West Kent Housing Association (202206320)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202206320

West Kent Housing Association

30 August 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 reports of the garden flooding, the associated works, and offer of compensation.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord in a 2 bedroom house. The landlord recorded the resident as vulnerable due to “health and mobility issues”. The evidence seen as part of this investigation shows that the resident considered herself to be clinically vulnerable to Covid-19, and was shielding during periods of the complaints process.
The resident’s tenancy started on 13 September 2019, shortly after the property was built. The resident raised a concern about the garden flooding, after periods of rain, in April 2020. That the garden was defective, due to inadequate drainage and flooding after rain, is not disputed by the parties. When the resident raised the concern, the property was still within its 12 month “defect period”, which meant that any defects were the responsibility of the developer to resolve. Under instruction from the landlord, the developer attended the property throughout the complaints process to attempt to resolve the issue. During her complaint, the resident discussed the matter with both the landlord and the developer. For clarity this report has made a distinction between the ‘landlord’ and the ‘developer’.

Summary of events

On 20 April 2020 the resident reported that the “gully drains” in her garden were blocked, which was causing water to pool and her garden was waterlogged. The landlord contacted the resident on 22 April 2020 to advise that, due to Covid-19 restrictions, the developer was only attending “emergency jobs”. It said the blocked drain would be attended to “after lockdown”.
The resident contacted the landlord on 4 June 2020, and said that she had asked an operative for the landlord who was working at a neighbouring property to have a look at her garden. The operative said that the garden was not “done properly” and needed to be redone. The operative had advised the resident to raise the issue with the landlord to get it resolved. The resident said that the garden was “like marshland in the winter”. The landlord responded on 8 June 2020 and said that it had raised the issue with the developer and it would attend to inspect the garden on 11 June 2020. The resident contacted the landlord on 11 June 2020 and said that nobody from the developer had turned up.
The landlord emailed the resident on 12 June 2020 and said the developer would inspect the garden on 15 June 2020, and apologised for the missed appointment. The resident contacted the landlord on 17 June 2020 and said the developer had not attended her property again. She advised that she had contacted the developer directly who had said they did not have “any information” about the appointment.
The resident next contacted the landlord on 6 July 2020 and said that an operative had attended her property a “few weeks back”. The operative said that he would be back at the end of the week to do required works to the garden, but she had not heard anything. The resident expressed a concern that there was a “lack of communication” about the matter. The landlord responded on 9 July 2020 and said it had sent on the resident’s concerns to the developer, and it would be in touch if it received a “reply or update”.
The landlord attended the resident’s property on 28 July 2020 and found that water was draining from neighbouring properties and “ponding” in the resident’s garden. The landlord raised a job for the developer to attend the resident’s property on 4 August 2020. The resident contacted the landlord again on 6 August and raised a concern that the garden was “uneven” and kept flooding, and that she had reported this several times but had not heard back. The landlord contacted the resident on 11 August 2020 and said that it was awaiting an update from its surveyor about what works were needed in the garden. The landlord advised that there was a “backlog of works due to covid”.
The landlord called the resident on 21 August 2020 and said the developer had said it needed to do works to improve the drainage by installing a “land drain”, and it would then do works to rectify the garden.
The resident contacted the landlord on 28 August 2020 and said that she was awaiting an update. The landlord responded on 3 September and said it was completing its “end of defects” inspection the following day and would inspect the garden as part of this. It reiterated its position that the developer had agreed to improve the drainage, and then would “make good” the garden. The landlord sent the resident an ‘End of Defects Schedule’ letter on 24 September 2020 and said that the developer would be in contact to make an appointment to resolve the “garden ponding” issue.
The developer attended the resident’s property to install a new drainage system on 29 September 2020. The resident contacted the landlord on 30 September 2020 and said she was unhappy that the developer had started works at her property when she was not there. She said she had not been told by the developer that it was starting works that day. The resident said the contractor had said the work done should resolve the issue, but if it had not it would “try something else”. The resident said that she was unhappy with how the garden had been left, as it was “unstable” and “unsightly”.
The landlord contacted the resident on 9 October 2020 and said it was going to do a joint visit with the developer on 21 October 2020. It said that it wanted to inspect with the developer to ensure the correct approach was taken and it would not “sign off” any works until the issue was resolved. The landlord attended the property with the developer on 21 October 2020 and made the following findings:
1. The additional drainage installed by the developer had not resolved the issue;
2. It had agreed with the developer that it would install more drainage to try to resolve the issue;
3. The developer would make good the garden once it was satisfied it had resolved the flooding issue.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 16 November 2020 to make a complaint, because she had not heard anything further about the proposed works to the garden. The letter said:
1. The garden was in a poor condition when she moved in, and the grassed area was above the level of the patio. When it rained the water drained on to the patio and towards the rear of her property. This caused soil to be washed away, leaving the patio slippery and the drains blocked;
2. She felt the garden was unsafe to use, due to her disability and poor mobility;
3. The pooling of water had been getting worse and that she had “stagnant green smelly water everywhere” in the garden;
4. She was disappointed that, despite reporting the issue in April 2020, it was still not resolved;
5. She felt that the landlord and developer had not taken the appropriate action when she reported concerns;
6. The works the developer completed made the garden worse and “unsafe”, and it was like a “mud bath”;
7. The developer had started works without informing her that it was going to do so, and had “pressured” her dog walker in to giving access while she was out;
8. The shed she was “gifted” at the start of the tenancy had been damaged, due to being partly on the grass exposed to the standing water. She asked the landlord to consider replacing the shed once the works were completed;
9. She believed the further works the developer had proposed would not resolve the issue.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 19 November 2020 with a stage 1 complaint acknowledgment and said it would issue a response by 17 December 2020. The resident contacted the landlord on 24 November 2020 and asked it to keep her complaint open until the garden issue was resolved. The landlord agreed to the resident’s request, and said it had amended its target response date to reflect this.
The landlord contacted the resident on 16 December 2020 and said that the developer was going to start works on the garden the week commencing 11 January 2021. The resident contacted the landlord on 13 January 2021 and said the works had started, and the contractors had “shoved the shed over” and damaged it. The landlord agreed to inspect the shed to see if it needed replacing. The landlord completed a joint visit with the developer on 14 January 2021 to inspect the works and the shed, and the developer agreed to replace the resident’s shed.
The resident contacted the landlord on 1 February 2021 and said that following the works the garden was worse than before, as water was also pooling by the back gate. She said she had not heard anything about the replacement shed. The landlord responded on 4 February 2021 and said that due to recent heavy rain it could not do “anything more” at that point. It said it would inspect the drainage works at the start of March 2021, and the shed would be delivered in 3 to 4 weeks. The developer installed the replacement shed on 1 March 2021.
The landlord and developer completed a joint inspection of the garden works on 3 March 2021. It was agreed that the replacement turf would be laid “in a few weeks time” and it would continue to monitor the garden to ensure the works had resolved the issue. The resident called the landlord on 1 April 2021 and asked for an update on when her garden would be returfed. The landlord said that it had chased the developer for a date the works would commence, and if it had not had a response it would put the developer “on notice”. It would then instruct its own contractor to complete the works.
The developer attended the property on 22 April 2021 to returf the garden. The resident contacted the landlord on 23 April 2021 and said that she had refused to let the developer lay the turf. This was because she was of the view they had not done the preparation work that was agreed, which was to remove “1 foot of clay” and replace it with topsoil. The landlord attended the property on 10 May 2021 to inspect the works, and it was agreed that the developer would remove the first 100mm of soil and replace it with “imported soil” before turfing. The works were arranged to take place on 8 June 2021.
The resident contacted the landlord on 1 June 2021 and said that the contractor for the developer had arrived to start works and it this was not in line with the dates that were agreed. She said that she wanted the works completed as soon as possible, but wanted dates to be agreed beforehand. The landlord responded on 4 June 2021 and apologised that the contractor had arrived unannounced, and confirmed that it was agreed works would start on 14 June 2021.
The resident emailed the landlord on 14 July 2021 and said that the lawn that was laid was dying in places, and this was because of the poor drainage. The resident reported that the garden was still flooding in the “same places as before” and the problem was not resolved. The resident asked the landlord take over the works from the developer, as the works were not completed to an appropriate standard to resolve the issue. The resident contacted the landlord again on 4 August 2021 and said she:
1. Still had “significant flooding” in the garden and was now at her “wits end” with the situation;
2. Was disappointed that the landlord had not taken responsibility for the works, as she had been told it would “rectify all the problems” if it did not work. She was “sick of being told” by the landlord that it was waiting for the developer, and this approach was “no longer good enough”;
3. Asked for her complaint to be taken “to the next level”.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 12 August 2021 and said:
1. It apologised for the length of time it had taken the developer to book in works and the “various contractors who turned up” without appointments;
2. The developer had replaced the shed, as agreed, and apologised for the resident having to store items in her living room “over the weekend” while awaiting the shed replacement;
3. It noted the resident’s ongoing concern about the drainage and would inspect the garden on 23 August 2021 and assess whether it needed to investigate further;
4. It apologised for “the length of time” taken for the developer to carry out the drainage works and offered the following compensation:
  1. £500 for the “severe impact” and inconvenience of the delay in resolving the issue, and advised this was the maximum it could award as per its compensation policy;
  2. A further £200 for its “poor communication”;
  3. £50 for the delay in replacing the shed;
5. It advised the resident she could escalate the complaint to the next stage if she was unhappy with its response.
The resident contacted the landlord on 13 August 2021 and said that she wanted the complaint to be escalated to stage 2. The resident expressed a concern that the developer could not give an accurate assessment of what works it had done, because it had used contractors to do the works. The resident said that the complaints process was going on “for too long”. The landlord emailed the resident on 24 August 2021 and said that it had opened a stage 2 complaint investigation, and would respond by 15 September 2021.
The resident contacted the landlord on 12 September 2021 and said that she was “disgusted” that it was 4 weeks since it had opened a stage 2 complaint, and she had not heard anything. The landlord responded on 14 September 2021 and said that the stage 2 complaint “was closed to allow further investigations to take place”. But, following the resident’s email, it would reopen the complaint investigation. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint acknowledgment on 1 October 2021 and said it would issue its response by 29 October 2021.
The landlord visited the resident’s property with the developer on 20 October 2021 and recommended that further drainage works were needed, as areas of the garden were still “waterlogged”. The landlord asked the developer to agree and complete the works “urgently”, due to the length of time the matter had been ongoing.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 16 November 2021 and said:
1. It apologised that the issue of the garden flooding had been ongoing for 18 months;
2. It had attempted “various solutions”, but they had not been successful;
3. It had agreed a plan with the developer to install further drainage in the garden, and the developer had agreed to book the works in “the coming weeks”;
4. The developer had not yet booked the works, so it had put the developer on a “7 day notice” to complete the works, or it would employ its own contractor to complete the works. The notice had expired on 12 November 2021, so it had instructed its own contractor to complete the works.
5. It had agreed with the resident that it would not returf the lawn until “Spring 2022”, as the winter was the wrong time of year to lay turf;
6. To ensure the works progressed in a timely manner, it had created an action plan that it would monitor, which said:
  1. Works to install further drainage to resolve the “ponding” issue would commence on 16 December 2021;
  2. Returfing the garden would take place in Spring 2022;
7. It was confident that the planned works would resolve the issue, and if not it would complete further investigations and works as necessary.
8. It advised the resident that she had completed its complaint process and advised how to escalate her complaint to this Service if she was dissatisfied with its response.
The resident emailed the landlord on 18 November 2021 and expressed a concern that it had closed the complaint, when the matter was unresolved. The landlord responded on 19 November and said that it had issued its stage 2 response due to the timeframe set out in the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It said that it was “hopeful” that the proposed works would resolve the issue and, though the complaint was closed, it would continue to monitor the progress of the matter.

Events after the complaints procedure

The developer contacted the landlord on 29 November 2021, and said it had “just been made aware” that the issue was not resolved and was attending the resident’s property the next day to identify a “programme of works” and would aim to complete the works in the “next 2 weeks”.
The developer completed further works to the garden in December 2021, which involved installing more underground drainage and relaying the patio area to ensure it properly drained into the ‘drainage channel’. It is unclear exactly when the works were completed.
The resident contacted the landlord on 4 January 2022 and said the works that were recently completed had not resolved the issue, as her garden had become waterlogged over the Christmas period. The resident asked the landlord to attend a joint visit with her local MP. The landlord responded on 5 January 2022 and apologised that the issue was still ongoing, and agreed to the joint visit. The landlord contacted the developer on 5 January 2022 and asked it to also attend. The joint visit took place on 21 January 2022, and further works were agreed to try and resolve the issue.
The resident contacted the landlord on 14 March 2022 and said that she was concerned works had not yet started. The resident advised that she had been “promised” works would be completed by the end of March.
The developer contacted the resident on 21 March 2022 and said it would start works on 23 March and hoped to complete the works within 2 weeks, which were:
1. Excavate and remove all top soil to a depth of 350 to 450mm to expose the land drain inspect it;
2. Install a series of small drainage pipes to feed into the main drainage system;
3. Install more “ground surface water” drainage;
4. Install a new shed.
The resident contacted the landlord on 19 April 2022 and said the developer had completed the proposed works, and she was happy with the work. The landlord wrote to the resident on 19 May 2022 and said:
1. Now that the proposed works were completed it wanted to revisit the compensation offer it had made, which was £750, and was increased to £1,000 in November 2021;
2. Due to the length of time it had taken to resolve the issue the it increased its offer of compensation to £1,250;
3. It advised that the amount offered was above those set out in its compensation policy and above what it would “usually offer” in the circumstances. It had offered a higher amount of compensation due to the length of time the matter had been ongoing.
The resident contacted the landlord on 7 July 2022 and said that she was unhappy with the amount of compensation offered. The resident expressed a concern that the landlord did not appropriately challenge the developer on the proposed works, and the quality of the works it completed. The resident said she was concerned that the contractor had used her electricity when completing works. The resident said she believed the situation would not have been resolved if her MP had not got involved.
Th landlord emailed the resident on 22 July 2022 and said:
1. It had a contract with the developer which it was obliged to follow the terms of, and had escalated issues on at least two occasions. It had put the developer “on notice” which “forced” it comply with the requests;
2. It offered £10 compensation for the “90 minutes” use of her electric by the contractor;
3. It had identified a failing in its complaint handling by not offering compensation in its stage 2 complaint response, and its further offer of £1,000 was not made “in writing or by email”. It offered £250 in compensation for its complaint handling;
4. It reiterated its offer of £1,250 in compensation for its handling of the garden issue, and explained it was offering £1,510 in total for its identified failings;
5. It advised that the developer had completed the garden to a “higher specification” than required and it considered this as a “redress” alongside the monetary offer.
6. It explained that this was its final offer of compensation.
The resident contacted this Service on 31 October 2022 and asked us to investigate her complaint and said:
1. The lack of garden had caused her “mental anguish” which was made worse by the effect of the Covid-19 lockdown;
2. The landlord could have avoided the issue going on for so long if it had employed a surveyor at the beginning and the landlord’s surveyor had been “out of his depth”;
3. The landlord had not taken her concerns seriously until her MP became involved.

Assessment and findings

Relevant obligations, policies and procedures

The landlord’s defects guidance states that during the initial 12 month period after the property is built, residents are to report issues directly to the landlord. The landlord will then raise the matter with the developer. The developer will liaise directly with the resident about appointments for works. At the end of the “12 month defect period” the landlord should organise a “defects inspection” to identify any outstanding defects that need to be rectified.
The landlord’s complaints procedure states that it will issue stage 1 complaint responses within 10 working days. It states that it will acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 2 working days, and issue responses within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation procedure states that for “severe impact” inconvenience it can offer between £251 and £500. It states that this compensation is discretionary, and should be used for failures such as:
1. Delays in providing a service;
2. Unreasonable time taken to resolve a situation;
3. Poor communication;
4. Poor complaint handling.

The garden flooding, the associated works, and offer of compensation.

When the resident first raised a concern about her garden flooding in April 2020, the landlord took the matter to the developer. The developer advised that it was only completing emergency repairs at that time, due to the Covid-19 restrictions, the landlord passed this information on to the resident. Alerting the developer about the defect was appropriate in the circumstances, as the landlord had a contractual arrangement with the developer, and it correctly applied its defects guidance.
The landlord’s comment that the issue would be dealt with “after lockdown” was reasonable, given the restrictions at the time. The issue of the garden flooding could not reasonably be categorised as an ‘emergency repair’. However, it is evident that the resident’s inability to use the garden was causing her distress, which was worsened by the Covid-19 lockdown. This was due to the fact she was required to shield because of her vulnerability. It would therefore have been reasonable for the landlord to seek to manage her expectations at this time. Its comments that it would be dealt with “after lockdown” were open ended. The landlord could not have known when the lockdown would end, but it could have given the resident an assurance that it would periodically update her on its position. This approach may have helped manage the resident’s expectations, and provide assurance that the landlord would instruct the developer as soon as it could.
In July 2020 the resident raised a concern about a lack of communication, and the fact that the developer was not following up on visits. The landlord’s email of the 9 July 2020 was cursory and simply stated it would pass the concerns on, and give an update if it received a reply. This was an unreasonable approach in the circumstances. It is noted that the landlord had a contractual arrangement with the developer, and it was responsible for fixing the defects. However, its cursory response to the resident’s concerns failed to have due consideration for the fact that the resident was experiencing a poor service from the developer. It would be reasonable to expect the landlord to have taken greater responsibility at this time, and given the resident assurances it would hold the developer to account.
Evidence seen as part of this investigation shows that the landlord took the issues with the resident’s garden seriously, and wanted to resolve it as quickly as possible. In September 2020 the landlord sent numerous emails to the developer asking it to progress the matter, and questioning why there was a delay. This was appropriate in the circumstances, and is evidence the landlord was aware of the distress a lack of garden was causing the resident. However, this Service has not seen evidence that the landlord sought to manage the resident’s expectations around this time, and explain what it was doing to hold the developer to account. More transparency in this regard may have eased the resident’s concerns that the landlord was not taking the matter seriously.
The ‘end of defect schedule letter’ outlined the remaining defects that the developer was responsible for resolving, which included the garden issue. The letter simply stated that the developer would be in touch, which was in line with its defects guidance. However, the resident had raised a concern about missed appointments and poor communication up to that point. It would therefore have been reasonable to expect the landlord to have taken greater ownership of the upcoming appointments. This would have provided greater clarity about when the proposed works would take place. Its failure to take such action resulted in a further inconvenience to the resident, as she did not know when the works would take place.
The landlord could also have used the letter to manage the resident’s expectations about what it would do to hold the developer to account, if it did not follow through on agreements it had made. Given there was already a series of missed appointments and a lack of clarity about what it would do, this would have further helped manage the resident’s expectations.
In April 2021, the landlord appropriately held the developer to account by putting it “on notice”. It advised the resident that it would instruct its own contractor if the developer did not complete the agreed works. This was appropriate in the circumstances and sought to manage the resident’s expectations.
The resident suffered further inconvenience, time and trouble in June 2021, when the developer attended her property without prior notice. The landlord had acted reasonably around this time by insisting on a joint visit with the developer to ensure the works it was proposing would resolve the issue. It is noted that contractors for the developer arriving unannounced was somewhat outside of the landlord’s control. However, the resident had experienced missed and unannounced appointments before, and it is therefore reasonable to expect the landlord to have taken greater responsibility to ensure these mistakes did not happen again.
Throughout her complaint, the resident raised concerns about the developer, in relation to its reliability and the quality of works it completed. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was silent on this matter, and placed a lot of emphasis on the delays being the responsibility of the developer. The resident had raised a concern in August 2021 stating that she was at her “wits end” and questioned why the landlord had not taken over responsibility from the developer. It would therefore have been reasonable for the landlord to at least address this in its complaint response, even if simply to explain why the responsibility remained with the developer. The resident suffered an inconvenience of specific concerns she had raised about its handling of the matter not being addressed by the landlord’s complaint response.
When the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response it said that it had put the developer “on notice” and had decided to instruct its own contractors, due to the deadline passing. In November 2021, shortly after the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response, the developer continued to do works at the resident’s property. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord told the resident that its position had changed since issuing its stage 2 complaint response. It would have been reasonable to do so in the circumstances. This is particularly concerning, given the resident had expressed a concern about the developer’s approach to the matter.
This Service has seen internal emails that show the landlord was given legal advice about the defects issue. It may therefore have been appropriate, based on the legal advice it received, to give the developer a further opportunity to complete the defects work. But, it is also reasonable to expect it to have provided the resident with a clear explanation, given it had told her its own contractor would take over. The resident suffered a disappointment of the landlord agreeing it would take over the works, which was something she had asked for, only for the developer to continue.
The landlord did not provide an explanation of why it allowed the developer to continue with the works until its follow up communication in June and July 2022, which was an unreasonable delay. It did seek to put right the failings in its complaint responses, and provide an explanation about the matter. However, it failed to acknowledge the inconsistencies in information it had given to the resident about the issue.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
When the landlord was satisfied the substantive issue was resolved, it revisited its offer of compensation. This was appropriate in the circumstances, as at the time of its previous offers the matter was unresolved. This gave it the opportunity to fully consider the detriment to the resident, and offer compensation for the time it had taken to resolve the issue. The landlord appropriately apologised for the length of time it had taken and offered the resident £1,250 for its handling of the matter. It added that it considered the “higher specification” of garden part of the redress it was offering.
The landlord’s compensation was offered for the “inconvenience” the resident experienced, due to the delays in resolving the issue. This was above the level set out in its complaint procedure and reasonable in the circumstances, given the delays. It is noted that the resident was pleased with the quality of the finished garden, which can reasonably be expected to have gone some way to putting things right for her.
The landlord’s compensation offer did not evidence that it had considered the distress the resident had experienced at not being able to use her garden for a significant period of time. The resident could reasonably be expected to have suffered a higher level of distress due to her vulnerability, and the timing of the issue. The resident was considered clinically vulnerable to Covid-19 and during the period of lockdown, not having use of the garden would have had a greater impact on her than someone who did not have to shield. Considering this, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have given more consideration to the resident’s individual circumstances and the distress a lack of garden had caused her.
The landlord’s complaint and follow up responses also failed to fully address the resident’s concerns about the developer and why the work had not been taken over by the landlord. The landlord’s email of 22 July 2022 was cursory and simply stated that it had a contract and putting the developer on notice had “forced” it to do the works. This response failed to acknowledge that it had given the resident conflicting information, or show what it had learnt about how it had managed the contract. This would have been reasonable in the circumstances given the concerns raised by the resident, and the length of time it took to resolve the issue.
The landlord’s offer of compensation, though significant, failed to have due consideration for the resident’s individual circumstances, and the level of detriment she experienced at not having a garden. The landlord also failed to show what learning it had done from its handling of the contract with the developer. As such, the compensation it offered did not fully put things right for the resident, and relevant orders have been made below.

Complaint Handling

The landlord kept the stage 1 complaint open at the resident’s request, which was a reasonable approach initially. However, as the length of time the matter was unresolved increased, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have issued a formal complaint response. This would have enabled the resident to escalate her complaint sooner, as she was evidently dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the matter. Her email of August 2021, asked for her complaint to be escalated, which then prompted the landlord to issue a stage 1 complaint response. The result of keeping the stage 1 complaint open was a protracted and confusing complaint process for the resident, as the response was issued 9 months after the complaint was made.
When the landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response in August 2021, it took very little responsibility for the delays and its handling of the matter. The response apologised for the developer’s handling of the issue, and failed it give any consideration to whether it had contributed to the delay. It is noted that the developer had a contractual responsibility to put any defects right. However, the landlord also had a contractual responsibility to the resident, as she was paying rent to it, for a garden she was unable to use. As such, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to take greater responsibility for its contribution to the delays, and identify any learning it had done about its handling of the matter.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 13 August 2021. The landlord did not initially acknowledge the stage 2 complaint until 24 August 2021, 7 working days later. This was 5 working days later than set out in its complaints procedure. This failing in its complaint handling was a further, albeit minor, delay in what had already been a protracted complaints process, and caused the resident further inconvenience.
The landlord decided to close the resident’s stage 2 complaint “to allow further investigations to take place”. This Service has seen no evidence that this was communicated to the resident, which was a further failing in its complaint handling. The resident experienced further time and trouble when she contacted the landlord, to ask what was happening with the stage 2 complaint. It is unclear why the landlord decided to close the complaint, when it could reasonably have conducted a complaint investigation, at the same time as investigating the substantive issue. Its decision to close the complaint resulted in a further lengthening of an already protracted process, and obstructed the resident from fairly accessing its complaints procedure.
The landlord reopened the stage 2 complaint investigation, on 14 September 2021, it did not acknowledge the complaint until 1 October 2021, 13 working days later. This was a further delay in its complaint handling, and resulted in a further inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 16 November 2021, 66 working days after the resident asked her complaint to be considered at stage 2. The result was a complaints process that took 1 year for the resident to complete. The resident experienced the inconvenience of a protracted complaints process, that was hard to access. The resident also experienced time and trouble of asking the landlord for responses, only to find it had closed her complaint.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response admitted further failings, and acknowledged that the issue remained unresolved and had taken too long to fix. It would therefore have been reasonable to expect it to offer the resident redress, in an attempt to put things right. The stage 2 complaint response made no mention of the compensation it had offered and stage 1, and did not seek to offer further compensation for the additional time. This was a failure in the landlord’s complaint handling, as it did not to try and put things right for the resident, despite admitting failings.
The landlord sought to correct the failings it its stage 2 complaint response in its follow up responses in June and July 2022. It acknowledged that it failed to offer compensation at stage 2, and found this to be a failing its complaint handling. This was appropriate in the circumstances, and is evidence the landlord sought to learn from the outcome of the stage 2 complaint, and put things right.
The landlord’s handling of the offer of £1,000 compensation around the time of its stage 2 complaint response lacked clarity. The landlord accepted that it did not make this offer in the complaint response, or in writing. This was a further failing in its complaint handling. It is reasonable to expect that, if the landlord has identified failings and wants to try and put it right for the resident, it would do it as part of a formal complaint response.
The landlord appropriately identified failings in its complaint handling, apologised and offered the resident £250 in compensation. It said it was offering compensation for not formally offering compensation in its complaint response, which was appropriate to do. However, it failed to acknowledge that the whole process had taken a year to complete. It also failed to acknowledge that it unreasonably closed its stage 2 investigation, and there were 2 delayed stage 2 complaint acknowledgments. The landlord reflected on its complaint handling and tried to put things right for the resident, but did not address all of the failings it its complaint handling. Its offer of compensation did not fully put things right for the resident, therefore relevant orders have been made below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the garden flooding, the associated works, and offer of compensation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

There was a lengthy delay in resolving the substantive issue of the garden flooding. The landlord could reasonably be expected to have taken greater ownership of holding the developer to account. The landlord also gave the resident inconsistent information about whether it would take responsibility for the works. The landlord failed to have due consideration for the resident’s individual circumstances, and the detriment she had suffered. Its offer of compensation failed to fully put things right for the resident.
The overall complaints process was protracted and took a year to complete. The landlord held the stage 1 complaint open, at the resident’s request. However, as the situation was ongoing, it would have been reasonable for it to issue a formal response, so as not to obstruct the resident from a fair process. Stage 2 of the complaints process was difficult for the resident to access, as the landlord closed the complaint unfairly. There were delays in acknowledging and issuing the stage 2 complaint response.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise for the failings identified in this report;
2. Pay the resident £2,010 in compensation, made up of:
  1. The £1,250 it offered for its handling of the resident’s reports of the garden flooding, and the associated works (if it has not already done so);
  2. £300 in recognition of the distress and disappointment the resident experienced in its handling of her reports of the garden flooding, and the associated works;
  3. The £10 it offered for the use of the resident’s electricity (if it has not already done so);
  4. The £250 it offered for its complaint handling (if it has not already done so);
  5. A further £200 in recognition of the time trouble and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s complaint.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Complete a review into its handling of the resident’s reports of the garden flooding, with an emphasis on:
  1. How it could better hold the developer to account in terms of the appropriateness of identified works, and its communication with the resident;
  2. Considering when it should take greater responsibility for defect works;
  3. How it communicates with residents during the defects process;
2. Conduct training with its complaint handling staff, with a particular focus on:
  1. Ensuring complaint investigations are not unreasonably protracted;
  2. The need to offer redress when there are admitted failings.
The dates and content of the training should be shared with the Ombudsman, also within 8 weeks.