London Borough of Ealing (202127721)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202127721

London Borough of Ealing

28 June 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

This complaint is about:
1. The condition of the property and the standard of checks undertaken by the landlord at the time of the resident’s mutual exchange.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s repair requests, including the electrics, window restrictors, a leak in the kitchen, and a broken back door lock.
This investigation has also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The resident became the tenant of the property in question on 13 December 2021 by way of a mutual exchange. The property is a three-bed house. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.

Policies and Procedures

The landlord’s mutual exchange procedure says:
1. The landlord will arrange for a surveyor to inspect the property, and will request the electrical and asbestos reports from the relevant department. If the certificates highlight any issues, the landlord will arrange the relevant repairs.
2. If the surveyor finds defects, the outgoing tenant should be given a reasonable deadline to resolve them before the mutual exchange can take place.
3. The surveyor should carry out a further inspection to check that repairs have been completed.
4. The incoming resident accepts the property in the condition found.
The tenancy agreement says the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the building, as well as the installations for the supply of water, gas, electricity, heating, and sanitation.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says its customer service centre will diagnose and assign repairs. If the staff are unable to identify the necessary remedial action, the patch surveyor must carry out an inspection within three days. If the customer service centre are able to identify the relevant repair, the following timescales apply:
1. Emergency repairs must be carried out the same working day.
2. Urgent and routine repairs must be carried out on the next available date and within no more than 15 working days.
3. Planned repairs must be carried out within 60 working days.
The landlord has a two-stage complaints process. Under its policy, a stage one response must be given within 20 working days, and a stage two response must be given within 20 days of the escalation request.

Summary of events

On 11 November 2021, the resident applied to move into the property via a mutual exchange. The landlord received the application and arranged an inspection. On 25 November 2021, the landlord had a new consumer unit installed at the property. The domestic electrical installation certificate states that the electrician installed the new consumer unit and also tested the pre-existing circuits. The electrician’s notes on the certificate say that, while the installation showed signs of aging, it still complied with the relevant standards.
On 26 November 2021, the landlord’s surveyor produced a mutual exchange condition report. The report said the property was in good condition, but that the outgoing resident had installed their own light fittings in the lounge, landing and one of the bedrooms. The report said that on the first visit, there were doors missing in the kitchen and lounge, but that these had been fitted by the second visit. No other defects were identified in the report.
On the same day, the landlord’s repair logs show the landlord recorded that the back UPVC door was ‘unrepairable’.
On 9 December 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm it had approved the mutual exchange. The landlord explained that as this was a direct exchange of accommodation, the resident would be accepting the property in its existing state, and that save for any statutory liability, the landlord would not carry out any repairs for the first twelve months. It also explained that the resident should arrange a gas safety appointment by calling the number provided for the landlord’s contractor. The resident moved into the property on 13 December 2021.
On 10 January 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord. He said he was dissatisfied with the lack of maintenance. He said he had reported a leak in the kitchen on 20 December 2021, there was a broken lock on the back door, and that he had been trying to report further issues but had been unable to get through to the landlord.
The landlord’s repair logs state that the resident reported a leak in the kitchen sink on 19 January 2022, and that this had been repaired the next day. The resident disputes the leak was fixed at that time.
On 21 January 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord again. He said:
1. There were no extractor fans in the property, and this was causing damp issues due to the humidity levels.
2. There were loose electrical cables in the kitchen which needed to be checked by an electrician.
3. There were no working window restrictors on his children’s bedroom windows.
4. The plumber who came to inspect the leak from the kitchen sink had been unable to resolve the issue as it was not a standard sink.
The landlord replied to the resident and said it had referred the issues raised to the team responsible for carrying out the mutual exchange checks.
On 26 January 2022, the landlord logged a repair job for a full electrical inspection, with a target completion date of 16 February 2022.
On 6 February 2022, the resident contacted the landlord again. He repeated the issues raised in his previous correspondence and added that he had to tell his children not to open their bedroom windows for safety reasons. He also asked the landlord to install extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen.
On 10 February 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord again. He said the landlord’s electrical contractor had made appointments for 31 January 2022 and 8 February 2022, but had cancelled both. He said a local electrician had seen photos of the wiring in question and confirmed that it would fail an inspection as both a ‘C1’ and ‘C2’. He said no contractors had been in contact regarding any of the other repair issues.
On 18 February 2022, the resident told the landlord that the electrician had attended and confirmed the wiring was not in good condition. He requested a copy of the Electrical Condition Inspection Report (EICR) from November 2021.
On 23 February 2022, the resident sent a letter to the landlord, chasing a response to his complaints.
The landlord’s repair records state that the electrical inspection with report was completed on 1 March 2022. It is common ground that there was an inspection on that date, but the landlord has provided no certificate and has confirmed it holds no appointment notes. The resident says the contractor told him that major electrical works were needed. The landlord marked the repair job as complete on that day and then opened a new repair job for another inspection. Its records state the resident did not provide access for a further inspection, but the repair logs give no further details of when this appointment was booked, and whether the resident was made aware in advance.
The landlord said that a contractor attended to inspect the rear door on 2 March 2022, and found that the door was secure.
On 4 March 2022, the resident contacted the landlord again. He said he had received no further contact from the landlord and requested copies of the gas safety check, EICR and EPC. The resident sent a further email chasing a response on 11 March 2022.
On 17 March 2022, the resident contacted the Ombudsman. He said:
1. He had recently moved into the property and discovered numerous issues since moving in. These included poor electrics, a leak in the kitchen, a broken lock on the back door, an absence of extractor fans in the bathroom or kitchen, and broken window restrictors.
2. The electrics had been inspected on 1 March 2022. The contractor told the resident that extensive works were required.
3. He had requested copies of the EICR, gas safety certificate and EPC, but the landlord did not provide them.
4. The dining room, kitchen and bathroom had no radiators.
5. The home did not have works carried out to meet the decent homes standard.
6. It was ‘almost impossible’ to contact the repair team and contractors. When he was able to contact them, the jobs were often cancelled.
7. He had sent complaints but received no responses from the landlord.
On 18 March 2022, the resident contacted the landlord again. He said he had received no responses to his previous emails, and that the contractor due to attend the property that day to repair the door had cancelled for a second time. He said the works to the door were urgent as it was an escape route and was letting a lot of cold air into the property. The landlord asked the repairs team to contact the resident.
On 22 March 2022, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord about the complaint and asked it to issue a response if it had not done so already.
On 6 April 2022, the landlord issued its stage one response. It said:
1. The resident reported a leak from the kitchen sink on 19 January 2022. The contractor attended on 20 January 2022 and reported that the leak had been traced to the waste trap under the kitchen sink. The landlord said this was rectified that day and it had received no further contact to indicate the leak had not been resolved.
2. It had logged a repair for the contractor to re-inspect the leak on 11 April 2022.
3. If the resident was unable to get through to the repairs team, he could make use of the callback service.
4. The area surveyor had ordered a replacement for the rear door and frame following recommendations from the contractor on 26 November 2021. The first appointment was on 2 March 2022. The contractor reported that the door was secure and a further appointment had been booked for 25 April 2022 to complete the repair. It accepted there was a delay in the replacement, for which it apologised.
On 13 April 2022, the landlord logged a repair job for the window restrictors with a target completion date of 9 May 2022. The landlord marked the job as complete, but has since confirmed the job was not completed as the contractor did not attend.
On 19 April 2022, the resident contacted the Ombudsman. He said he was unhappy with the stage one response as it did not address all of the points of his complaint, for example the window restrictors and the poor electrics. He said he had escalated the complaint on 6 April 2022.
On 11 May 2022, the resident contacted the Ombudsman again. He said he had received no stage two response by the deadline under the landlord’s policy. On the same day, the landlord logged another new job for an electrical inspection with a target date of 5 August 2022.
On 18 May 2022, the Ombudsman told the landlord that it was beyond the deadline for a stage two response to the complaint, and asked it to respond within ten working days.
On 20 May 2022, the landlord told the Ombudsman that a complaint was sent online in April but was directed to customer services rather than the repairs team, as this was requested by the resident. It said when it received contact from the Ombudsman it redirected the complaint to the repairs team. It said there was no mention of window restrictors in the complaint, and that it would need 20 working days to provide a response.
On 15 June 2022, the resident told the landlord there had been various issues with the property since moving in, and that they were safety risks. He said he was willing to give up the property because of the issues, and asked if the landlord had an incentive scheme to cover the costs of a move into the private rented sector. The landlord told the resident there were no incentive schemes and he would need to find a mutual exchange.
On 24 June 2022, the landlord logged another new repair for the electrical inspection. Its logs show it was completed the same day, however the landlord has provided no certificates or inspection notes to evidence any inspection took place on that day.
On 12 July 2022, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord again. It said the resident had received no stage two response and the landlord appeared to have opened a new complaint with a new reference number rather than escalating the complaint. It asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint within five working days.
On 26 July 2022, the Ombudsman attempted to contact the landlord by both phone and email. It said if the landlord did not respond to the complaint, the Ombudsman would issue a Complaint Handling Failure Order. On 3 August 2022, after the landlord had provided no further response to the complaint, the Ombudsman issued a Complaint Handling Failure Order.
On 15 August 2022, the resident contacted the landlord again. He said he had paid for an asbestos survey which identified that the ceiling on the first floor contained asbestos. He asked for information about the safety protocol and requested a copy of the asbestos report which had been carried out before he moved into the property. He also repeated his request for copies of the EPC and EICR.
On 18 August 2022, the landlord opened a further new repair job for an electrical inspection. The inspection was carried out on 24 August 2022. The certificate shows the electrician identified multiple dangerous or potentially dangerous conditions, with five items in need of ‘urgent remedial action’ and one item in need of improvement. The contractor also noted that the installation was wired in old colours, the cabling was at the end of its life expectancy, and poor workmanship was evident.
On 1 September 2022, the landlord arranged another electrical inspection. The EICR from that inspection shows the electrician identified ‘urgent remedial action’ in three areas, as well as multiple areas which required improvement and two areas which required ‘further inspection without delay’.
On 22 September 2022, the resident emailed the landlord. He requested copies of each of the electrical inspection reports and said the contractor was waiting for the landlord’s approval to start the relevant works. He also made a further request for the asbestos report and EPC.
On 8 October 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to chase its response to his previous email.
On 18 October 2022, the landlord logged a new repair job for the window restrictors with a target completion date of 15 November 2022.
On 21 October 2022, the landlord issued its stage two response. It said:
1. Since 3 August 2022, there had been efforts to resolve the outstanding issues, and that delayed the complaint response. It would be reviewing how the delay occurred and making any relevant procedural changes to prevent such unacceptable delays in future.
2. It did not have a copy of the electrical report from November 2021. An electrician attended in March 2022 and stated that extensive works were required. It requested another electrical test to resolve the complaint. The property was in need of full rewiring, which had been added to the landlord’s programme of works. It said it would let the resident know when there was a date for completion.
3. It had raised a repair for the window restrictors on 13 April 2022, following the stage one complaint. This had not yet been resolved, so it would arrange to reassign the job to another contractor.
4. It accepted that there was an unacceptable delay in completing works and apologised. It said it would have all works inspected by a surveyor following completion.
On 26 October 2022, the landlord logged that the back door needed repair, and asked for the contractor attending on 31 October 2022 to look at this while on site.
On 30 November 2022, the landlord recorded that the window restrictor repair and back door repair were complete.
On 19 January 2023, the landlord marked the electrical inspection repairs job as complete. It is common ground that no electrical repairs were carried out following multiple inspections.
On 21 May 2023, the resident provided an update to the Ombudsman. He said the landlord had completed the repairs to the window restrictors, the leak in the kitchen sink, and the back door. He said the following remained outstanding:
1. The landlord never contacted him again about the electrics, which remain potentially dangerous.
2. The roof guttering was still leaking at the front and back of the property.
3. The landlord never provided a copy of the EPC or asbestos report.
4. The shower only trickles, with limited power for washing.
5. There were no extractor fans in the kitchens or bathrooms.
6. Fire doors needed to be installed.
7. The smoke alarms needed to be wired to the mains to comply with current regulations.
On 26 May 2023, the landlord provided the Ombudsman with an update on the repairs. It said:
1. It logged the back door as unrepairable on 26 November 2021. This was logged as completed on 26 October 2022.
2. It logged the window restrictor repair on 13 April 2022 with a target completion date of 9 May 2022. This was marked as complete on 18 October 2022, but was not completed as the contractor did not attend. This was then logged as a new repair on 18 October 2022, and marked as complete on 30 November 2022.
3. The urgent electrical repairs had never been completed.
4. It holds no inspection notes, contact notes, or details of actions taken by its contractors regarding repairs.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) says the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which have not yet exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process. The resident’s complaints about the shower, the lack of fire doors, gutter leaks, the absence of extractor fans, and the smoke alarm being battery-operated rather than wired into the mains had not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process at the time this complaint was referred to the Ombudsman. As such, those issues, along with any other delays after the Ombudsman issued a Complaint Handling Failure Order or the landlord issued its stage two response, will not be considered as part of this investigation.

The condition of the property at the date of mutual exchange

A mutual exchange is not a new tenancy, but a means by which residents step into the shoes of other residents they wish to exchange properties with. This means that the incoming resident takes up occupation of the property ‘as is’. This was explained to the resident in the landlord’s letter of 9 December 2021. The landlord does not need to carry out void checks, and the property may not be to the same standard of repair as a property which had gone through the landlord’s voids process. The landlord is only able to refuse the mutual exchange if specific criteria are met, and the condition of the property is not one of the grounds on which a landlord can refuse a mutual exchange.
The resident applied for a mutual exchange on 11 November 2021. Following the application, the landlord arranged an inspection of the property. The report shows that two inspections were carried out, with internal doors being replaced between the inspections. This was in line with the landlord’s mutual exchange policy. The report identified no other repair issues.
The landlord has not provided its asbestos survey report, and has instead provided a copy of a works order which summarises the results of its asbestos survey. It said there was asbestos in the front porch ceiling board and potential asbestos in the soffits at the front and rear of the property. Both were identified as ‘low risk’.
With regard to the electrics, the landlord has provided an electrical installation certificate from the electrician who installed the new consumer unit on 25 November 2021. The guidance notes on the certificate say that it ‘is intended to be issued only for a new electrical installation or new work associated with an alteration or addition to an existing installation’ and ‘it should not have been issued for the inspection of an existing electrical installation. An ‘Electrical Installation Condition Report’ should be issued for such an inspection’.
The landlord has not produced an EICR from the time or from the previous inspection. However, the installation certificate completed by the electrician confirms that in addition to installing the new consumer unit, they tested the existing circuits. The certificate says that while the system was old, it was still useable. The certificate shows that each of the items identified as potentially dangerous in the August 2022 EICR certificate had been checked at the time the consumer unit was installed, and the electrician raised no concerns about safety.
It is not the role of the Ombudsman to determine whether the original electrician’s assessment was correct, or whether additional works were required at the time of the mutual exchange. The Ombudsman’s role is to determine whether the landlord acted reasonably and in line with its policy based on the information available to it.
The electrical certificate and asbestos report did not identify any items in need of repair. The landlord is entitled to rely on the findings and opinions of its experts, and there was no evidence available to the landlord at the time to suggest that there were significant faults with the electrics. The landlord also acted in line with its mutual exchange policy when arranging a surveyor inspection of the property. The inspection report did not identify any further issues which would have prompted the landlord to raise repairs.
The Ombudsman notes that the inspection report does not refer to the rear UPVC door, which the landlord described as “unrepairable” on 26 November 2021 – the same date the report was written. However, the landlord logged a repair for the door at the time, and the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that any other defects were apparent but not recorded at the inspection. The Ombudsman has also seen no evidence to show that this caused any specific detriment to the resident at the time of the mutual exchange. As such, there was no maladministration by the landlord up to that point. Whether there was maladministration by the landlord with regard to repairs after the mutual exchange has been considered below.

Repairs – electrics

Based on the evidence provided, the resident first told the landlord that there were issues with the electrics on 21 January 2022, and the landlord ordered a full electrical inspection on 26 January 2022. Under the landlord’s repairs policy, the repair should have been completed within no more than 15 working days. An inspection took place on 18 February 2022, with a further inspection on 1 March 2022.
The resident said that on both occasions the electrician indicated there was a problem with the electrics and that significant works were needed. The landlord has provided no certificates, inspection notes or other contemporaneous notes from that appointment, and marked the job as complete despite no evidence of any works taking place. The landlord has also provided no evidence regarding the two cancelled appointments referred to by the resident.
The landlord opened multiple further repair jobs for an electrical inspection on 11 May 2022, 24 June 2022, and 18 August 2022. The May 2022 job was marked as complete on 19 January 2023, while the 18 August 2022 job was recorded as never completed. The landlord has provided no explanation for the delays, or for why it marked jobs as complete when works were outstanding. The resident has shown he had to chase the landlord for updates and replies to his emails on multiple occasions during this time. The landlord has provided no evidence of its repairs team updating the resident regarding the works, and has confirmed it does not hold any contact notes.
The landlord has produced an EICR dated 24 August 2022. The result of the inspection was “unsatisfactory”, with multiple potentially dangerous faults identified. On 1 September 2022, the landlord arranged another electrical inspection. That result of that certificate was also “unsatisfactory”, with multiple potentially dangerous faults identified and two areas in need of ‘further inspection without delay’. The landlord has confirmed that it has carried out no electrical repairs. It has provided no explanation for this, or for why it arranged multiple EICR inspections but no repairs.
The Ombudsman’s March 2019 Spotlight Report on repairs sets out the expectations the Ombudsman has for landlords where repairs are concerned. The report says landlords should keep clear, accurate, and easily accessible records of residents’ reports of disrepair and the landlord’s responses, including details of appointments, any inspections, any work carried out, and completion dates. Landlords should also monitor the progress of any reported repairs and comply with the repair timescales set out in its policies as far as possible. When it is not possible to comply with the timescales set out in its policies, a landlord should communicate the reason for the delay with its resident.
The landlord has confirmed it holds no records of any appointments or any inspection notes save for the certificates provided. Its repairs records confirm when a repair was first logged, the target date, and the completion date, but do not give any further details of when the issue was first reported, any steps taken or the missed appointments the resident has referred to. The landlord has also confirmed that it holds no records of any attempts to communicate with the resident regarding any delays, and has provided no explanation for the significant delays in carrying out repairs despite multiple electricians identifying the electrics as ‘potentially dangerous’ with ‘urgent remedial action required’.
The landlord has acknowledged that there was an unacceptable delay in completing works, and has apologised. However, it did not offer the resident any compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the it’s delays. The landlord left the resident living in potentially dangerous conditions with no indication of when the repairs to the electrics would be carried out, and the resident has had to chase the landlord for updates on multiple occasions. The emails provided to the Ombudsman show that the resident was concerned enough by the condition of the electrics and the landlord’s lack of repairs that he was willing to terminate his tenancy.
The landlord has yet to complete any electrical repairs in the property more than six months after acknowledging the unacceptable repairs in delays, so has not shown it has learned from the complaint. The landlord’s handling of the repairs to the electrics was not in line with its repairs policy or good practice.

Repairs – window restrictors

On 21 January 2022, the resident reported that the window restrictors in the bedrooms did not work. The resident told the landlord a few weeks later that he had to stop his children opening the bedroom windows as a result.
The landlord first logged a repair for the window restrictors on 14 April 2022, which is almost three months after the resident first reported the issue. At the time of the landlord’s stage two complaint response on 20 October 2022, the repair was still not complete, and the landlord reallocated the repair to a different contractor. The landlord had also marked the repair as complete on 18 October 2022, despite no contractor having attended. It then opened a new job for the same repair, which it marked as complete on 30 November 2022. Both parties have confirmed that the repair has now been completed.
Under its repairs policy, the landlord was required to complete the repair within 15 working days. The landlord did not log the repair for almost three months after the resident reported the issue. It also had not carried out the repair by the time of its stage two response, which was almost nine months after the resident reported the issue. The landlord has also not shown that it provided the resident with any updates, or made any attempts to chase up the repair with its original contractor prior to its stage two response to the complaint and decision to reassign the repair. As a result, by the time of the stage two response the resident had been left unable to open the bedroom windows for nine months out of concern for his children’s safety. The landlord’s handling of the repair was not in line with its policy or good industry practice.
The landlord has acknowledged that there were unacceptable delays, and has since carried out the repair. However, it has not offered compensation to the resident in light of the distress and inconvenience caused by being unable to open the bedroom windows for nine months, or the time and trouble taken in having to repeatedly chase up the repair, so it has not done enough to put things right in this regard.

Repairs – rear door

The landlord was aware on 26 November 2021 that the rear door was ‘unrepairable’ and ordered a replacement door and frame. The resident also reported on 10 January 2022 that the lock on the back door was broken. The landlord arranged an appointment for 2 March 2022, and its notes say the door was secure. In its stage one response, the landlord told the resident that it had booked an appointment for 25 April 2022 to complete the repair. The landlord has provided no explanation for why the repair was not completed until 30 November 2022, which was more than a year after the landlord initially logged the repair.
If the landlord was unable to complete the repair in the timescale set out in its repairs policy, the policy required the landlord to escalate the repair to a senior surveyor to follow up with the contractor or reassign the repair. The Ombudsman would also expect the landlord to provide the resident with updates. The door was not repaired for more than a year after the landlord logged the need for a replacement door and frame. The landlord has not provided any evidence of escalating the repair or reassigning the job to another contractor. It has also only provided evidence of updating the resident when responding to the resident’s complaint. The landlord has therefore not acted in line with its policy or good industry practice in this regard.

Repairs – leaking sink

It is disputed when the resident first reported an issue with the kitchen sink, and when it was repaired. The resident said he reported the leak on 20 December 2021, while the landlord’s repair logs state the leak was first logged in 19 January 2022. The landlord has not provided any evidence of the resident’s initial report, only when the leak was logged on its system.
The landlord’s records say that a plumber attended on 20 January 2022 and fixed the leak, which was traced to the waste trap. The resident said the plumber attended but had been unable to repair the leak because of the type of sink. The initial inspection on 20 January 2022 was carried out within a reasonable timescale regardless of whether the leak was reported on 20 December 2021 or 19 January 2022, and if the landlord’s plumber reported that the leak was fixed, the landlord would generally be entitled to rely on that report.
However, the resident has provided emails to show he told the landlord on 21 January 2022 that the plumber had been unable to fix the leak to the sink as it was ‘not a standard sink’. The landlord acknowledged that email and confirmed it had been referred to the correct team. The resident also told the landlord that the leaking sink had not been repaired in his letter of 6 February 2022. Given that the resident had reported that the leak was ongoing, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to have arranged a further inspection. However, it did not do so until it issued its stage one response to the complaint.
The landlord said it had been told the leak had been repaired, and that there had been no further reports of issues after that point. The resident has shown that was not the case, and that he had reported the issue to the landlord on at least two occasions after the initial plumber attended. As such, in not arranging a further inspection and repair until April 2022, the landlord did not act in line with its policy or good practice.

Complaint handling

The resident sent multiple expressions of dissatisfaction from January 2022 onwards. The resident has provided emails to show he had also been chasing a response to his complaint. The landlord issued a stage one response to some, but not all, of the resident’s complaints on 6 April 2022, after the Ombudsman asked it to issue a response.
The resident told the Ombudsman he escalated the complaint on the day he received the stage one response, but had received no stage two response by 11 May 2022. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord and asked it to issue a response within 10 working days. The landlord replied that the complaint had been sent in April 2022 but the resident had sent it to the customer services team instead of the repairs team, and it would need a further 20 working days to issue a response. It did not explain why the customer services team could not have forwarded the complaint to the repairs team. It also said there had been no mention of window restrictors in the complaint. The Ombudsman has been provided with the resident’s complaint letters, which include reference to the window restrictors.
On 12 and 26 July 2022, the Ombudsman chased the landlord for a stage two response. As no response was received by 3 August 2022, the Ombudsman issued a Complaint Handling Failure Order. The landlord then issued a stage two response to some, but not all, of the resident’s complaints on 20 October 2022.
The landlord’s complaint handling was not appropriate. It failed to provide a stage one response to the complaint prior to intervention by the Ombudsman. When it did issue its stage one response, it was almost three months after the initial complaint and dealt with some, but not all, of the resident’s complaints. It then failed to issue a stage two response within the timescale set out in its complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
When the Ombudsman asked the landlord to issue its stage two response in May 2022, the landlord indicated the resident was at fault for delays caused by a lack of internal communication between its customer service and repairs teams. This was inappropriate. Following that correspondence, the landlord still did not issue a stage two response despite repeated intervention from the Ombudsman, leading to a Complaint Handling Failure Order being issued. The landlord issued a stage two response more than two months after that Complaint Handling Failure Order was issued, and the response did not answer all of the resident’s complaint points. This was a missed opportunity on the landlord’s part to deal with all aspects of the resident’s complaint.
The landlord indicated that it wanted to deal with the repair issues, and that this delayed its complaint response. This created a significant and unnecessary delay in the complaint which was in line with neither its policy nor good practice. This in turn meant that the resident had to repeatedly chase up responses to the complaint, and had to approach the Ombudsman to bring a conclusion to it.
While the landlord has acknowledged that the delay was unreasonable, it has not offered the resident any compensation to account for the time and trouble spent chasing a response to the complaint. Its apology is therefore insufficient to put things right.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been no maladministration by the landlord with regard to its handling of the resident’s mutual exchange.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been maladministration by the landlord with regard to its handling of repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been maladministration by the landlord with regard to its complaint handling.

Reasons

There was nothing in either the electrical installation certificate or the asbestos report which suggested repairs were needed, and the only defects identified in the surveyor inspection were issues with the doors. The internal doors had been replaced before the second inspection, which was in line with the landlord’s mutual exchange policy, and while the inspection did not mention the rear door, the landlord ordered a replacement rear door at that time. As this was a mutual exchange, the landlord is not required to carry out void checks and the resident accepted the property ‘as is’, which was made clear to the resident before the mutual exchange went ahead.
There were unreasonable delays in carrying out a number of repairs. The landlord arranged multiple electrical inspections but did not arrange any repairs, despite the electrics being identified as ‘potentially dangerous’ by multiple different electricians. The landlord has carried out no electrical works as of the date of this report, despite acknowledging the unreasonable delays in its stage two complaint response. There were also unreasonable delays in carrying out repairs to the window restrictors, the back door, and the kitchen sink. While the landlord has apologised for some of those delays, it has not offered the resident any compensation, and has only carried out some of the works.
The landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint within the timescales set out in its complaints policy, and only issued a stage two response two months after the Ombudsman issued a Complaint Handling Failure Order. The responses issued by the landlord did not deal with all of the resident’s complaints, and the landlord inappropriately faulted the resident for delays caused by a lack of internal communication on the landlord’s part.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
2. Arrange for all urgent remedial works identified in the electrical inspection reports of 24 August 2022 and 1 September 2022 to be completed, and an updated EICR to be provided to both the resident and the Ombudsman.
3. Write to the resident to confirm the following:
  1. what further electrical works, if any, it intends to carry out when the urgent remedial works have been completed;
  2. when those works will take place;
  3. whether it considers the resident can remain in the property during those works or will need to be temporarily decanted to another property.
4. Pay the resident £900 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified in this report. This is calculated as follows:
  1. £700 for its unreasonable delays in carrying out repairs;
  2. £200 for its unreasonable delays in complaint handling.
Within six weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to review the Ombudsman’s May 2023 Spotlight Report on knowledge and information management and put together an action plan to show how it will improve its record keeping practices to ensure that inspection and repair visit outcomes are effectively recorded in future. A copy of the action plan should be provided to the Ombudsman.
The landlord is to reply to this Service to provide evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord provides the resident with a copy of the EPC and asbestos management survey for the property, or provides the resident with a written explanation for why it is unable to do so, within four weeks of the date of this report.
It is recommended that the landlord writes to the resident within four weeks of the date of this report to confirm its intentions with regard to the installation of extractor fans at the property.
If it has not already done so, the landlord should review its complaints process to ensure compliance with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code within four weeks of the date of this report.
The landlord should reply to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report to confirm its intentions in regard to the above recommendations.