Orbit Housing Association Limited (202016279)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202016279

Orbit Housing Association Limited

24 May 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 management and handing of:
1. The resident’s request to repair four windows in the resident’s property.
2. The resident’s complaints and the level of compensation it offered for heating costs due to the delay in completing window repairs.
3. The resident’s request for reimbursement of court costs incurred due to legal action taken to recover rent arrears.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case and reach a view as to whether a complaint will or will not be investigated.
Paragraph 41(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states: “we cannot consider complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters that are the subject of court proceedings or were the subject of court proceedings where judgement on the merits was given”.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 41(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:

c. The residents request for reimbursement of court costs incurred due to legal action taken to recover rent arrears.

This is because the Judge’s decision to award the costs of the legal action to the resident, in addition to the rent arrears was a legally binding condition of the possession order.

Background and summary of events

The resident lives with her son in a two-bedroom, new build property let under a five-year fixed term assured shorthold tenancy in November 2017, by Orbit Housing Association Limited.
The resident first reported faulty windows to the property developer on 30 November 2017, during the defects liability period.

Relevant policies and procedures

The fixed term tenancy agreement states the landlord’s obligation to:
1. repair windowsills, window catches/cords, and window frames.
2. conduct repairs within a reasonable time of being notified of them. The time taken will depend on the urgency of the matter.
The fixed term tenancy agreement states the resident’s obligation to:
1. report any repairs for which [the landlord] is responsible.
2. pay the total weekly rent and other charges that form the total weekly payment.
The fixed term tenancy agreement states:
1. if [the tenant] thinks [the landlord] has broken this [tenancy] agreement or not kept to [the landlords] responsibilities [the tenant] can complain in writing.
2. [the landlord] will address complaints efficiently and effectively in accordance with the complaint policy.
3. if [The landlord] does not deal with a complaint to [the tenant’s] satisfaction [the tenant] can get advice from the citizens advice bureau, law centre, a solicitor…or refer the matter to the independent housing ombudsman.
The responsive repairs policy states the landlord:
1. is responsible for repairing and maintaining the building and any fixtures and fittings originally provided, as per individual tenancy agreements.
2. prioritises routine repairs (within 28 calendar days) which it describes as “any responsive repair that is not an emergency”.
The compensation policy June 2020 states:
1. To qualify for compensation under the right to repair, the customer must report the repair to [the landlord] properly and tell [the landlord] that it was not completed by the due date. [The landlord] will then issue a further order for the work. If the repair is still not completed by the second due date, [the landlord] will pay compensation.
2. [The landlord] may award compensation if the standard of service [the landlord] provides is considerably below the standard customers could reasonably expect. [The landlord] will decide whether to pay this compensation. [The landlord] will only pay it if the customer has experienced financial loss or significant distress or inconvenience.
3. [The landlord] will take the following into account when considering compensation.
  1. Whether the event has caused the customer financial loss or significant distress or inconvenience.
  2. Whether the customer has lived in poor conditions longer than is reasonable due to our failure to deal satisfactorily with repairs that are [the landlord’s] responsibility and which the customer has told us about.
The complaints and dissatisfaction policy June 2020 states the landlord will:
1. accept complaints made in any way including by phone, by letter or email.
2. acknowledge all complaints within three working days.
The February and April 2021 complaints policies state:
1. [The landlord] will manage all complaints through our two stage complaints process. The first stage is the initial complaint investigation. If a customer remains unhappy at the end of stage one, they are able to request their complaint be reviewed as part of stage two of the process.
2. [The landlord] will acknowledge all complaints within three working days and aim to fully respond to complaints within ten working days.
3. We will contact customers to discuss the outcome of both stage 1 and stage 2 complaint investigations and to explain our decision before we confirm this in writing.
4. [The landlord] will aim to respond to all requests for a complaint review within 20 working days.

Summary of events

The landlord completed an energy performance assessment (EPC) on 7 November 2017. The EPC classified the property with a Level B energy rating.
The resident reported window defects to the landlord’s property developer on 30 November 2017, during the defects liability period. It is not clear which windows were reported on this date. There is no evidence that any action was taken by the property developer or landlord in response to the report.
The landlord served the resident with a notice of seeking possession for rent arrears on 25 May 2018.
On 13 November 2018, the landlord’s contractor recorded five repairs defects in the property described as “Adjust front door, make good blown tape joint in the lounge ceiling, and touch up decorations, fills cracks about stairs and make good decorations, adjust window to rear bedroom, fit doorstop to bathroom.
The landlord inspected the rear bedroom window on 29 November 2018, under works order reference 1931788.
On 11 March 2019, the landlord sent a letter to the tenant notifying them that a rent arrears court hearing date would take place on 17 April 2019.
The landlord issued a letter to the resident dated 17 April 2019 notifying them that a suspended possession order was obtained at a court hearing. The letter advised that the resident must pay full rent plus £20 per month under the terms of the order. The letter also confirmed that the resident was liable for payment of £325 which represented the landlord’s fixed costs of the claim.
The landlord completed an inspection of the front bedroom window on 21 November 2019 under repair reference 2282502.
On 4 December 2019, the landlord raised works order 3056715 for the “ill-fitting window: front bedroom”.
The landlord inspected the front bedroom window on 12 December 2019. The operative reported “the tenant feels that windows are very cold. they close OK but very cold to touch making house feel very cold. tenant requests that orbit surveyor attends.”
On 13 January 2020, the resident requested that the landlord completes a property inspection. The landlord completed the inspection on 15 January 2020 and raised works order 2341182 on 16 January 2020 requesting “all windows to be checked for correct installation and any areas of draught that can be corrected with mastic/draught proofing”.
The landlord visited the residents property 31 January 2020 under job references 3114378 and 2341182. The contractor carried out a survey of all windows and no repairs were identified.
On 2 March 2020, the landlord sent a letter to the resident advising that the contractor advised no repairs were required. The landlord subsequently emailed a copy of the EPC certificate, dated 7 November 2017 to the resident on 24 March 2020.
The landlord raised works order 2328962 on 7 October 2020 to inspect the property due to the resident’s ongoing concerns about draughts from the windows and doors. The landlord subsequently raised works order 2615948 on 8 October 2020 to inspect the bedroom and living room windows.
On 28 October 2020, the resident raised works order 2638439 to address the residents reports of draughts from the bedroom and living room windows because the seals were faulty.
The landlord’s contractor inspected the property on 6 November 2020 and on 7 November 2020, under works order 3405715 and 2638439, the contractor stated “this property is new – was built in 2017 and there is nothing wrong with these windows – no fault found. The property manager… is dealing and will raise new jobs if required once she has inspected.”
On 20 November 2020, the landlord raised works order 2662058 as a recall of works order 3405715. The landlord’s notes on the works order stated “the windows are still the same. Very, very draughty in the lounge, kitchen, front and rear bedroom.”
The resident contacted the landlord on 25 November 2020 requesting a property inspection on 4 December 2020. The landlord scheduled, confirmed the requested appointment, and stated the property manager and area inspector would attend. The resident subsequently cancelled an existing contractor appointment that was scheduled for 2 December 2020 in favour of the property manager and area inspector assessment on 4 December 2020.
On 4 December 2020, the landlord’s property manager inspected the property and stated that they along with the accompanying area inspector “agreed that there was a draught from the lounge window and front bedroom window. Draught could not be felt but area inspector could see from the hinges and indentation of the seal that it was not pulling together equally around the opening.” The landlord subsequently raised works order 2678934 on 5 December 2020 to replace the windows in the lounge and front bedroom.
On 10 December 2020, the resident verbally advised the income team that they would stop paying the additional £20 [as stated in the suspended possession order] due to the outstanding repairs.
On 12 December 2020, a glazing repair appointment scheduled for that day was cancelled. There was no information recorded to explain the reason for the cancellation.
On 23 December 2020, the landlord’s resolution staff emailed repairs staff requesting a summary of information because “The customer has called up the Customer Service Centre to complain about being taken to court for being in arrears with the rent. The customer states she withheld her rent due to outstanding repairs on the property and feels if these were dealt with better, she would of no had to withhold her rent ” telephone complaint from the resident. It is not clear what date the resident made the complaint. This service has seen no evidence that landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint.
In the landlord’s stage two complaint response it stated on 23 February 2021 “you advised the Income team of your dissatisfaction that your complaint had been closed by Customer Resolutions and that you were not happy with the outcome. You were advised that if you had exhausted Orbit’s complaint procedure you can escalate your complaint to the Housing Ombudsman.
The resident emailed this Service on 19 March 2021 explaining they had made previous complaints about heating costs and property repairs. The resident stated their complaint was not responded to and was closed without an outcome in December 2020.
On 31 March 2021, the resident emailed a complaint to the landlord, but it was sent to an incorrect email address and not received by the landlord. The complaint referred to outstanding defect repairs going back to the start of the tenancy in 2017. The resident complained that the property should not have been let with outstanding repairs. The resident complained that they were taken to court for non-payment of rent, that deductions were taken from a universal credit claim and that obtaining a court order was unfair and was issued for no fault of their own. The resident requested:
1. the National House Building Council (NHBC) should assess the house before the windows are repaired.
2. the building developer/contractor should be held responsible for the complaint.
3. that windows, doors and the kitchen sink should be repaired.
4. an apology should be provided.
5. the court order should be cancelled, and a new rent arrears arrangement made.
6. compensation should be provided for gas and heating during the colder winter months.
7. compensation should be provided for stress, pressure, and inconvenience.
On 8 April 2021, the resident advised the income team they were dissatisfied with outstanding repairs and the closure of a previous complaint. The landlord agreed to forward this information to the customer relations staff.
The landlord scheduled an appointment to install new windows in the property on 9 April 2021. The appointment was delayed “due to 3rd lockdown and difficulties arranging appointments with the customer”.
The windows were replaced on 7 May 2021, and a glazing repair appointment scheduled to take place on 7 May 2021 was cancelled until after the installation was complete.
On 18 May 2021, the landlord held a phone conversation with the resident about their complaint. The landlord issued a written stage one complaint response under reference 67380 the same day. The landlord stated that it understood the complaint as “you are unhappy with your rent arrears and the information you have been provided around these, you would like Orbit to take you back to court, remove the court order in place and to sort the repairs in your property.” remove The landlord’s letter:
1. explained the terms of the court order.
2. advised it applied for deductions from the resident’s universal credit payment under the terms of the pre-action protocol, in response to the resident’s decision to withhold payments required under the terms of the suspended possession order.
3. referred to a boiler fault and repair appointment scheduled on 24 May 2021. [This matter was not raised as part of the resident’s formal complaint, but it appears was discussed during the landlord’s conversation with the resident].
4. clarified that the resident was dissatisfied that the landlord’s customer resolution staff closed a previous complaint.
5. summarised that it had verbally offered the resident £240 compensation for service failure and delays in repairing the boiler.
6. stated the resident declined the compensation offer because the landlord proposed it would be posted to the rent account.
7. clarified that the windows in the property were replaced but the resident was dissatisfied with the length of time taken.
8. paraphrased the resident’s intention to take the landlord to court to clear the arrears and award compensation.
9. requested a review of the complaint response.
On 19 May 2021, the landlord emailed the resident advising that the complaint email the resident sent on 31 March 2021 was sent to an incorrect email address and was not registered.
On 21 May 2021, the landlord held a complaint review conversation with the resident. The landlord issued it’s written complaint review response, under reference 70051 on 24 May 2021. The landlord’s letter:
1. confirmed the resident first reported window faults on 30 November 2017 which were not fully resolved until 21 May 2021.
2. stated the resident is responsible for the payment of rent and that the action taken by the income collections and recovery team was correct, as explained in the landlord’s previous stage one complaint response.
3. apologised that the landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint about window repair delays in the previous stage one complaint response.
4. offered £2,060 compensation for
  1. £70 goodwill payment for failure of service.
  2. £400 distress and inconvenience caused by the matter.
  3. £350 poor complaint handling in the stage one response.
  4. £1,240 for delays in repairing the windows paid at £1 per day over the expected 28-day repair.
5. explains that the landlord will post the compensation award on the resident’s rent account to clear rent arrears balance of £1,890.79 and issue the remaining £169.21 to the residents chosen bank account.
6. upholds the complaint, apologises for the “issues [the resident] faced and confirms feedback was given for learning to take place.
The resident confirmed that the landlord completed all the repairs in an email they sent to the landlord dated 15 June 2021. The resident subsequently requested compensation from the landlord.
On 20 July 2021, the landlord issued a further complaint response to the resident under reference 70806. The letter sent:
1. responded to the individual repair defects that were reported since the tenancy started in 2017 listing what action was taken to resolve each repair.
2. advised the resident to report any repairs that were not previously reported.
3. clarified that as the repairs were completed it was not appropriate to arrange for NHBC to assess the property.
4. outlined that compensation for window repair delays was awarded in a previous complaint response (dated 24 May 2021).
5. explained that, with the exception of the window repair delays, the landlord was unable to investigate and provide compensation for the various defects listed from the start of the tenancy in 2017. This was because in line with the complaint policy, the resident did not make a complaint or request compensation for the items within six months of the incidents.
6. offered £174 compensation for delays experienced related to a boiler repair and explained this will be posted to the rent account due to the presence of rent arrears on the account.
7. partially upheld the complaint and offered the resident the option to request a review.
The resident contacted the landlord on 21 July 2021 to request a review of the complaint response. Specifically in relation to compensation for the heating and gas costs and the stress, time, and pressure to the resident in progressing the complaint.
The landlord held a telephone conversation with the resident on 12 August 2021 about the resident’s request for compensation for increased heating costs due to window repair delays. The landlord issued a complaint review response under reference 73931. The landlord’s letter:
1. upheld the resident’s complaint about compensation owed for increased heating costs between November and February 2021.
2. offered compensation of £256 calculated by a comparison of increased heating costs between 2021/20 with and 2019/20. This was calculated at £32 per month.
3. indicated the resident agreed with compensation offer during the telephone conversation.
The resident emailed the landlord on 13 August 2021 to confirm their understanding that the compensation award for heating, related to complaint 73931 would be £430. The landlord responded to the resident’s email on 16 August 2021 confirming that a payment of £430 would be made as compensation for heating costs related to complaint 73931.
On 13 September 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident summarising that a compensation payment of £1,890.79 was credited to the rent account and £325 transferred to the court costs sub account, on 24 May 2021, as agreed. Further that an additional £400 compensation was credited to the rent account on 13 July 2021. The letter request payments of £115.84 plus £45 per month to bring the account into credit. The letters outlined that the resident had stated they have no intention to make further payment to clear the arrears and that this may result in further action being taken.
The resident registered the dispute with this Service on 13 September 2021. The dispute was accepted as duly made on 31 December 2021.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Services opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case. This Service has a very specific role in considering whether the landlord has met its obligations to a resident and taken reasonable steps to resolve the complaint.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to repair four windows in the resident’s property.

The resident reported a window defect to the landlord’s property developer on 30 November 2017. The developer was expected to remedy the window defects during a defects liability period on behalf of the landlord, but this service has seen no evidence that the landlord intervened during this time. At the end of defects liability period in November 2018 the developer reported a list of outstanding defects to the landlord which included a rear bedroom window defect. The impact of the substandard condition of the windows during this period would have affected the resident’s enjoyment of the home and increased heating costs as cold draughts penetrated the property.
The landlord inspected the property on 29 November 2018. It is reasonable to assume this was in response to the list of outstanding defects provided by the new build contractor. This service has seen no evidence that the landlord subsequently raised a works order or contacted the resident about the condition of the windows. Under the terms of the tenancy agreement and the landlord’s responsive repairs policy the landlord was responsible for repairing and maintaining the window frames and prioritising routine repairs within 28 calendar days of a report being made. The landlord did not take any further action.
The landlord inspected the windows again a year later on 21 November 2019. The landlord subsequently raised a works order on 4 December 2019 for an “ill-fitting window in the front bedroom” and completed another inspection on 12 December 2019. The landlord’s contractor recommended a surveyors attendance because the “windows were cold to the touch.” There is no evidence that the landlord either completed the front bedroom window repair or arranged a surveyor inspection, thereby causing further delay and inconvenience.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 13 January 2020 requesting further information. The landlord was expected to progress the window repairs within 28 days of its inspection of 15 January 2020. This did not happen. Neither did the landlord update the resident about the substandard condition of the windows that it had identified from its inspection of 15 January 2020 in the property, and this was also expected. The ongoing matter continued to affect the resident’s enjoyment of the home and increased heating costs as draughts remained present in the property.
The landlord raised a new property inspection appointment for all windows to be checked on 15 January 2020 and on 31 January 2020 the landlord attended the property. The contractor noted it “looked at all windows, they are not the best and some have a slight bow in them, but all seals are tight. [The landlord] is unlikely to want to replace them as there isn’t any repair that can be done to make them better.” There is no evidence that the landlord took any further action to address the windows until it issued a letter to the resident on 2 March 2020. The letter advised the resident that no repairs would be completed in the property. The contractor subsequently emailed a copy of the EPC, dated 7 November 2017 to the resident on 24 March 2020.
It is unclear why the landlord did not progress repairs to the windows during this period. Further it is not clear why the landlord decided there were no faults with the windows when the attending contractor reported the windows were bowed. The landlord completed its inspection on 31 January 2020 but did not write to the resident about the outcome until 2 March 2020. This delayed response does not align with the landlord’s responsive repairs policy and is not acceptable. The resident was likely to have experienced ongoing distress and inconvenience due to the cumulative impact of the repair delays and increased heating costs related to draughty windows which were likely to be particularly acute at that time of year. The time taken to advise the resident of the outcome of the inspection, in addition to the decision to overlook the assessment of the windows and close the repair represents a further service failure.
The resident contacted the landlord about the windows again on 2 October 2020. The landlord cancelled two appointments arranged on 20 and 23 October 2020 before attending on 28 October 2020 during which the contractor confirmed the living room and bedroom windows were installed incorrectly and the seals were faulty. The landlord cancelled a repair appointment scheduled on 6 November 2020 for an undisclosed reason but attended on 7 November 2020. The works order for the inspection records that “the property is new and there is nothing wrong with these windows – no fault found.” The resident contacted the landlord again on 20 November 2020 to report draughts in the living room, bedroom and kitchen windows and the landlord arranged a further inspection to take place on 4 December 2020. The requirement for the resident to make further contact with the landlord about the windows in addition to the ongoing and cumulative impact of draughts in the property, which the landlord had now accepted, and the landlord’s decision to arrange a further inspection represents a further service failure.
The landlord attended the property on 4 December 2020 and identified faults with the lounge and bedroom windows described as “faults with the hinges and indentation of the seals”. On 7 December 2020, the landlord raised works orders for window replacement works to be completed by 1 April 2021. The landlord did not arrange another appointment until 9 April 2021. The landlord fully completed repairs and replacement of the windows on 21 May 2021.
There is a lack of clarity in the evidence this service has reviewed in this case. It is not clear which window faults were reported when or what prompted the landlord to take some actions and why it chose not to take others. The inspections completed were contradictory; at times stating there were no faults, such as on 7 November 2020. This suggests the inspections were not conducted competently or in a suitably robust way. Further, there are periods of time where no action appears to have been taken by the landlord, or communication provided to the resident.
This service would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contacts, decisions, and repairs, yet the evidence has not been comprehensive. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. Keeping accurate records would have enabled the landlord to understand the condition of the property at any given time and assist with ensuring it was able to carry out its repairing obligations. If there is disputed evidence and no clear audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
It is clear that, following eight inspection appointments, the landlord concluded the windows were installed incorrectly and arranged for them to be replaced. This effectively back-dates the substandard condition of the windows to the start of the tenancy in 2017. It took the landlord three and a half years, until 21 May 2021, to fully remedy the window faults. Consequently, this service finds maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to repair four windows.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaints and the level of compensation it offered for heating costs due to the delay in completing window repairs.

In identifying whether there has been failure in service the Ombudsman considers both the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its’ complaint and compensation procedure. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure.
The landlord’s complaint policies clearly set out the expectations for handling complaints at both stage one and the stage two review stage. The policies also state complaints should be acknowledged within three working days and responded to within ten working days.
There is evidence that the landlord did not comply with its complaint policy when handling the resident’s complaint at stage one and the stage two review in the following ways:
1. The landlord failed to acknowledge or register the resident’s telephone complaint in December 2020, prior to requesting information about its handling of window repairs internally on 23 December 2020.
2. The landlord did not contact the resident about their telephone complaint or issue a stage one response to the complaint within ten working days.
3. The landlord failed to record notes of conversations it held with the resident, which it later came to rely on in its complaint responses such as conversations held on 18 May 2021, 21 May 2021, and 20 July 2021.
4. The landlord’s complaint responses did not clearly state if it was a stage one or stage two response, and this resulted in a lack of clarity about the complaint handling process.
5. The classification of complaints and complaint responses did not use a consistent number referencing system and so case ID’s used for stage one and stage two complaint responses did not align. This resulted in an unclear complaint audit trail.
6. The landlord issued an additional final response to the resident dated 20 July 2021. The landlord did not explain if it was intended to replace a previous final response, why it was issued or what complaint it reviewed.
7. The landlord provided the resident with a further opportunity to escalate the additional complaint response, despite a final response being issued, dated 24 May 2021.
8. There was no evidence that the landlord issued complaint acknowledgement letters to the resident within three days, and this was expected, for all complaints it received.
The resident emailed a formal complaint to the landlord on 31 March 2021. This was because the landlord did not respond to their previous complaint made in December 2020. The landlord did not respond to the complaint until 18 May 2021 when the landlord telephoned the resident to discuss their complaint. It was made clear that the landlord did not receive the resident’s emailed complaint because the resident used an incorrect email address. The landlord would not usually be at fault for failing to respond to a complaint it did not receive, however the landlord was made aware of the complaint in conversations the resident held with the income staff in April 2021. The landlord could not have foreseen that failing to respond to the complaint the resident made in December 2020 would have led to a long delay in issuing a stage one response. But, if it had responded to the earlier complaint, it would have considerably reduced the inconvenience to the resident.
On 18 May 2021, the landlord held a telephone conversation with the resident and issued its stage one complaint response on the same day. The landlord’s complaint letter stated that the resident escalated the complaint to the review stage of the complaint procedure.
It is not clear when the landlord received the resident’s complaint, but during the telephone conversation it explained its position in respect of the resident’s complaint sufficiently for the resident to request it was escalated prior to the complaint response being issued. It is not clear how the landlord was able to respond to the resident’s complaint in conversation if it had not seen the complaint in advance. It can be reasonably assumed that the landlord did have an awareness of the resident’s complaint prior to the conversation. Due to the landlord not keeping adequate records at this time and the lack of clarity in its responses there is insufficient information for this service to understand this discrepancy.
The landlord reviewed its stage one response and issued a final review response to the resident on 24 May 2021. The landlord’s letter apologised to the resident, recognised its own service failures, upheld the complaint, and offered compensation. However, the letter did not fully address all aspects of the resident’s original complaint, such as the defects the resident reported at the start of the tenancy and the responsibilities of the property developer.
The landlord’s compensation procedure allowed it to assess a compensation award, taking into consideration the time taken for the windows repairs to be completed, the impact of complaint handling failures and the adverse impact on the resident. As the repairs were completed, the landlord was in a position to consider the full extent of its service failings and it was appropriate for the landlord to compensate the resident for the service failings in its complaint response.
The landlord’s compensation procedure did not provide a specific measure for calculating compensation for window repairs. However, the landlord calculated the amount of time the window repairs impacted the resident and applied the financial measure set out in the landlord’s compensation calculator to determine a total award. The landlord’s compensation policy stated it would offset any compensation it offered with any rent arrears it was owed.
This Service considers that the compensation awards the landlord offered for each of the elements it listed provided reasonable redress for the landlord’s service failings. However, the landlord’s stage two response did not fully address the extent of the resident’s initial complaint and the landlord did not subsequently address this oversight in its later review response dated 20 July 2021 such as by offering compensation as it did in its previous complaint review letter.
This service recognises the landlord’s decision to retrospectively review its handling of the resident’s complaint and clarify its position on the matters it did not address previously. This represents a positive approach towards complaint resolution. However, the letter offered the resident a further opportunity to escalate the matter if they were dissatisfied and this undermined the landlord’s previous final response letter dated 24 May 2021. Further, this service considers that an additional compensation award was owed for the stage two complaint handling service failure. This should have been assessed using the same financial award it offered for its comparable stage one complaint handling failure.
The resident emailed the landlord on 15 June 2021 requesting compensation for increased heating costs in the property. Under the terms of the compensation policy the resident was entitled to request compensation as they experienced financial loss due to the window faults and the impact on heating costs. The landlord applied a reasonable approach to calculating heating compensation by comparing previous heating bills and awarding the difference for four winter months in 2020 and 2019. The landlord provided a final complaint response to the resident dated 12 August 2021 offering £256 compensation for heating costs.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 13 August 2021 to clarify their understanding that the expected heating compensation award would be £430. It is not clear how the resident calculated this compensation figure, but the landlord responded to the resident three days later on 16 August 2021 confirming this was correct. The landlord did not issue the resident with another compensation award for heating costs, thereby failing to satisfactorily resolve this aspect of the complaint.
Furthermore, whilst the landlord’s calculation process for heating compensation was reasonable the landlord should have additionally considered compensating the resident for the years 2017 and 2018. This is because the window faults dated back to the start of the tenancy in 2017.
When all the factors, positive and negative, in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling, assessment of compensation, subsequent offers, and communications are considered, the landlord’s actions in respect of this element of complaint constitute maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s management and handling of:

a. The resident’s request to repair four windows in the resident’s property.

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s management and handling of:
1. The resident’s complaints and the level of compensation it offered for heating costs due to the delay in completing window repairs.
In accordance with Paragraph 41(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the following aspect of the complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The resident’s request for reimbursement of court costs incurred due to legal action taken to recover rent arrears.

Reasons

The resident first reported a fault with the windows to the property developer on 30 November 2017. The property developer and the landlord failed to identify the faults and arrange window repairs and replacements, despite numerous property inspections being completed, until 21 May 2021.
The landlord did not have a robust complaint handling process which led to a lack of clarity in its written responses and a duplication of complaint review responses. The application of compensation for complaint handling at stage two and heating costs was not considered fully which resulted in low compensation offers.
The resident was required to make rent payments under the terms of the tenancy agreement. The landlord was entitled to apply to court for the recovery of rent arrears. The Judge awarded the court costs within the terms of the suspended possession order which was legally binding and which the landlord was entitled to collect. The Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters that are the subject of court proceedings or were the subject of court proceedings where judgement on the merits was given”.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for its failings in managing the window repairs and for its complaint handling failures. This is to be provided within 28 days of its receipt of this report.
The landlord is ordered to pay the resident:
1. £350 for the landlord’s stage two complaint handling failure.
2. £512 for increased heating costs associated with the substandard condition of the windows between November 2017 and May 2021.
3. £300 for time and trouble owed to the resident in the pursuit of a remedy in this matter.
The total compensation award is £1,162. This compensation is awarded in addition to the £2,060 compensation the landlord previously provided for window repair delays, stage one complaint handling, distress and inconvenience and service failure, as outlined in its letter dated 24 May 2021.
If the landlord has already paid the resident a sum of £256 for heating compensation, this should be deducted from the total amount ordered and therefore a further £906 should be paid directly to the resident within 28 days of its receipt of this report.
1. It is to be noted that the landlord used its previous compensation awards to offset rent arrears on the rent account. This approach no longer complies with the Housing Ombudsman policy and guidance on remedies which states “it is the Ombudsman’s position that compensation awarded by this Service should be treated separately from any existing financial arrangements between the landlord and resident and should not be offset against arrears. This applies regardless of whether the landlord’s compensation policy allows it to do this.”
The landlord is ordered to review the learning from this case in respect of its repairs scheduling system. In particular, to review the accuracy of works order notes and to ensure cohesion and adequate oversight where follow on work is required. The landlord should advise the Housing Ombudsman of its actions to comply with this recommendation within 28 days of receipt of this report.
The landlord is ordered to consider the learning from this case, and advise this Service of its plans and actions, including timescales, to ensure that its complaint handling practices fully align with the principles of the Housing Ombudsman complaint handling code. The landlord should advise the Housing Ombudsman of its intentions to comply with this recommendation within 28 days of receipt of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord is recommended to review the learning on this case in respect of the management of a defects liability period and the subsequent handover of new-build properties into operational management.