Longhurst Group Limited (202209756)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209756

Longhurst Group Limited

8 September 2023

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Concerns about the property at the start of the tenancy.
   2. Repair requests since the tenancy began.
   3. The associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident has held a periodic assured shorthold tenancy for a two-bedroom bungalow, designated for older people and owned by the landlord, since September 2021.
3. The property was offered to the resident in April 2021, and she was advised that necessary repairs would begin in June 2021. The resident was keen to move to the bungalow as she was awaiting a knee operation and was paying additional rent for private accommodation. The resident reported that no work was being done and in August 2021, she requested compensation for the stress and financial cost of the delay.
4. The surveyor’s ‘report on handover’ dated 3 September 2021 noted several outstanding works, including a garden gate to be hung and paving slabs to be removed. On the same day, the landlord acknowledged a complaint about the delay in moving in.
5. The resident got the keys to the property on 8 September 2021. Over the next ten days, repairs were reported relating to hazards in the garden, broken glass in the back door, and the front door not being secure. The landlord noted that there had been a service failure and responded to the complaint on 16 September 2021. It apologised for the delays and lack of communication and gave the resident a decorating voucher as a gesture of goodwill (which she said was invalid).
6. Further complaints were submitted on 18 November 2021, 14 December 2021 and 9 January 2022 regarding the delay before the tenancy and the failure to respond to repairs in the property. The resident again requested to escalate the complaint on 24 January 2022 and a final response was issued on 1 February 2022. The landlord apologised for delays and said that the remaining repairs were agreed, and the garden work would be done when the resident was away, after which, compensation would be considered.
7. The resident remains unhappy that the property was empty from 10 April 2021, but she did not get the keys until 8 September 2021. She said some repairs have been completed but the following were still outstanding:

a)     Water did not drain well during showering.

b)     Leak under wet room sink.

c)     Leak under kitchen sink.

d)     Main stop tap is leaking.

e)     Problems with the front door.

f)       Misted rear door glazing panel not replaced.

g)     Repairs to the garden, fence, and gate.

 

8. The resident wants the outstanding repairs to be completed and compensation to be paid.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

9. It is noted that the resident has stated that the delay in the repair work had affected her mental and physical health. The Ombudsman does not doubt her comments; but must clarify that it is beyond the expertise of this Service to decide on whether there was a direct link between the repairs at the property and her health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.

Assessment

Delay and condition of the property at the start of tenancy

10. The landlord’s ‘lettable standard’, available online, itemises all essential work that will be carried out to a void property. This includes:

a)     All doors being adjusted to ensure they open and close safely and securely.

b)     All external doors will operate correctly.

c)     All windows and doors should have sealant intact and renewed if required.

d)     Any blown glazing will be replaced or repaired. ‘If the glass cannot be replaced before the new tenancy starts, then it must be agreed between (the landlord) and the prospective resident to be completed post-let. An appointment date must be given to the resident and the works completed within 7 calendar days of the property being re-let’.

e)     Taps should be operational.

f)       Showers must be safe and operational.

g)     Pathways and patios will be safe and free from trip hazards.

h)     Gates and fencing to be made safe or renewed.

i)        Access to the property will be safe and unrestricted.

11. In this case, the ‘empty property checklist’ completed in March 2021 recorded that the property and garden were in good condition, but that decorating vouchers should possibly be given. It said that ‘non-standard’ light fittings and the condition of the garden were ‘discussed’ by the housing officer with the tenant over the phone.
12. The resident states she was told work would begin on the property on 16 June 2021, but that this did not happen, and she continued to chase the landlord in July and August 2021. On 16 August 2021, the resident said she visited the property and no work had been done. She asked for compensation for the stress and additional financial costs over the five months since she was offered the property. The landlord sent a complaint acknowledgement on 3 September 2021.
13. However, a later checklist headed ‘completed by repairs surveyor’ and signed doff by the landlord on 7 September 2021 lists outstanding work including a door to be planed and broken tiles to be removed. It also identified a garden gate to be fitted, trip hazards and slabs to be removed, and grass and hedges to be cut.
14. The resident got the keys, and the tenancy began on 8 September 2021 when she reported that the garden was not safe, the side fence against the pedestrian path was collapsing and the painting to the back fence was unfinished.
15. The landlord’s complaint response was issued on 16 September 2021 and apologised for the poor communication and the delays in moving into the new property. The landlord apologised that the decorating voucher was not valid and said it would be investigated. It said the lettings team had failed to respond to call backs and that the delay was due to the landlord’s duty to ensure checks and repairs were completed before the tenancy, and that sometimes this took longer. The landlord said some repairs still needed completing, and that a repair had been logged for the back door glass and the fence as well as the front door and the garden.
16. It has been shown that the landlord was aware prior to the tenancy start date a garden gate was to be fitted, trip hazards and slabs were to be removed from the garden, and grass and hedges were to be cut. It is also reasonable to conclude that the issues reported on the first day of the tenancy were present and should have been resolved prior to the start of tenancy. However, not having been identified by the landlord by this time, they could not be said to have delayed the tenancy start date, so are discussed further below.
17. No information has been provided by the landlord to explain the five-month delay in the property being ready. That said, there is no evidence to support that the landlord was obliged to or had committed to start the tenancy earlier than it did, or that an earlier moving in date had been given to the resident. Whilst this was clearly inconvenient for the resident, particularly because she hoped to be in the bungalow before she could have the operation she needed, it has not been shown that there was a service failure on behalf of the landlord in the property not being ready before it was.
18. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s calls and emails however, and its records dated 15 September 2021 show that it considered this to be a service failure, although it did not feel that financial redress was needed.
19. Whilst it has not been shown that the landlord was obliged to offer the property by a certain date, it has been shown that the landlord failed to adhere to its ‘lettable standard’ in relation to the repairs which it has indicated it was aware of prior to the start of the tenancy. These are that the garden was overgrown, the path free from hazards and a gate needed to be renewed.
20. The stage one response in September 2021 said the property was delayed due to the landlord’s duty to ensure the repairs were completed before the tenancy. However, there is no evidence of any repairs being done prior to the tenancy. Effectively, the landlord relied on its duty to adhere to its lettable standard as grounds for the delay, but it did not meet that duty.
21. The landlord should have provided a property which met its ‘lettable standard’, and it did not. It failed to update the resident regularly and failed to respond to call backs. This is not denied by the landlord, and it apologised for this in the final response when it would have been appropriate to make an offer of a financial remedy to reflect this failure.
22. The failure to respond to the resident’s enquiries, and then provide a property which did not meet the lettable standard, would reasonably have caused the resident distress and inconvenience at an already difficult time for her.
23. The sum of £500 would reflect the impact on the resident as a result of these failings. This sum is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance for instances where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident but there was no permanent impact. In this case, the landlord acknowledged the failings but failed to address the detriment to the resident.

Repairs

24. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy effective from 2019 says that appointed repairs will be completed within 21 days. ‘‘Appointed repairs are defects or faults which do not put the health, safety or security of a tenant or leaseholder at risk or cause harm to the structure of the property and are repairs that tenants and leaseholders can reasonably live with for a period of time. Our target is to complete all appointed general repairs within 21 calendar days and 10 calendar days for appointed heating repairs.’’
25. The policy says that the landlord is responsible, among other things for (as appointed repairs unless stated):

a)     Hand basins/kitchen sink except blockages.

b)     Plumbing repairs and leaks (emergency).

c)     Showers.

d)     Windows.

e)     Boundary wall and fences on public boundaries.  

f)       Doors (excluding numbers etc).

g)     Doors, make safe or secure external door (emergency, attend within 2 hours make safe within 4 hours).

h)     Paths.

26. The policy says the resident is responsible, among other things, for gardening maintenance, glazing (unless a break in) and infestations.
27. The resident’s tenancy agreement covers the landlord’s obligations which says it agrees to carry out repairs to the structure and exterior of the home, plus installations for the supply of water and sanitation.
28. In this instance, the landlord agreed to carry out the gardening jobs which it was obliged to do in accordance with the lettable standard and there is no dispute about its liability for the repairs raised by the resident.
29. The week the tenancy began, in September 2021, the resident reported the back door glass was broken and the boundary fencing (to a pedestrian path) was damaged. The landlord’s record confirms that the front door repair was logged, as it wobbled and was not secure.
30. The final complaint response in February 2022 indicated that some repairs needed completing, including the front door ‘keep’ which had been ordered and would be fitted once available. The resident reported this as still outstanding in May and September 2022 and a further landlord log shows that the fitting of the new door keep was booked for 1 November 2022 and eventually fitted on 8 November 2022, 14 months after it was reported. Despite this, the landlord told this Service on 7 December 2022 that it had not been able to find any records to confirm that the replacement front door keep had been fitted.
31. The landlord’s repairs policy says that securing an external door is an emergency job to be attended within two hours. Whilst the Ombudsman appreciates that the resident would feel vulnerable if there was any doubt that the door was safe, there is no evidence to suggest that the door was not secure. However, the repair was far outside of the landlord’s 21-day target for an appointed repair and therefore the landlord did not act appropriately as it failed to act in accordance with its repair policy.
32. Similarly, the misted back door glass that needed replacement was reported by the resident and logged by the landlord as a repair the week her tenancy began in September 2021. The landlord’s first response said that the back door repair had been logged, and its log shows it was chasing the contractor. The resident’s escalated her complaint in December 2021 and said the glass had not been replaced and the landlord’s final response in February 2022 said the glazing panel had been ordered. The resident advised this Service in November 2022 that the glass was still not replaced.
33. The landlord told this Service in December 2022 that it was unable to locate any repairs/contractor work order for the report of a broken back door glass. Therefore, there is no evidence to show that the landlord met its obligation to repair the back door glass within 21 days, and for almost two years after the repair was logged. There are also concerns about the landlord’s record keeping given that the complaint responses said that the repair was logged, but it later said it could find no record of it.
34. After the first complaint response, the resident also logged two plumbing repairs, the shower not draining away and a leak from a sink that was dripping into a cupboard on 13 October 2021. The shower repair was logged again on 7 December 2021 and raised again by the resident in her escalated complaint on 14 December 2021. The final complaint response on 1 February 2022 said that the resident had been advised that the shower pump was not faulty, and that the issue was that the pump did not work when the shower was not switched on. There is no evidence that this repair was raised again after this time.
35. Although the resident advised this Service that the wet room drain (presumed to be the same location as the shower) had still not been cleaned out in November 2022, it is noted that the landlord is not responsible for ‘waste blockages’. If this problem remains and issue for the resident and she believes it is not related to the waste pipe, she should contact the landlord and log a new repair.
36. It is clear that the landlord accepted responsibility for investigating the shower pump. There are extensive notes on the contractor’s portal, copied to this Service, which suggest that there were some complications as the shower pump had been boxed in and tiled over. The first attendance relating to this repair was recorded as 31 December 2021, more than two months after the repair was logged and considerably outside the landlord’s 21-day target for appointed repairs. Therefore, the landlord’s actions were not appropriate as it did not act in accordance with its repairs and maintenance policy in respect of the shower repair.
37. The delayed final response on 1 February 2022 said that repairs were due to be done to the garden while the resident was away, and that that had been agreed with her. The resident returned from having had an operation abroad on 27 April 2022 and in May 2022 reported that despite the landlord’s assurances, there were still repairs outstanding, including to the garden and the fence. In August 2022, landlord notes indicate that a meeting with ground workers was due to be held to supervise work to the garden fence and gate.
38. In July 2023, the resident advised that she had a friend fit the garden gate post and finish painting the fence. There has been no evidence from the landlord to confirm that the remaining repairs logged prior to the tenancy (the garden trip hazards, and grass and hedges being cut) were ever completed. Therefore, the landlord failed in its obligation to the resident under its lettable standards (the hazards in the garden) and repairs and maintenance policy (boundary fence where there is public access).
39. The resident raised the issue of a wasps’ nest at the property on her complaint form dated 14 December 2021, and has provided a receipt from a pest control company dated 29 October 2021 for £120. The resident said that the landlord should not have stated on the ‘empty property checklist’ in March 2021 that the property did not require an environmental clean when there was a wasp nest above the door.
40. Although the lettable standard says the property must be free of infestation, there was no evidence of the wasps’ nest being present when the resident moved into the property, or that it was reported to the landlord before the resident paid for its removal. It is not reasonable to find the landlord at fault for something it was not made aware of, and it has not been shown it failed to adhere to the lettable standards policy. Beyond that, the repairs and maintenance policy says that the resident is responsible for the removal of an infestation at the property. Therefore, it has not been shown that the landlord was at fault in relation to the wasps’ nest.
41. The resident also reported various other repairs after the first complaint response which the landlord had the opportunity to resolve during the complaint process so have been considered. A leak dripping into a cupboard was logged on 13 October 2021, and no pressure on the tap in the wet room was advised in the complaint form submitted 14 December 2021. The final response letter dated 1 February 2022 stated that these repairs had been completed, although further details are not known and in her email of 17 May 2022, the resident reported that the kitchen sink tap was not fixed.
42. Further repairs were logged for the kitchen sink leak on 8 August 2022. The landlord’s record dated 26 September 2022 said that the leak was found on the sink, and that the waste and overflow were replaced and the resident happy with the repair. The leak from the kitchen sink therefore took 11 months to be resolved, contrary to the repairs and maintenance policy.
43. In her correspondence with the Ombudsman in May 2022, the resident included the ‘main stop tap leaking’ as an outstanding repair. It is not clear if this is the same ‘stop tap’ mentioned in the landlord’s final response letter of 1 February 2022, which it said had been fixed. This job was not included in the resident’s email of 1 September 2022, so it is assumed that this job has now been completed. There is no further evidence to support that this repair was not responded to appropriately.
44. The resident would understandably be caused distress and inconvenience by the delay in these repairs being completed at a difficult time, and it is fair in all the circumstances that the landlord pay compensation to reflect this. In this instance, the landlord acknowledged some of the failings, but did not adequately explain the delays and failed to address the detriment to the resident.
45. Given the inordinate delay in the repairs to the garden, doors and plumbing being resolved, it is fair in all the circumstances that the sum of £500 compensation be paid to the resident by the landlord. This would reflect the maladministration which has occurred and is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for cases where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident but there was no permanent impact.

Complaint

46. The landlord’s complaints policy effective December 2020 says that stage one complaints will be responded to within 10 working days. Stage 2 (appeal review) cases are to be completed in 20 working days with a final response in writing.
47. In this instance, the resident asked for compensation for the delay in the property being ready on 26 August 2021, this was logged as a complaint and therefore should have had a response by 9 September 2021. The response was issued one week late, on 16 September 2021.
48. The landlord noted that a decorating voucher had been issued as a gesture of goodwill, but that the resident had reported it was not valid and invited her to speak to the lettings officer to resolve this. Given that the landlord had noted various repair issues with the property prior to the tenancy, and that the surveyor in March 2021 suggested possibly issuing decorating vouchers, it would not seem that this voucher related to the complaint resolution, however. The replacement voucher was not raised by the resident on contacting this Service, so it has been assumed this issue is now resolved.
49. The landlord’s own notes said that there had been a service failure in the resident having to chase the lettings team. The response said there had been a delay in the property being ready, and that some repairs were still outstanding, but it offered no compensation to reflect this.
50. On 18 November 2021, the resident emailed the landlord and said she had submitted a formal complaint on 11 November 2021 and was told an officer would make contact in two days, but this did not happen. A further complaint ‘e-form’ was submitted on 14 December 2021 which included the repairs outstanding since the start of the tenancy. Another complaint was submitted on 9 January 2022, and it is noted that the complaint form asks the resident for ‘suggestions to improve the service’ and she replied that she would like the landlord to follow procedure, treat tenants with respect and deal with problems and answer emails promptly. It was reasonable that the landlord treated this contact from the resident as a request to escalate the complaint.
51. The final response letter was due on 16 December 2021 but was not issued until 1 February 2022, a month, and a half later. The final response did not review the reasons for the delay in the tenancy start date and did not explain the delay in the repairs being completed. It did say that compensation would be discussed with the resident on her return to the UK. Despite this however there is no evidence that the resident was contacted regarding compensation.
52. This failure to respond to the resident’s complaint in a timely and positive manner would reasonably have caused the resident frustration and disappointment, on top of the practical matters of the delay in the repairs. The landlord failed to adhere to its complaints policy and did not refer to the suggestion to improve the service it had asked the resident for.
53. It would be fair in all the circumstances that the resident be paid £200 to reflect the delays as well as the resident’s time and trouble in pursuing her complaint. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for cases where the failure may not have affected the overall outcome but includes time and trouble and loss of confidence in the landlord. This recognises that the landlord did not appropriately acknowledge the delays in the complaint process and its failure to follow up regarding compensation.

Determination

54. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of:
    1. The property at the start of the tenancy.
    2. The reported repairs.
    3. Complaint handling.

Orders

55. Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should pay the resident £1,200 being:
    1. £500 in respect of the property at the start of the tenancy.
    2. £500 in respect of the reported repairs.
    3. Pay the resident £200 in respect of the complaints process.
56.  A senior member of the landlord staff should apologise in writing to the resident and explain what action it will take to prevent the delays she experienced from happening again.
57. The landlord should arrange with the resident to complete any remaining repairs as listed in the final response letter, to include the misted rear door and broken fence, or advise if this has been done.
58. The landlord should provide evidence to this Service that the above orders have been complied with, within four weeks of this determination.