlord operates a two-stage formal complaints process. At stage one, it will acknowledge a complaint within two working days and provide a response within ten working days. If it cannot respond within this timeframe, it will tell the complainant why and when it will respond, which will not exceed a further ten working days. At stage two, a complainant may request a compensation review, complaint review panel, or senior management review, depending on the outcome sought. The landlord then aims to provide its final response within 20 working days of a complainant requesting escalation of their complaint, with extensions of up to ten further working days possible.
Complainants may ask for their case to be reviewed by a complaint review panel in circumstances where the stage one investigation found that there was no failure in the way the landlord dealt with the issue, and it offered no remedy or redress. The panel will include a senior manager (normally a head of service) and up to two residents from the landlord’s resident scrutiny panel (RSP). Complainants have the option of attending the panel meeting. A report summarising the background of the complaint, actions taken, decisions made and areas of continued dissatisfaction will be circulated five working days before the meeting takes place.
The landlord’s compensation policy, accessed by this Service via its website, states that it will pay £10 plus £2 per day (up to a maximum of £50) for delays or failure to complete a repair. It may also make a goodwill payment of between £25 and £50 “in recognition of poor service, failure to follow policy/procedure or act in a reasonable manner”. In addition, it may make a limitless discretionary payment, with the caveat that payments for things like repair delays already take account of the inconvenience that the failure will have caused.

Summary of events

In 2018 the resident reported a leak that was affecting their property, particularly the bathroom, to the landlord’s emergency repairs service. Around a year later, in November 2019, the local authority’s environmental health service inspected the property due to concerns about excess cold, damp and mould, and defective lighting in the communal area. The environmental health inspector produced a report which stated that the property was in a reasonable state of repair and fit for human habitation, subject to completion of remedial works. The report noted that, over the past year, there had been “several leaks from the flat above” which had left the bathroom with visible signs of mould growth. There was also no ventilation in the bathroom, and the walls were found to be between 95% and 100% WME (wood moisture equivalent) saturated. At the time of the inspection, the bathroom radiator was not working and the radiator in the living room was deemed to be too small. These things, together with a draught from a broken UPVC door in the living room, contributed to the temperature of the property. The report identified “penetrating damp from previous leak” as a hazard.
In December 2019 the landlord’s contractor was unable to contact the resident about a repair appointment in January 2020. In January 2020, a different contractor cancelled a repair appointment as the contractor did not cover the resident’s postcode. The landlord apologised to the resident and re-raised the job with a third contractor.
On 12 March 2020 the resident raised a number of concerns with the landlord. Among other things, these related to: redecoration of their bathroom following a leak; their kitchen window, which was prone to condensation and posed a safety issue as it opened wide enough to allow pedestrian level access; the size of their living room radiator, which they asked the landlord to address “as a health adaptation for an elderly”; and repairs from a boiler leak. The landlord responded the same day, advising that it did not redecorate unless a leak affected all walls in the room, but that it might be able to provide a voucher. It said that an alteration to the window would be classed as an improvement, which fell outside the remit of its responding officer, and it did not put grills on windows for health and safety reasons. Regarding the radiator size, it said it was not aware of this recommendation and any adaptations should be formally requested by an occupational therapist. It asked the resident to confirm what repairs needed to be carried out to the boiler, and if the boiler was providing heat and hot water.
The resident complained to the landlord on 12 July 2020, stating that their bathroom needed to be repaired and redecorated following “leak damage which has affected all walls and skirting”. They said that two surveyors who were aware of their case no longer worked for the landlord, but they would like the newly appointed surveyor to visit at their earliest convenience and wear the correct personal protective equipment (PPE) as they had been advised to shield. They noted that the radiator outside their bathroom had a crack/hole and asked that this was addressed during the same appointment. They also provided an update on some of the matters they raised in their email of 12 March 2020, including a recommendation made by environmental health regarding the kitchen window.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 13 July 2020. On 15 July 2020 its contractor visited the property to carry out an inspection, and on 31 July 2020 it provided a response informing the resident that it had produced and authorised a schedule of works. It said that its contractor would contact the resident to arrange appointments in relation to leak damage in the bathroom and a leak from the radiator in the hallway. It offered the resident a £40 B&Q voucher as a “goodwill gesture in full and final settlement of the inconvenience caused in delaying to address all these repairs”. The voucher was later put through the resident’s letterbox (at their request) on 8 February 2021.
The resident liaised with the landlord’s contractor in August 2020, and the contractor carried out repairs to the bathroom, hallway and corridor between 27 and 30 August 2020. On 31 August 2020 it told the resident that it was trying to arrange inspections of other flats in the building. On 1 September 2020 it confirmed that the inspections would take place on 4 September 2020, and that “as soon as we find and fix the leak, your bathroom will be done to a high standard”.
The resident spoke to the landlord on the phone on 16 October 2020 and followed this up with an email on 20 October 2020. They pointed out that it had been almost two years since they reported the repair issue, and said they hoped the landlord’s newly allocated point of contact was “the person who is going to commit to solving the repairs and addressing the compensation”. They said they had not received a response from other officers and their bathroom required an inspection following recent works.
On 13 May 2021 the landlord informed the resident that a repair appointment had been scheduled for 17 May 2021. The resident replied with a list of works that they understood required completion. The landlord then said that there had been a “change in direction” regarding the repairs, as instead of the works listed by the resident, a total bathroom renewal had been authorised. It asked the resident if they had undergone an occupational therapy assessment, as the assessor could make recommendations for adaptations such as a lowered wash hand basin. The resident explained that they had not yet been offered an appointment with the local occupational therapy service. The landlord therefore cancelled the appointment on 17 May 2021, saying it needed the assessment report first.
In June 2021 the occupational therapy service told the resident that the Covid-19 pandemic had caused a backlog of visits for assessments, and that it expected to progress their assessment by 2 September 2021. The resident shared this update with the landlord and informed it that the wall between their bathroom and corridor was “becoming very weak and flimsy” and looked “sunken in a lot more than before”. They asked it to confirm that the building did not have any further water leaks.
On 26 July 2021 the landlord’s contractor attended the property to replace the bathroom flooring. The resident did not initially grant access as they believed other repairs relating to the leak should be completed first. They told the landlord that photos it had previously taken would show that a wall connected to their bathroom appeared to be “sinking in”. Following contact with the landlord’s surveyor, who said they would post-inspect the works and address the concerns raised, the resident granted access to its contractor who replaced and sealed the flooring. The resident then requested that the landlord provided a repairs worksheet at future appointments, detailing the work that would be carried out on the day, to avoid miscommunication regarding the order of repairs.
On 22 October 2021, in reply to a newsletter sent by the landlord, the resident told it that the issues in their property were getting worse and should be addressed as a priority as they were 73 years old. They said that they still did not have an occupational therapy assessment report with adaptation recommendations, but they would provide this as soon as they received it. They asked for the landlord to schedule an appointment for its surveyor to inspect the property.
On 16 February 2022 the resident forwarded the landlord a copy of their occupational therapy assessment report. This detailed their needs relating to use of the toilet and bathroom wash basin and recommended adaptations to these, namely a raised toilet seat and either a perching stool or raised wash basin. The resident was assessed as falling into the highest category of eligibility (“E” on the service’s scale of A-E), ie “able to achieve an outcome but significantly and unreasonably longer than would normally be”. They also sent some photos of the rooms in their property requiring repair and noted that “I am still awaiting your visit.”
On 11 March 2022 the resident emailed the landlord about a petition they had signed. They said they had signed it because the landlord had claimed not to be aware of “a pile up of repairs going back several months that [it] had not addressed”. They told the landlord they were disappointed to read this because in their case it was not months but years that repairs had been outstanding. They said they had “submitted evidence to the repairs team on multiple occasions with minimal work carried out” and asked to escalate their concerns to the landlord’s chief executive. The landlord’s head of housing replied to the resident on 17 March 2022, advising that they would be leading on their case with the new chief executive taking an overview of the issues raised.
The landlord’s surveyor and contractor visited the resident’s property the same day (17 March 2022). Following this, the landlord informed the resident that its surveyor would lead on resolving the bathroom leak and would need to access other properties above the resident’s before the leak could be fixed. It said it would provide a new extractor fan and would also complete tiling works. It then said that the issues raised by the resident relating to aids and adaptations would require a report from the local occupational therapy service, and once the report was received it would be able to liaise with the service directly. It also advised that it would be contacting all residents of the block in the next few weeks to discuss installation of new windows and doors throughout the building.
The resident told the landlord on 18 March 2022 that they had already provided an occupational therapy assessment and was yet to receive its response. They reattached the assessment and asked to be sent a copy of the landlord’s vulnerable tenant policy. They highlighted issues with its communication and reiterated concerns they had expressed to its surveyor the previous day regarding bathroom adaptations and repairs to kitchen units. They asked the landlord to find out which flat had the original leak (as they believed it was not the flat above theirs) and to provide an update on its leak investigation.
The resident then complained to the landlord for a second time on 8 April 2022, stating that they had not received an update regarding their outstanding repairs and the leak investigation following the email they sent on 18 March 2022. They asked it:
1. to confirm that it had received the occupational therapy report;
2. to set out next steps for the recommended adaptations;
3. to address the repairs as a priority;
4. to offer a remedy that reflected the extent of its service failure and the level of detriment this was causing to them;
5. to respond to them before 22 April 2022.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 11 April 2022, telling them it aimed to respond within ten working days. However, the Ombudsman has not had sight of a stage one response and it is this Service’s understanding that no formal response was provided. On 25 April 2022 the resident contacted the landlord’s allocated stage one responder, stating that:
1. They understood their complaint had been passed to the officer to carry out an investigation into their outstanding repairs and adaptations.
2. The landlord had failed to resolve their complaint at stage one.
3. They asked to receive its investigation report and an explanation as to why it could not meet its response target of ten working days.
4. The lack of response had had a negative impact on their wellbeing.
5. They now wished to escalate their complaint to stage two.
6. In their view, the landlord should do everything in its power to put things right and protect its vulnerable tenants.
7. They asked it to confirm receipt of their email and to advise when it would be able to respond to their complaint and carry out their repairs.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request the same day and again said it aimed to respond within ten working days. Having received no response by 10 May 2022, the resident repeated their escalation request, stating that:
1. They were unhappy with the way their complaint was being handled.
2. The landlord had failed to respond within the timescale set out in its complaints policy, and this was unacceptable.
3. They had informed it of their health condition and adaptation requirements (including arthritis aids) on numerous occasions and had submitted an occupational therapy assessment report to support this.
4. On 17 March 2022 the landlord provided a list of repairs and other tasks that had been identified by its newly appointed surveyor, but they had not received any update in relation to these. They included:
  1. inspecting the flats above to investigate and resolve the leak issue;
  2. inspecting the resident’s property afterwards, including inspecting behind the bathtub to investigate any existing and new leaks;
  3. providing a new extractor fan;
  4. completing tiling in the bathroom;
  5. liaising with the local occupational health service regarding adaptations;
  6. arranging a meeting to discuss installation of windows and doors in the block, and in particular, choosing the best suited installation to meet their specific health needs.
5. On 15 February 2021 its officer made a statement that the landlord was “not aware of a pile up of repairs going back several months that [it] had not addressed”. This was disappointing and concerning for them to hear. They felt that the landlord should acknowledge that things had gone wrong and that they had received an unsatisfactory service.
6. The condition of the property was causing them “a lot of distress”. The landlord had a duty of care to protect its vulnerable tenants, and it should do everything in its power to rectify the repair issues.
7. They asked it to provide:
  1. a comprehensive investigation report;
  2. a start date and timescale for the above works;
  3. a copy of the energy performance certificate (EPC) for the property.
The landlord again acknowledged the escalation request on 11 May 2022. It told the resident it had moved to a new complaints policy and asked them to indicate whether they wished to request a complaint review panel, a compensation review or a senior management review of their case. The resident replied the same day and requested a complaint review panel, noting that they had already provided a list of reasons why they were unhappy with the landlord’s response. They pointed out that they had followed the procedures set out on its website, and if this was not up to date, this should not affect its response to their complaint.
The Ombudsman has assumed that the landlord convened a complaint review panel on 25 May 2022, although the minutes of this were dated 25 April 2022 (but signed off on 26 May 2022). The minutes stated that:
1. Its surveyor had presented the facts of the complaint and outlined the resident’s concerns and requests, including the list of outstanding repairs and tasks.
2. The panel found that the complaint was “not answered”.
3. It had agreed an action plan which would be led by its surveyor. This involved:
  1. carrying out a full inspection of surrounding properties to resolve all leaks;
  2. carrying out a full inspection of the property to investigate all leaks;
  3. raising works to make good any damage from investigation;
  4. raising works for the outstanding repairs.
4. It could not locate the resident’s occupational therapy assessment report.
5. It had commissioned a full stock condition survey by an independent company which would inform a programme of planned investment for all its properties. The resident would be contacted by the company to arrange access for them to carry out a survey of their home. The survey would then be shared with the landlord and would allow it to prioritise elements according to urgency of need for renewal. The process would take up to six months.
6. The resident scrutiny panel member felt that the compensation paid by the landlord to the resident was insufficient. In line with the compensation framework, the complaint panel increased the award to £75, comprising:
  1. £50 for delays and failure to carry out repairs;
  2. £25 for service failure.
7. The landlord had learnt lessons from the resident’s case and was taking action to improve its future service delivery. This included reprocuring its repairs contracts and implementing a performance framework to enable it to manage the contracts more effectively. It had also had some staffing changes, and its new director of property, building safety and compliance would focus on stabilising and improving the service going forward.
The landlord then issued its stage two response to the resident’s complaint on 31 May 2022. This stated that:
1. It was sorry they felt they had to escalate their complaint to stage two, where they had asked for a complaint review panel. This had now taken place.
2. The panel found that the complaint was not answered and did not meet its expectations. It apologised for this.
3. The panel agreed an action plan (as above) which was being led by its surveyor. The surveyor would contact the resident to arrange an inspection.
4. It could not locate the occupational therapy assessment report, which it needed to progress any recommended adaptations required by the resident.
5. It had commissioned a stock condition survey (details as above).
6. The panel felt the compensation paid was insufficient and it had increased this to £75 in line with its compensation framework (breakdown as above). It asked the resident to provide their bank details in order to accept this.
7. Its new complaints policy allowed for improved tracking of complaints with a focus on improving the service it provided. It had also taken other actions to improve its service, including staffing changes and reprocuring its repairs contracts (details as above).
8. If the resident was not satisfied with its decision, they could escalate their complaint to this Service.

Post complaint

On 4 June 2022 the resident replied to the landlord regarding its stage two response, stating that:
1. They wished to make it clear that it had been “a few years” since they first reported the leak to its out-of-hours repairs team. It had delayed in resolving the leak, which had caused the condition of the property to be distressing.
2. They did not agree with the level of compensation awarded for delays since November 2019. The compensation should reflect their distress, inconvenience, time and trouble, as well as the landlord’s failure to progress the repairs to a satisfactory standard, poor communication and lack of complaint responses.
3. They had sent the environmental health report (dated November 2019) to its surveyor on 31 May 2022. Its repairs team had failed to address this.
4. They felt “we are going round in circles” with no action to resolve the issues in the property, no timeframe or schedule of works to address the leak.
5. They felt some works that had already been completed, including plastering, were unsatisfactory.
6. They asked for written confirmation that the surveyor’s inspection/report would take account of the recommendations made in the local authority’s occupational therapy and environmental health reports.
The resident also raised two further complaints on 4 June 2022 in relation to the conduct of named members of the landlord’s staff. While the Ombudsman’s investigation is limited to the complaint initially made in April 2022 (in order not to jeopardise any future investigation into subsequent complaints), relevant aspects of these communications included the following information:
1. The landlord said in its stage two response (on 31 May 2022) that it could not locate the occupational therapy assessment report, but the resident had personally re-sent the report to its stage two responder on 18 May 2022.
2. The landlord had also told the resident in March 2022 that it would provide an update on next steps following its surveyor’s visit, but they had not received this.
3. They had not received written confirmation as to whether their flat and/or the flats above still had leaks.
4. The leak had caused damp and mould in their bathroom, as well as other damage to the walls and plastering, which they felt was hazardous and a health and safety concern.
5. The landlord had not updated them regularly and its communication had been poor.
6. They felt their complaint had not been thoroughly investigated.
7. The ongoing situation was having an impact on their health and wellbeing, and also on their family member’s wellbeing. It had also caused them to lose trust and confidence in the landlord.
8. A statement made by a member of the landlord’s senior management team, which said that it was not aware of a “pile up” of unaddressed repairs, suggested a lack of thorough investigation of repair issues. They felt it should apologise for making a false statement.
The Ombudsman understands that the landlord’s surveyor carried out an inspection of the property on 9 June 2022, having first contacted the resident to arrange this on 26 May 2022. The resident requested a report outlining the surveyor’s findings. The landlord’s director and chief executive then met with the resident to discuss the outstanding issues on 10 June 2022. An email summary of the visit, sent by the landlord to the resident on 14 June 2022, apologised that the repairs to their home and its communication had not been of its expected standard. The landlord outlined a number of improvements it was making to its service, including additional training on complaint handling. It also sent the resident an action plan for repairs to the property on this date. It proposed two-weekly phone calls to discuss progress with them and provided two designated points of contact (a surveyor for technical matters and a senior manager for oversight). The frequency of updates was later changed to monthly at the resident’s request.
On 21 June 2022 the landlord replaced the resident’s bathroom extractor fan. On 24 June 2022 the resident completed a vulnerable resident questionnaire at the landlord’s request, and also requested a detailed adaptation specification from the occupational therapy service. They noted in their email that their arthritis was getting worse and was affecting their right side, ankle, knee and wrist. The landlord confirmed receipt of the completed questionnaire and apologised for the length of time it had taken to replace the extractor fan on 27 June 2022, agreeing that this was “far longer than it should take”. It provided an update on its new repairs contract and asked if the resident wished to be included in its resident scrutiny panel, but they declined.
On 11 July 2022 the resident’s local councillor chased the landlord on their behalf regarding adaptations to their toilet and sink. The councillor also asked why progress had been so slow regarding the leak repairs, as the resident and their family member had “had to put up with a very unpleasant bathroom for a while now” with exposed areas around the toilet and bath and a smell of damp. The Ombudsman has not had sight of any reply to this enquiry. The following day, the resident complained about the conduct of a member of staff who attended their property in place of a surveyor who was unwell. They felt the staff member was “judgemental” and disregarded what they said. The landlord apologised and explained that the staff member who visited was unaware of the wider scope of works. It confirmed that it had addressed the issue with the staff member in question and gave assurance that they would not attend the property again.
On 15 and 24 July 2022 the resident repeated their request for a report relating to an inspection that took place in March 2022. The landlord explained on 28 July 2022 that its more recent inspection (on 9 June 2022) superseded the previous one and the findings were reflected in the action plan. An updated version of the action plan was sent to the resident on 15 July 2022, with a further version being promised on 12 August 2022 but apparently not sent. On 4 August 2022 the landlord confirmed that its system had been updated with the relevant flags to reflect their completed vulnerable resident questionnaire.
On 5 August 2022, 7 September 2022 and 23 September 2022, the landlord asked the resident what level of compensation they felt was appropriate and what other outcomes they would consider acceptable. The resident sought advice from this Service, noting that the landlord’s website did not say they were expected to contribute to its complaint responses. On 23 September 2022 the landlord told the resident that it would close their case if they did not respond by 7 October 2022. The resident replied the same day to explain their reasons for not responding and said they were “flabbergasted that it has taken this long to receive a final letter”.
On 28 September 2022 the resident thanked the landlord’s contractor for its recent installation of windows and doors. They said this had “made a major improvement on how I open the kitchen window”. The landlord informed this Service that it supported the resident’s request for an adapted window (with window winder) at no cost as a gesture of goodwill, as it recognised that the occupational therapy service was experiencing delays of over six months at the time.
On 3 October 2022 the landlord replaced the resident’s toilet in line with its earlier inspection. Following this, the resident sent the landlord photos so that it could approve new skirting boards, reported some new repairs, and requested an action plan update. On 4 October 2022 the landlord advised that a new surveyor had taken over the case. The new surveyor carried out an inspection on 8 October 2022 and sent the resident a list of works to be completed on 10 October 2022. On 17 October 2022 the surveyor told the resident that the damp in their property was caused by defective plumbing and was not penetrating damp.
On 6 November 2022 the landlord informed the resident that the issue affecting their property was “leaks from above and a blown heating pipe within the floor screed”. The resident’s GP then sent a letter to the landlord, which listed their health conditions and asked for these to be taken into consideration in planning their housing adaptations, on 28 November 2022. On 10 February 2023 the landlord informed the resident that, following its stock condition survey, their bathroom was listed for renewal in 2025 and their kitchen in 2035.
On 17 March 2023 the landlord’s surveyor produced a report, which included:
1. A brief chronology of events, confirming that the property was first inspected on 8 October 2022 and that inspections to all flats in the block were carried out between 4 and 23 November 2022. The report noted that the landlord’s staff and contractors had experienced difficulties with gaining access to the resident’s property: unsuccessful attempts were made to post-inspect the property on 22 and 23 November 2022, and access could not be gained for a confirmed appointment on 3 February 2023.
2. A list of works to be completed. This included: repairs to the source of the leak; renewal of the toilet, wash hand basin, bath trap and waste, and bathroom flooring; a patch repair to loose tiles; decoration of the bathroom; a damp check of the hallway; decoration of the hallway, including woodwork and doors; and various kitchen repairs.
3. Confirmation that all works listed in the original complaint were post-inspected and found to be complete on 13 March 2023.
4. A note that the resident had introduced further repairs outside the complaint which they felt should be incorporated into the report. These included heating issues not reported to the landlord’s heating contractor. A number of further works had been booked in over the Easter weekend (7 to 10 April 2023), including: painting of bathroom walls and ceilings; painting of hall radiator, walls and ceilings; renewal of bath panel, hallway skirting, sealant to bath, and a leaking waste joint; and various kitchen and door repairs.
5. The landlord’s tenancy conditions relating to repairs.
The resident disagreed that all the repairs connected to their formal complaint had been completed. The landlord visited the property on or around 13 March 2023 to look at any outstanding issues and concluded that the majority of the issues had been resolved. It arranged an appointment for its contractor to complete some “minor decorating” in the hallway in accordance with the resident’s wishes. On 25 April 2023 the resident forwarded a letter from the occupational therapy service to the landlord and requested confirmation that its repairs department had received the service’s referral. On 11 May 2023 they told this Service that they wanted an independent surveyor to provide a second opinion on the condition of the property and whether there were still leaks.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman notes that the resident has raised a number of other matters with the landlord during the timeframe of this investigation, such as antisocial behaviour issues, noise from contractors carrying out maintenance, and a request for a replacement patio gate. Since these matters were not included in the resident’s complaint to the landlord in April 2022, they are not discussed in this report. However, all the information provided and the full circumstances of the resident’s case have been taken into account in making a determination.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for repairs to fix a leak

The Ombudsman has not examined the landlord’s initial response to the leak in 2018, but rather its handling of outstanding repairs and other issues relating to the leak since March 2020. It is noted that, by this time, around 16 months had already passed since the leak was first reported.
The Ombudsman accepts that the leak issues affecting the property were complex and challenging for the landlord to diagnose, with the water ingress eventually found to be originating from multiple sources. Its investigations from March 2020 onwards coincided with the Covid-19 pandemic, when the resident was advised to shield. The landlord was reliant on the findings of its qualified contractors, with whom it was already experiencing issues, and it was not always granted access to the property by the resident. This was partly due to its poor communication, as the resident’s family member had other commitments during the working week and wished to be notified in advance of appointments and works that would be completed. They also preferred to communicate via email, which was a reasonable adjustment but sometimes misunderstood by different contractors.
Despite the mitigating factors listed above, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for repairs was disorganised and circuitous, with a series of newly allocated points of contact proposing different approaches and an apparent lack of joined-up working between teams. On a number of occasions, a fresh plan of action appeared to galvanise an imminent resolution of the issues, only for subsequent events to knock the plan off course and works to stop altogether. It often fell to the resident to chase updates, and it is unclear how much progress would have been made (or how quickly) if they had not invested significant time in understanding, questioning and pursuing aspects of a complex technical investigation. It is also concerning that the resident and their family member were living in a property that environmental health had said was only safe and fit for human habitation once remedial works had been completed, and for an extended period this was not the case. The resident was justifiably worried about living in a property with visible signs of damp and mould and the impact of this on their health. In fact, the surveyor who finally progressed the repairs disagreed with environmental health regarding the type of damp that was in the property, which may have merited further investigation and/or liaison with the local authority.
The introduction of an action plan in June 2022, together with the involvement of the landlord’s chief executive and other senior staff, appeared to demonstrate its commitment to resolving the repairs, but the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the resident received the regular updates that they were promised. Some straightforward repairs, such as replacement of an extractor fan, were accepted by the landlord to have been unreasonably delayed, with the completion time being (in this case) four times the maximum timeframe of 28 days set out in the repairs policy. The landlord’s earlier denial of a backlog of repairs caused obvious frustration to the resident, and while this comment may have been taken out of context, the landlord failed to address the matter satisfactorily by apologising and/or providing a reasonable explanation for its statement. It also missed opportunities to demonstrate helpfulness and transparency by providing documents the resident asked for, such as the EPC for the property and its vulnerable tenant/safeguarding adults policy. Taking all of the circumstances of the case into consideration, including the significant distress and inconvenience caused to a vulnerable and elderly resident, the three-year delay in effectively resolving the leak and associated damage has resulted in a finding of severe maladministration.
The Ombudsman understands that the landlord has addressed issues with its contractors by reprocuring its repairs contract. Because of this, no order has been made in relation to contract management.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for adaptations to the property

During the timeframe of this investigation, three aspects of the property required adaptation (or were treated as adaptations by the resident and/or landlord). This report will examine each in turn.
Firstly, the resident asked the landlord to replace their living room radiator with a larger one, as the existing radiator was deemed by the local environmental health service to be too small. While the Ombudsman appreciates that the resulting low temperature in the property may have been particularly uncomfortable for the resident due to their age and health conditions, it was inappropriate for the landlord to treat this as an adaptation request, as the radiator size had been found by the relevant authority to be objectively inadequate for the property/room size. There is some uncertainty as to when the landlord received the environmental health report, as the resident re-sent it on 31 May 2022. However, it is unlikely that it would not have received a copy of the report from the local authority when it was produced in November 2019, and the resident had also referred to the report’s findings in correspondence in March 2020. The landlord’s response to the resident in March 2020 was that any adaptations must be formally requested by an occupational therapy worker. Had it explored the resident’s concerns and request in more depth at this point, it may have been able to identify and progress the environmental health recommendation sooner. Its dismissive approach and limited investigation meant that the adaptation request was not handled appropriately (ie confirmed not to meet the criteria for an adaptation request).
Secondly, the resident required adaptations to their bathroom sink and toilet as a result of their health conditions and physical abilities. It was appropriate for the landlord to treat this as an adaptation request and to require an assessment report from the local occupational therapy service. The delay in obtaining this report, while unfortunate, was due to the Covid-19 pandemic and so outside the landlord’s control. The Ombudsman has seen evidence that the resident sent the report to the landlord in February 2022, and that they asked in April 2022 whether it had received it. The landlord should have made rigorous efforts to locate the report as part of its complaint response, and, if a genuine IT error meant that it could not be found, re-requested it from the resident or occupational health service. Instead, it simply stated in its eventual stage two response that it could not locate the report. This lack of problem-solving and engagement in relation to an aspect of the complaint that was evidently important to the resident was unsatisfactory. On receipt of the report, the landlord should have progressed the adaptations according to (at least) its usual level of priority for such works, and perhaps with regard to the fact that the resident had already been waiting nine months for repair works to go ahead due to the delayed assessment. If it required further information – such as a specification and dimensions – before it could proceed, it should have requested this. Instead, the delay of at least eight further months before the adaptations were implemented was excessive.
Thirdly, when planning installation of new windows and doors for the whole building, it was proactive of the landlord to identify the resident’s health needs in relation to their kitchen window and to use its discretion in approving an adaptation. Its decision recognised the six-month waiting time experienced by the local occupational therapy service at the time, and avoided further delays for the resident. While the landlord no doubt had the incentive of wishing to proceed with its programmed works, this was an example of a sensitive and common-sense approach that benefited both the resident and its relationship with them.
Overall, although the landlord’s flexible handling of the resident’s adapted kitchen window installation was commendable, its lack of investigation into the radiator replacement and significant delay in progressing the bathroom adaptations have resulted in a finding of maladministration. There is little doubt that the landlord’s actions caused prolonged and avoidable distress to a resident who was vulnerable because of their age and disability.

Complaint handling

The landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s first complaint in July 2020, acknowledging the complaint within one working day and providing a response 14 working days later. Although this fell slightly outside its target timeframe of ten working days, the delay did not cause significant detriment to the resident and the landlord carried out a productive inspection of the property in the intervening days. It also kept in contact with the resident regarding its intentions, which was positive. However, the responder did not give the resident the option to escalate their complaint if they remained dissatisfied, and instead said the complaint would be kept open until the repair works had been carried out. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code recommends that complaints are responded to when the answer to the complaint is known, not when outstanding actions to address the issue are carried out; while actions should still be tracked expeditiously, they should not be treated as a reason to keep a complaint open. Had the resident been offered the opportunity to escalate their complaint in July 2020, this may have resulted in the repair process being similarly accelerated. They may also have been able to refer their complaint to this Service sooner.
The focus of this investigation is the resident’s second complaint, made in April 2022. The landlord acknowledged the complaint promptly but has been unable to provide a stage one response. Having examined the available evidence, including an email from the resident chasing the response, it is the Ombudsman’s understanding that no stage one response was issued. This was unacceptable. When the resident asked to escalate their complaint to stage two, rather than apologising and giving a target date for its stage one response, the landlord accepted their escalation request. This had the effect of denying the resident access to the two-stage complaints process published on the landlord’s website. The resident also had to make their escalation request twice, resulting in two further acknowledgement emails, before the landlord explained the next steps.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s requirement for residents to choose between three types of stage two review created a confusing and overly convoluted process. The landlord accepted the resident’s understandable choice of a complaint review panel and convened a meeting with appropriate internal representation within a reasonable period. However, the resident was not invited to attend the meeting, which was a departure from policy as well as a missed opportunity for the landlord to demonstrate openness and transparency. The subsequent minutes of the meeting appeared to state the wrong date, which was misleading. The wording of the minutes and subsequent stage two response was also confusing, as both documents stated that the resident’s complaint was “not answered” despite agreeing that the landlord’s service fell short of expectations, apologising, and offering compensation. Terminology such as “upheld”, “partially upheld” or “not upheld” may have been clearer, with a separate decision (and justification) for each aspect of the complaint.
The actions cited by the landlord in its stage two response – such as introducing a new complaints policy, staffing changes, and reprocuring its repairs contract – provided some reassurance in relation to issues raised in the resident’s complaint, but appeared incidental to the complaint itself. While it was appropriate for the landlord to refer to them, there is limited evidence that it took action to remedy the specific issues faced by the resident. The level of compensation offered (£75), while in accordance with its compensation framework, was disproportionately low. The breakdown of “delays and failure to carry out repairs” and “service failure” was vague, with no obvious distinction between “failure to carry out repairs” and “service failure”; if the service failure related to complaint handling or a failure to follow policy, this was not stated. There was also no allowance for multiple failures of the same type. The Ombudsman accepts that the compensation categories were reflective of the published framework, although the minimum amount for service failure was awarded and the landlord missed an opportunity to make a discretionary payment (beyond its initial £40 voucher). A review of the framework has therefore been ordered in addition to increased compensation.
The resident’s further complaints, made in June 2022, fall outside the remit of this investigation; they may be referred separately to this Service once they have completed the landlord’s internal complaints process. However, the Ombudsman would note that, while it is good practice for a landlord to seek residents’ views and to involve them in the resolution process, threatening to close a complaint if the resident does not state what level of compensation they would accept is not acceptable. As well as conflicting with this Service’s dispute resolution principles, such an approach could be damaging to the landlord-tenant relationship.
It is noted that the landlord has revised its complaints policy since the resident made their initial complaint, with the latest version having been published in April 2023. This does not include an informal stage and does not require complainants to choose between a compensation review, complaint review panel and senior management review, although the choice of a manager or panel review at stage two remains. The landlord also carried out a self-assessment against this Service’s complaint handling code in April 2023. Because of the changes that have already been introduced, the Ombudsman has not made orders relating to the landlord’s complaints policy. However, an overall finding of maladministration in complaint handling has been made due to the lack of stage one response, premature acceptance of an escalation request, delays, incorrect date on the panel minutes, confusing wording regarding the complaint outcome, low compensation, and lack of other specific actions to put things right for the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s requests for repairs to fix a leak;
2. maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s requests for adaptations to the property;
3. maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord delayed for three years in resolving the leak related repairs in the resident’s property. This meant that the resident and their family member were living in a property with undecorated areas, damp and mould, and incomplete bathroom repairs (as well as other issues) for over four years since the leak occurred in 2018. It is unclear whether the property was safe for them to inhabit during this time, with recommendations and concerns raised by environmental health not being sufficiently acknowledged or explored. The resident was understandably concerned about the appearance of the property and the possible impact on their health, and their distress was compounded by the landlord’s ineffective and inconsistent communication.
The landlord’s use of discretion in accommodating an adaptation to a new window installation demonstrated the flexible and proactive approach set out in its policy. However, its failure to identify that a request for a larger radiator did not meet the criteria for an adaptation resulted in the radiator replacement being unnecessarily delayed. It also caused significant additional delays in progressing occupational therapy recommendations by not acknowledging a report provided by the resident, recording the report appropriately and/or promptly re-requesting the report when it found that it could not be located. This caused avoidable distress to the resident, who was vulnerable.
The landlord did not (to the Ombudsman’s knowledge) provide a formal response to the resident’s stage one complaint in April 2022. It then accepted the resident’s escalation request in circumstances where it may not have been appropriate to do so, delayed in progressing the request, and followed a procedure which – while in accordance with its policy at the time – was convoluted and placed the onus on the resident to decide how their complaint should be dealt with. It did not invite the resident to a complaint review panel meeting and used confusing language to communicate the outcome of the review. It made an offer of compensation that included the minimum award for one category, did not recognise repeated failures of the same type, and was disproportionately low in view of the resident’s protracted distress, time and inconvenience.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within four weeks of the date of this report:
1. Apologise to the resident for its failures in handling their requests for repairs and adaptations and their associated complaint.
2. Pay the resident £2,600, comprising:
  1. £1,000 for its delays and poor communication in handling their requests for repairs;
  2. £600 for its maladministration in handling their adaptation requests;
  3. £600 for its maladministration in complaint handling;
  4. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused to them;
  5. £200 for the time and trouble they spent pursuing the repairs and their complaint.
3. Make arrangements for an independent and suitably qualified body to carry out an inspection of the resident’s property and provide a second opinion as to whether any leak related issues remain. The inspection itself need not take place within the four-week period, but should not be unreasonably delayed. A copy of the inspection report must be shared with the resident.
4. Provide evidence of compliance with the above to this Service.
The landlord is ordered to carry out a review of its compensation framework within 12 weeks of the date of this report. It should do so with reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. A copy of any review document and/or updated policy should be provided to this Service.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord reviews its internal complaints procedure, guidance and/or templates with a view to making the language used to express complaint outcomes clearer.
It is recommended that the landlord reviews its offer of training for staff (including repairs staff, contractors and senior managers) in relation to communication with residents and makes arrangements to implement any additional training that it considers necessary.
It is recommended that the landlord reviews the case with reference to this Service’s spotlight report on damp and mould (published October 2021) and follow-up report (published February 2023).