Hyde Housing Association Limited (202014780)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014780

Hyde Housing Association Limited

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs, in particular:
  1. Replacement windows.
  2. A blocked toilet.
  3. A boiler repair.
  4. A fire alarm repair.
  5. A communal door repair.
  6. The resident’s request for replacement flooring after a leak.
  7. A boundary fence repair.
  8. Paintwork on the exterior of the building.
2. The resident’s reports of dust in the property.
3. The resident’s request for sound proofing due to noise disturbance from a neighbour.
4. The resident’s complaint.
The Ombudsman has also assessed the landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and lives in a one bedroom flat on the first floor. His tenancy started on 22 June 2009 and the landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
This investigation will focus on the events leading to the stage one complaint, up until the resident exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. However, the information contained below is included as useful context for this investigation:

a. The resident first reported the issue of the toilet becoming blocked in February 2013. The landlord’s repair logs show that this was reported a total of 24 times between 2013 and 2022. The repair log also shows that landlord changed the pipework in 2015 to a ‘flexi pipe’ and renewed this pipe in 2019.

b. The landlord’s repair log shows that the resident first reported that some of his windows were not opening in March 2019. In November 2020 he reported that all of the windows in his property were broken, and would not open.

c. The landlord’s repair log shows that in March 2013 it fitted a “centrifugal dust extractor” in both the resident’s kitchen and bathroom.

Summary of events

The landlord attended the resident’s property on 16 July 2020 to inspect the floor coverings, after a leak from the toilet. It reported that there was no damage to any of the flooring. It said that the “vinyl floor” that was laid by the resident would be his responsibility to replace.
The resident contacted this Service on 3 March 2021 and said that he had issues with repairs in his property . He said that his relationship with the landlord had broken down, and we agreed to contact the landlord on the resident’s behalf and ask it to log a complaint. This Service wrote to the landlord on 18 March 2021 and asked it to raise a complaint, relating to concerns about repairs to his windows, flooring and boiler. We asked the landlord to acknowledge the complaint within five working days. The resident contacted this Service again on 29 March 2021 and said that the landlord had not responded to his complaint.
Internal landlord emails on 1 April 2021 show that it visited the resident’s property to fix the windows, but found they would need replacing. The emails say that the resident had received a letter telling him the windows would be replaced but he had “not heard anything further”. This Service has not seen a copy of the letter refenced in this email. The internal emails indicate that the landlord had submitted a planning application for the windows, but it was “still waiting to hear back”.
This Service wrote to the landlord again on 8 April 2021, and asked it to provide a response to the resident’s complaint within five working days. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 14 April 2021. It apologised for the delay and advised it had a “backlog of communication”. It said that it would provide its formal response by 28 April 2021 and said it understood the complaint to be that:

a. The external paintwork had not been renewed;

b. A boundary fence was broken;

c. The toilet and sink kept flooding;

d. The fire and smoke alarm were not working;

e. The windows in the property did not open;

f. There was excessive dust present in the property;

g. The resident wanted compensation for a faulty boiler, as he had to operate the boiler with a screwdriver and felt it was unsafe;

h. The communal door had been unlocked for over a year due to a fault;

As part of its complaint investigation the landlord called the resident on 20 April 2021 to discuss his complaint. During the conversation, the resident confirmed that he had previously been offered £250 in compensation for a fault with his boiler, and he regarded the matter as having been resolved. He said that the radiators had already been installed and the communal door was fixed. The landlord advised that it would fix the resident’s smoke alarm on 25 April 2021. The landlord’s repair log shows that a repair for a “hard wired smoke alarm” was raised on 31 March 2021. The job was marked as closed on 25 April 2021, but it is unclear whether any repairs were completed in relation to the smoke alarm on that day.
Meanwhile, the landlord made enquiries with its contractor who was responsible for the heating system. It confirmed attendances at the property had taken place during February and March 2021. It had also attended on 26 April to fix the thermostat.
On 27 April 2021, the landlord contacted the resident and said that it needed more time to investigate the complaint, and said it would do this by 12 May 2021. The landlord sent its stage one complaint response to the resident on 10 May 2021 and said:

a. It upheld the parts of the resident’s complaint about his windows not opening and the problems with his boiler. It wished to offer £200 in compensation for its failings in relation to both matters;

b. It also wished to offer £50 in compensation for the delay in its complaint handling;

c. The windows could not be fixed and needed to be replaced and it had to apply for planning permission from the local council. It apologised for the inconvenience caused, and said it would progress with the installation of his new windows as soon as it could;

d. It had asked its heating team to look into the boiler issue and had found a broken thermostat, which it fixed on 26 April 2021. It apologised for the broken thermostat;

e. The external paintwork was in its “decoration programme” for that year and the resident would be told, closer to the time, when the works would take place. It apologised that it could not give a specific date;

f. It had looked at the repair log in relation to the toilet and could see it had been called out to unblock the toilet “a few times”. Its operatives had identified a fix for the problem to “remove the flexible pan connector” and replace it with solid pipe. It understood that the resident did not want this, and had therefore refused an appointment for this work. It also noted that the resident had asked for the bath to be removed and a shower installed. It was unable to do this, as it only carried out repairs;

g. To solve the issue of the toilet blocking, it would need to install a solid pipe, and had raised an appointment for the works to take place. If the resident refused access again, it would consider taking further action. It said it needed to fix the issue and could not keep attending to unblock the toilet.

h. It had looked at other homes in the block to see if their toilets were causing problems. Having done so, it could confirm that there had been no other similar problems. It had also done a CCTV survey of the drains and found no wider issue within the block.

i. It said the fire alarm was tested every quarter and its most recent test, in March 2021, found no faults. The same contractor looked after the communal entrance door and fixed the reported issue on 23 April 2021.

j. The resident had reported that the flooring had become mouldy after the toilet had leaked, and had provided photographs showing its condition. It said that it was sorry that the resident experienced a leak. However, it would not replace his flooring and he could claim for any damage to his belongings on his contents insurance. It said its “complaint policy” did not cover customer belongings;

k. It had not received any reports for repairs to a boundary fence. The property downstairs had a garden fence, and this was not its responsibility to fix. It was not responsible for repairing garden fences, but did repair boundary fencing. Its surveyor had confirmed that there was no boundary fence;

l. It apologised that the resident experienced excessive dust in his home, and advised that it was “unsure” why this was the case. However, this was not something it could help him with, as dust in homes was “normal”;

m. The resident had complained that he could hear his upstairs neighbour moving in her home and had asked about the sound proofing. It confirmed that when the block had been made into flats, it would have met the building regulations in place at the time for the build. It had no other reports of “sound issues” from other people in the block.

n. The correspondence concluded stage one of its internal complaints process. If the resident was unhappy, he could ask for his complaint to be reviewed by a senior manager at stage two.

The resident contacted the landlord on 21 June 2021 and asked for more information about when it would replace his windows. He said that someone had been to measure up, but he had not heard anything since.
The resident contacted this Service on 25 June 2021 and said that the repairs remained outstanding and he wanted to escalate his complaint to stage two. He advised that he had difficulties escalating the complaint with the landlord. From the evidence available, it is unclear when the resident had attempted to request the complaint escalation with the landlord himself.
This Service wrote to the landlord on 25 June 2021 and asked it to escalate the resident’s complaint to a stage two complaint. We asked it to provide confirmation of its escalation within 5 working days and a formal response within 20 working days. The landlord wrote to the resident on 9 July 2021 and acknowledged his stage two complaint and said it would respond by 4 August 2021.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 4 August 2021 and said that it needed more time to investigate his complaint, as it was taking longer than expected. It said it needed to get more information about the different matters in his complaint, and that it would respond by 2 September 2021. The landlord also called the resident on the same day to explain why it needed more time to complete its investigation. The landlord wrote to the resident with its stage two complaint on response on 31 August 2021 and said:

a. That planning permission had been “confirmed” and the windows were in the process of being made. It said it would be in touch to arrange the installation when the windows were ready;

b. The external decoration was still in its ‘decoration programme’ for that year and it would be in touch “closer to the time” of it starting the works;

c. After explaining the situation regarding the sink and toiler repair in its stage one response, it had tried to fix the issue with the resident’s toilet on 28 July 2021. It noted that the resident had spoken with a member of staff on 4 August and some discussion had taken place about whether the resident needed a new toilet. It confirmed that the toilet needed to be relocated so there would be no bend in the pipe. This would involve taking the bathtub out, so a shower cubicle could be installed owing to limited space. However, this was found to be the opinion of one plumber, and since investigating the matter further it was deemed unnecessary to carry out such an amount of work.

d. It was sorry for the confusion that had been caused, and that it failed to manage his expectations. To resolve the blockages, it would be removing the existing pipework and replacing it with solid uPVC pipework which would have no bends, along with a block installed underneath to increase the height of the toilet. There was no need to replace the toilet as it was not damaged. By carrying out the suggested works, the blockages to the sink and toilet should resolve as they were on the same drain run;

e. A further appointment would be raised for the works to take place. If access was refused for this particular appointment, it would ask the tenancy team to begin the “enforcement process” to get the works done;

f. The boundary fence repair the resident had reported was in the garden of the flat below his. It would only repair the fence when the resident of that flat requested it, due to the need for them to allow it access. It said it could not give more detail, due to data protection, but confirmed it was in discussions with the resident of the flat below about the fence;

g. It could not help him with the dust issue, and advised him to look up tips online to assist him in managing dust in his home;

h. It noted the resident’s comments about being able to hear the neighbour upstairs moving around her home and the noise of the extractor fan in her bathroom disturbing him. It said that it could adjust the timer on the extractor fan to reduce the time it was on, but this “could run the risk of damp” so it did not want to do this. It repeated its position that it had had no other complaints about noise disturbance in the block and that when it had been converted it met the regulations that were in place at the time. It said it would take no further action on this issue;

i. It repeated its position, outlined in its stage one complaint response, about the resident’s flooring; the fire alarm and communal door;

j. It said that it agreed with the failures recognised in its stage one complaint response. It also wished to offer a further £75 in compensation on top of the original £250 “to make up for what happened”.

k. The resident had come to the end of the complaints process. If he remained unhappy, he could refer the complaint to this Service for further consideration.

The resident contacted this Service on 4 November 2021, and said he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint response and wanted the Ombudsman to investigate. He advised that the repairs in his property remained outstanding.

Events after the landlord’s internal complaint’s procedure

Internal emails exchanged between landlord staff on 25 January 2022 state:

a. There were further delays with the windows as planning permission had “not yet” been granted and the manufacture of the windows had not started;

b. It had gained access to complete the works to the toilet;

c. The external decoration would not be done in 2022-23 but “may be included” in the following year’s programme.

The resident contacted the landlord on 1 February 2021, and asked to raise a complaint about the window repair, and dust issues in his property. The landlord wrote to the resident on 3 February 2022 and said that it had already responded to the resident’s complaint about the above matters. Following recent contact it had decided to review its stage two complaint decision, and concluded that it would not change its decision. It said that the resident had exhausted its internal complaints procedure, and to contact the Ombudsman if he remained dissatisfied.
The landlord has since provided this Service with an update and confirmed that planning permission for the replacement windows was granted in May 2022 and the windows were replaced in January 2023.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s obligations, policies, and procedures

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, and keep in repair and proper working order the installations for the supply of water and sanitation.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that:
1. It is responsible for maintaining hot water and heating systems, windows, drains and pipework. It also states it is responsible for maintaining ‘hard wired’ smoke detectors.
2. The resident is responsible for floor coverings, carpets and clearing blockages in waste pipes and toilets, but to contact it if an issue persists.
3. A repair is defined as an ‘emergency’ when it threatens the health, safety or security of a resident. It says that blocked toilets are treated as emergency repairs when there is only one toilet in the property. If the resident has been unable to unblock to toilet themselves it should be reported and the landlord will attend within four hours.
4. For emergency repairs it will conduct a ‘make safe’ repair within 24 hours, and it will make a further appointment to complete a permanent repair.
The landlord’s website states that:
1. If a resident is unable to open a window it treats this as a ‘routine repair’. It states that routine repairs will be attended to within 20 working days. It says that a communal door that will close, but cannot be locked will also be logged as a ‘routine repair’.
2. The landlord is responsible for boundary fence repairs and residents are responsible for “dividing fences between neighbours”.
3. Decoration of the outside of buildings are identified as ‘cyclical decorations’ and are coordinated with major works, so it is done in the most “cost effective” way.
The landlord’s website has an antisocial behaviour (ASB) toolkit for its residents, to help them deal with ASB issues. It says that most instances of noise from neighbours are not considered ASB and are related to “general living”. It tells residents that they can have a “friendly word” with neighbours or use its ‘dear neighbour cards’ to let them know the noise is causing disturbance. The toolkit also says that it can refer residents to mediation, and if noise disturbance is persistent, to contact the local environmental health officer.
The landlord’s complaints and compensation policy says that it will acknowledge a stage one complaint within two working days of the resident making it. It says that it aims to provide a response to stage one complaints within 10 working days. If more time is needed it will explain this to the resident. It says it will issue stage two complaint responses within 20 working days of receiving the complaint and in some “exceptional circumstances” it may require a further 10 working days.

Replacement Windows

It is apparent that a significant factor in the delay in the replacement of the resident’s windows was the length of time it took for it to get planning permission. The process of considering a planning application and providing permission rests with the local authority. Complaints about a local authority’s planning decisions are considered by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) and not the Housing Ombudsman. As such, this investigation has not considered whether the time taken by the local authority was reasonable, but has focused on the actions of the landlord in relation to replacing the resident’s windows.
The landlord’s repair log shows that the resident reported that he was unable to open all of the windows in his property in November 2020. The landlord acted reasonably and in line with its repair obligations by inspecting the windows and in its decision to replace them. This Service has not seen the letter referred to in the landlord’s internal communications. However, the landlord confirmed the action it would be taking three months after it was initially reported by the resident, and this was an unreasonable delay.
The resident sent the landlord emails about the windows in April and June 2021. In the first he said that he had been written to and had “not heard anything further”. In the second he said that someone had been to measure up for the windows, but he had not heard anything since. The landlord did not communicate effectively with the resident to manage his expectations. It did not give indicative timescales on when it hoped to complete the work, which it may have not been able to due to delays in obtaining planning permission. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide periodic updates to the resident. This would have helped to ensure the resident was kept informed about the progress being made, and provided him with reassurance that it was proactively managing the situation. It would have also saved the resident the inconvenience of additional time and trouble of having to ask the landlord for updates.
The windows were replaced in January 2023 which was 22 months after the landlord said it planned to replace them. When the landlord issued its stage two complaint response in August 2021, it advised the resident that it had received permission and the windows were being manufactured. However, the landlord’s internal emails from January 2022 show that planning permission had not yet been granted and it was still going through the planning permission process. This is evidence of poor communication on the part of the landlord. It gave the resident conflicting information, which was likely to increase his frustration about not being informed about the process. Given the landlord told the resident that it had obtained permission in its stage 2 complaint response, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have explained why this was no longer the case, as soon as it became aware.
This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord proactively communicated the further delay to the resident. The landlord’s emails and complaint responses throughout were cursory and simply stated it was waiting for the council to give planning permission. It did not set out what it was doing to try and speed up the process. This would have helped manage the resident’s expectations and given him reassurance that the landlord was being proactive and trying to get the matter resolved. The landlord also failed to correct the inaccurate information it gave in its stage two complaint.
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 proportionate and reasonable. The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are to be fair (follow fair processes and recognise what went wrong), put things right, and learn from outcomes.
The landlord’s stage one complaint response offered £200 in compensation for its handling of the replacement windows and boiler repair. It is not clear how it broke this down for each element of complaint, but it would have been reasonable to provide a breakdown. This would have helped the resident understand how the matter had been considered and what amount of compensation had been awarded in respect of each issue.
The compensation amount offered in the landlord’s stage two complaint response was based on incorrect information that planning permission had been granted. In fact the matter was still outstanding at the time of the complaint response and was still outstanding until January 2023, when it replaced the windows. The offer was, therefore, based on an incorrect assumption that works on the windows would begin soon after it sent its response. The stage two complaint response gave very little detail on why it considered there was a service in failure and did not identify any learning it had done. This was not in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle of learning from outcomes. The landlord’s actions in relation to this matter did not fully put things right for the resident.

It is noted that much of the cause of the delay in replacing the resident’s windows was outside of the landlord’s control, but it failed to communicate effectively with the resident. It failed to manage his expectations and provide adequate explanations about the delays it was experiencing. The issue was evidently frustrating for the resident, as he was left for a long time being unable to open his windows. The resident experienced a further detriment due to the inconvenience of having to ask the landlord for information which was not forthcoming. He also received incorrect information and received cursory responses when he did get information. A series of orders have therefore been made with the aim of putting things right.

A blocked toilet

The resident expressed concern that his toilet and sink became blocked regularly, and were flooding surrounding areas as a result. The evidence provided to this Service shows that the resident had been reporting issues with his toilet blocking since 2013. The records also show that 24 separate reports were made in relation to the toilet blocking between 2013 and 2022.The resident told this Service that he was frustrated at having to repeatedly report this issue to the landlord, and it was not getting resolved.
According to the landlord’s repair log it repeatedly, and reasonably, logged the toilet issue as an emergency repair, due to it being the only toilet in the resident’s property. This was the correct application of its repairs policy. It took the resident’s reports seriously and responded to resolve the immediate issue in a timely manner.
The evidence provided suggests that the landlord only started investigating the potential causes of the repeated blockages, once it began exploring the matter as a complaint, in early 2021. This was a number of years after the resident first reported the issue. Given the number of times the issue was reported, it is not clear why the landlord did not investigate the matter in more depth earlier. This would have saved the resident time and trouble in having to keep reporting the same issue and would have avoided the distress he experienced, of his toilet regularly blocking. The landlord did not identify this missed opportunity in its complaint investigations.
The landlord did not communicate clearly about its proposed solutions to the issue. The resident was told by one operative that the toilet needed to be moved and that would result in a new shower being installed instead of the bath. This raised the resident’s expectations, as he had effectively been told the landlord planned to install a new bathroom. However, it is noted that the landlord reasonably acknowledged and apologised for the inconvenience caused by the conflicting information given, in relation to this matter.
The landlord decided against this option and proposed a solution it deemed more appropriate. This was reasonable in the circumstances as it was for the landlord to decide the most appropriate action and how to manage its resources. It used its stage one and two complaint response to outline its position to the resident. It explained its reasoning and advised of the possible consequences of the resident continuing to refuse the works. This was also reasonable in the circumstances, as having to repeatedly attend to unblock the toilet would have taken a significant resource. This decision must have been disappointing for the resident, as the landlord has previously raised his expectation about the works it proposed. However, the landlord acted reasonably by explaining its position and the reason for the decision.
It is apparent that the resident did not agree with the landlord’s proposed solution and wanted it to install a new toilet in a different area and install a shower. It appears this led to the resident refusing the landlord access to complete the works it had suggested. While the resident’s reasons for wanting different works are acknowledged, there is no obligation on the landlord to install or carry out improvements under the tenancy agreement. Its obligation is to repair. While one operative had recommended moving the toilet and installing a shower, there was no obligation on the landlord to opt for this. It was reasonable for the landlord not to consider it further, given that a repair was possible in the circumstances.
This disagreement contributed to the delay, and was somewhat out of the landlord’s control. It acted reasonably in the circumstances and clearly outlined its position to the resident and explained that it may take enforcement action to gain access. This was reasonable, as it needed to complete the works and it had reasonably identified an appropriate solution. It is noted that the landlord was granted access and the works were completed around January 2022.
The landlord replaced pipework (in 2015 and 2019) and conducted drain surveys, which was a reasonable approach. Its internal communication in July 2021 suggests that the action it had previously taken (installing a ‘flexi hose’) had made the issue worse. The solution it later identified was relatively simple, to raise the toilet and install a solid pipe. It is unclear why the landlord had not considered this option or identified it as a solution sooner.
The evidence shows that the landlord did not start looking into the cause of the issue with the toilet for a long time after it was first reported. The landlord’s internal communication acknowledged that its actions had made the issue worse. It would therefore have been reasonable for the landlord to address this in its complaint responses. That it did not was a failing by the landlord. As a result, it did not acknowledge the time, trouble and inconvenience experienced by the resident. Its complaint responses focused on the instances of the resident refusing access, which did contribute to the delay. But it did not acknowledge or apologise for the other delays that were not related to the access issues.
The landlord was not proactive in trying to find the cause of the issue and it did not acknowledge its own failings in its complaint responses. It did not acknowledge the time, trouble and distress the issue had caused the resident.

A boiler repair

The landlord’s repair log does not show that the resident reported an issue with his boiler, prior to making his stage one complaint. As such, the evidence does not suggest that the landlord was aware that the resident had an issue with the boiler until he made his complaint. During the stage one complaint, the resident indicated that he needed to operate his boiler with a screwdriver, and the thermostat was not working.
When the resident raised the concern about his boiler, the landlord investigated the matter with its contractor to understand what had happened and whether there was an outstanding issue. It satisfied itself that the issue with the radiators had been resolved and the contractor confirmed that the resident did not need to operate the boiler with a screwdriver. It asked the contractor to return to fix the thermostat. The landlord was therefore proactive in resolving the issue, and acted reasonably by asking its contractor to provide a detailed account of what work it had done to the heating system and what was outstanding.
The repair log does not detail any of the visits the contractor described in its email. The fact that the landlord had to make enquiries with its contractor about matter, is evidence of poor record keeping by the landlord. It is reasonable to expect the landlord to have information relating to the matter readily available in its own repair logs so that it can clarify or follow up on aspects of the repair. Not doing so is evidence that the landlord did not appropriately record or closely monitor the work its contractors were doing at the resident’s property.
It would be reasonable for the landlord to have a clear audit trail with details of attendances at the property and what work was carried out. Recording such information ensures that it can review its actions in the event of a complaint, and so that it can provide independent bodies, such as this Service, with evidence as necessary.
The landlord’s complaint responses acknowledged a failing in relation to its handling of the boiler issue. The landlord offered £200 for its handling of the window replacement and boiler repair. It is unclear how much of this was apportioned to the inconvenience caused by its handling of the boiler repair. The landlord’s complaint response said that it had identified an issue with the thermostat and apologised. It also recognised the inconvenience experienced by the resident due to a faulty thermostat. However, the landlord did not acknowledge what learning it had taken from this case, in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles, or identify its poor record keeping in relation to the boiler issue.

A fire alarm repair

The resident had expressed concern that neither the smoke alarm nor the fire alarm were working. When the landlord responded to the complaint in April 2021, it advised that no jobs had been raised for an issue relating to the fire alarm in the building. It said that it had tested the fire alarm “every quarter” and the most recent test in March 2021 found no faults. This was reasonable in the circumstances, as the landlord clearly outlined its position in relation to the fire alarm and its testing procedures.
The resident said that his smoke detector was not working on 31 March 2021. The landlord’s website states that emergency repairs are those that affect the safety of a resident. A smoke detector is an important piece of safety equipment in any property, and the landlord’s repair policy states that it is responsible for ‘hard wired’ smoke detectors. The repair policy does not indicate what type of repair smoke detectors are categorised as. However, it would have been reasonable to expect it to log this as an this as an emergency repair, given a defective smoke detector affected the safety of the resident in his home.
The evidence provided to this Service shows that the landlord did not attend to fix the smoke detector until 25 April 2021. This was outside of its emergency repair timescales, and was unreasonable. The repair log does not indicate that it attended to conduct a ‘make safe’ repair, which would have been appropriate in the circumstances and in line with its own policy. There is also no evidence that the landlord considered providing the resident with a temporary, battery operated, smoke detector while he was waiting for it to conduct the permanent repair. This was a failing on the part of the landlord as it left the resident without a working fire alarm for 25 days.
When responding to the resident’s complaint, the landlord failed to address his concern that the smoke detector in his property was faulty. It is noted that when investigating the complaint the landlord discussed the smoke detector with the resident and confirmed that it was going to be repaired. However, in the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have assessed its handling of the smoke detector repair when responding to the complaint. That it did not was a failing in the landlord’s complaint handling and a missed opportunity to consider whether the service it had provided was appropriate in the circumstances.

A communal door repair

As part of his stage one complaint the resident said that the communal door for his building was faulty. The resident said that this had been the case for “over a year”. The Ombudsman does not dispute the resident’s claim that the door had been faulty for over a year. However, the evidence seen as part of this investigation indicates that the landlord was not aware of the fault with the door until the resident made his complaint.
The landlord attended on 23 April 2021 to fix the communal door. This was 25 working days after it was reported to the landlord. This was 5 working days outside of the timeframes set out in its repairs guidance on its website. As a communal door that closes but cannot be locked is treated as ‘routine repair’, this was a minor failing. It is acknowledged that the communal door being faulty will have been of inconvenience to the resident. Given that the repair was not completed in accordance with the landlord’s timescales for repair, it would be reasonable for the landlord to apologise for the delay and the further inconvenience that may have been caused as a result.

The resident’s request for replacement flooring after a leak

When the resident reported that his flooring had been damaged, as a result of a leak, the landlord visited his property to inspect the floor, on 16 July 2020. This was appropriate in the circumstances. The landlord’s repair policy states that floor coverings are the resident’s responsibility, however, it was reasonable for the landlord to consider the matter further given that the resident had indicated that the damage had arisen as the result of a repair for which the landlord was responsible.
When the landlord attended his property, it took photos to evidence the condition of the floor. This was a thorough approach. The landlord satisfied itself that the flooring had not been damaged as a result of the leak, and set out its findings to the resident. This was reasonable.
However, the landlord’s advice that the resident would need to contact his own insurer was not appropriate in the circumstances. The resident complained that his floor was damaged as a result of a repair for which the landlord was responsible. As such, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have referred the resident to its own insurer, so that a decision relating to liability could have been made. It is noted that the landlord felt the flooring was not damaged, but its failure to provide information about its own insurer was unfair. It failed to provide the opportunity for the resident to put his case forward, that it was responsible for the damage to his floor, and have the claim considered by the insurer.

A boundary fence repair

As part of his complaint, the resident said that a boundary fence needed repairing. The landlord’s responses to the issue were inconsistent. In its stage one complaint response it said that it was not a boundary fence and it was not its responsibility to fix it. However, its stage two complaint response indicated that it was its responsibility to repair, but it would only do so once the tenant, whose garden the fence was in, requested it. This would have been confusing for the resident, as the landlord was unclear on its own position during the complaints process.
The landlord’s stage two complaint response sought to manage the resident’s expectations on the action it would take in relation to the fence. It said that it was in discussions with his neighbour about the matter, but could not give more detail due to data protection. This was a reasonable response in the circumstances. While it is acknowledged that the resident will have been disappointed by this response, there was no failing by the landlord.

Paintwork on the exterior of the building

The resident expressed concern that the external paintwork had not been renewed for some time. In response, the landlord advised that the property had been included in its programme for cyclical maintenance that year. It gave an estimated timeframe of when it planned to do the work and apologised that it could not be more specific. This was an appropriate application of its policy as the exterior paintwork came under ‘cyclical decoration’ rather than a responsive repair and was a reasonable approach in the circumstances.
In an email on 25 January 2022, the landlord said that the works would not be completed in the year it had planned, but may be moved to the following year. The Ombudsman appreciates that it may have been disappointing for the resident to live in a property that was in need of exterior decoration. While the landlord’s responses were reasonable in the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for it to have kept the resident proactively updated about the delay. The landlord should discuss with the resident when it anticipates to carry out the work, if it has not already done so.

The resident’s reports of dust in the property

The resident had raised concern about excessive dust within the property. The landlord’s complaint responses sought to manage the resident’s expectations around the management of dust in his property. While it did not acknowledge that it had previously sought to assist him with this, it did explain its position that it could not assist the resident any further. It explained to the resident that it could not give a reason for why he believed he had excessive dust in his property. Its stage two complaint response said he could find tips for dust management on the internet. This was a reasonable approach in the circumstances.
According to the landlord’s repair log, it sought to support the resident with excessive dust in his property by fitting “centrifugal dust extractors” in 2013. This investigation has not been provided with more detail than this.
The Ombudsman does not dispute the resident’s reports that he experienced excessive dust in his property, which must have been concerning for him. Under the Landlord and Tenant Act, the landlord is obliged to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, and keep in repair and proper working order the installations for the supply of water and sanitation. The resident’s report gave no indication that there was an outstanding repair issue contributing/leading to excessive dust. As such, it was not unreasonable for the landlord to advise that there was nothing that it could do in the circumstances. The landlord sought to manage the resident’s expectations and clearly outlined that it was the resident’s responsibility to manage. It took a supportive approach by giving advice on where the resident could find assistance with the matter.

The resident’s request for sound proofing due to noise disturbance from a neighbour

The resident complained about excessive noise from his upstairs neighbour. This Service has seen no evidence that the resident made any previous reports about this matter, prior to raising his complaint. In its complaint responses the landlord sought to manage the resident’s expectations about the sound disturbance he was experiencing. It said that the building met the regulations at the time that it was converted into flats. It said that it had received no other reports of sound disturbance from other residents living in the building. This was a reasonable response in terms of its overall position, and the landlord appropriately sought to manage the resident’s expectations of what action it was willing to take.
However, the landlord’s complaint response did not acknowledge the impact the noise disturbance had on the resident. In the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided the resident with information about the Antisocial Behaviour (ASB) toolkit on its website. In addition, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have discussed the steps the resident could take to improve the situation with his neighbour. It was reasonable for the landlord to assess the noise disturbance as ‘general living noise’ and not an issue with soundproofing in the resident’s property. Had it pointed the resident to its ASB toolkit, which outlines the differences between ASB and ‘general living noise’, this could have helped manage his expectations.
While it was appropriate for the landlord to comment on the build, it should reasonably have provided the resident with further information in relation to dealing with noise disturbances. That the landlord did not was a failing in its handling of the matter and a missed opportunity to provide the resident with some support. The landlord’s response to the matter as a whole was cursory and does not demonstrate that it had taken into consideration how the resident was being affected by the issues he had complained about. The landlord should now ensure that it takes appropriate steps to provide the resident with the relevant information.

Complaint handling

The resident contacted this Service for assistance as he was unhappy with how the landlord was handling repairs at the property. He had also expressed concern that the relationship between him and the landlord had broken down and asked for the Ombudsman’s assistance in raising a complaint. This Service wrote to the landlord on 18 March 2021 and asked it to acknowledge the complaint within five working days. The landlord did not issue a response in time. This was a failure to comply with its complaint policy that says all stage one complaints will be acknowledged within two working days. Following further contact from the Ombudsman, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage one complaint on 14 April 2021. This was 17 working days after the complaint was made and a departure from the timescales detailed in the landlord’s complaints policy. The result was a protracted complaints process for the resident.
When the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint it said that it would respond by 28 April 2021. This was outside of the timeframe requested in the Ombudsman’s letter and 27 working days after the complaint was made. The extension request did not acknowledge or apologise for the delay the resident had experienced up to that point and was a further failing in the landlord’s complaint handling. Asking for an extension in itself was not unreasonable, as the resident’s complaint related to several unrelated matters. It is reasonable to expect that it would take the landlord time to get information on all of the matters and provide a comprehensive response. But, it is equally reasonable to expect the landlord to have acknowledged the delay already experienced by the resident.
The landlord sent its stage one complaint response on 10 May 2021, 35 working days after the resident made his complaint. This was outside of the timeframes set out in the landlord’s complaint policy and the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It is noted that landlord sent its stage one complaint response within the timeframe it set out in its extension request. It apologised and offered the resident £50 in compensation to acknowledge the delay in its complaint handling, which was reasonable in the circumstances.
There was then further delay by the landlord in its response to the complaint at stage two. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage two complaint on 9 July 2021, which was five working days later than the deadline requested by this Service. This resulted in a further delay to the process and was a failing.
On 4 August 2021, the landlord advised it would need a further 20 working days to respond to the resident’s stage two complaint. The landlord followed up its letter with a phone call to the resident to explain why it needed more time. The Code says that complaint extensions “should not exceed a further 10 days” and if more than 10 days is required, this should be agreed by both parties. It is unclear whether the resident agreed to the extension; however, it was appropriate for the landlord to make contact by phone and to explain why it was unable to provide a complaint response by the original deadline. This was a reasonable approach in the circumstances, given the complaint related to several matters and the landlord sought to provide a comprehensive response to the resident.
The landlord’s stage two complaint response was sent to the resident on 31 August 2021, 47 working days after the escalation request was made. It is noted that this was in part due to its reasonable extension request. However, the landlord’s stage two complaint response did not acknowledge or apologise for the delay, as it had done in its stage one complaint response. This was a failure to acknowledge the detriment, time and trouble experienced by the residentand a missed opportunity to put things right. The landlord’s approach to acknowledging and offering compensation for complaint delays lacked consistency and has been reflected in the order outlined below. In relation to the boundary fence repair, the landlord’s complaint responses also lacked clarity and were inconsistent, which was a further failure in its complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of replacement windows.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a blocked toilet.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of a boiler repair.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of a fire alarm repair.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of a communal door repair.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for replacement flooring after a leak.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a boundary fence repair.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of paintwork on the exterior of the building.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of dust in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for sound proofing due to noise disturbance from a neighbour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

The landlord failed to communicate effectively with the resident about the process of replacing his windows and did not keep him informed. Its responses lacked detail and it gave incorrect information at times. When it acknowledged its failings, it did not give an explanation of why it had failed and what learning it had done. The redress offered did not put things right for the resident.
The landlord was not proactive in trying to find the cause of the blocked toilet. It did not acknowledge its own failings in its complaint responses. It did not acknowledge the time, trouble and distress the issue had caused the resident.
The landlord apologised and awarded compensation for its failings in relation to a boiler repair. But it failed to acknowledge that it had poor record keeping in relation to the matter and did not identify what learning it had done, in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles.
The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s report of a broken smoke detector in line with its repairs policy. Its complaint responses failed to acknowledge the detriment suffered by the resident.
The landlord did not adhere to the timescales in its repair policy when completing the repair of the communal door.
The landlord investigated the resident’s claim that his floor was damaged, as a result of a leak. Its approach was thorough and it documented evidence of its findings. However, the landlord failed to provide the resident with information about its insurers.
The landlord’s comments about the repair of the fence were inconsistent, and confusing for the resident. However, its final response sought to manage the resident’s expectations on the action it would take, in relation to the fence and reassure the resident that it was taking the appropriate action.
While the landlord postponed the paintwork to the exterior of the building, which was disappointing for the resident, there was no significant detriment caused.
The landlord sought to manage the resident’s expectations about dust in his property, and clearly outlined that it was the resident’s responsibility to manage. It took a supportive approach by giving advice on where the resident could find assistance with the matter.
The landlord failed to provide support and advice to the resident around noise disturbance. Its overall position was reasonable in relation to the noise disturbance, but it would have been reasonable to give the resident advice and support about the matter, in line with its ASB toolkit.
The landlord acknowledged, apologised and offered compensation for its complaint handling delays at stage one of the process. Its approach was reasonable at stage one. The resident experienced longer delays at stage two of the process, but the landlord failed to apologise or acknowledge the inconvenience that was caused as a result.
The landlord’s record keeping in relation to the boiler repair was poor, which could reasonably be expected to have impacted on its ability to respond to the matter, and any associated complaint.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report it is ordered that the landlord:

a. Apologise for the failings identified within it;

b. Pay the resident £1000 in compensation, made up of:

The £275 it offered for its failings in its handling of replacement windows and a boiler repair (if it has not already done so);
A further £150 in recognition of the inconvenience, time and trouble experienced by the resident in relation to its handling of replacement windows and a boiler repair;
£200 in recognition of the distress, time and trouble caused by its handing of a blocked toilet;
£100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of a fire alarm repair;
£100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s request for replacement flooring;
£50 in recognition of its failure to support the resident in managing the sound disturbance from a neighbour;
The £50 it offered for its complaint handling at stage one (if it has not already done so);
A further £75 in recognition of the time, trouble and inconvenience experienced by the resident for its handling of the stage two complaint;

The landlord should provide the relevant details about how the resident can make a claim on its insurance;
The landlord should provide the resident with advice about its ASB toolkit on its website, and how it can further assist him in relation to noise disturbance.

Within eight weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Conduct a review into its handling of the boiler repair. It should identify learning, in particular how it records contractor appointments on its systems. It should share its findings with the Ombudsman, also within eight weeks.
2. Conduct training with its complaint handling staff with a focus on the complaint handling timescales set out in the Code, putting things right in the event that complaint responses are delayed, and ensuring its response are clear. The dates of the training and content should be provided to this Service.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord tells the resident when it plans to decorate the exterior of the building(if has not already done so), as its position has changed since it issued its final complaint response.