ForHousing Limited (202121688)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202121688

ForHousing Limited

31July 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:
1. the landlord’s handling of repairs required to address the heating issues in the resident’s property, in particular, the installation of radiators to his kitchen and living room.
2. the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the safety and security of his property including fencing, installation of lighting and provision of CCTV.
3. the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be re-housed.
4. the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Scope of Investigation

The resident’s original complaint to the landlord expressed general concerns with regard to repairs to his property, some of which he believed to be long outstanding. During the complaints process, the resident further clarified these concerns. It is understood that the resident’s main complaint with regard to repairs was the length of time that the landlord had taken to address the cold temperature and heating issues at his property. In particular, the resident was concerned at the length of time it took for the landlord to install radiators in his kitchen and living room and the consequent impact of this on his health and wellbeing. Accordingly, this investigation report has focused on that issue.
It is noted that part of the resident’s complaint which has been referred to this Service is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused. The resident complained that he had made a request for a move in October 2019 but this was not acted on by the landlord until the Stage 2 complaint review meeting which took place on 23 November 2021.
The Ombudsman’s remit in relation to complaints is set out in its Scheme. Paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in its opinion, were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.
The resident’s complaint was first logged with the landlord on 22 September 2021. One of the issues raised by the resident in the formal complaint was that he no longer wished to stay at the property. Whilst it would be reasonable to expect the landlord to address that issue as part of its complaint handling (as it did), the landlord could not reasonably be expected to review its response to the resident’s request for a move which he made in October 2019. This is because it pre-dated the formal complaint by a period of time considerably in excess of 6 months. Accordingly, this investigation report has focused on the resident’s more recent request to be moved, which was made at the time of his formal complaint of 22 September 2021.
The resident provided information to this Service on 6 October 2022 concerning markers which he had discovered had been placed on his tenancy and of which he had been unaware. Whilst it is noted that the resident has concerns regarding this issue, this investigation report will not consider issues which have arisen after the date of the landlord’s Stage 2 response. This is because the landlord has not had an opportunity to investigate and respond to any complaint which may be raised by the resident in respect of those events. Any such issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord with a tenancy start date of 4 February 2019.
The property is a ground floor one bedroom flat within a sheltered scheme.
Under the resident’s tenancy agreement with the landlord, the landlord owed various obligations to the resident. These included obligations:
1. to keep in repair and working order the installations for room heating;
2. to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the resident’s property including external walls, doors, window and door frames;
3. to take reasonable care to keep shared areas in reasonable repair and keep the lighting of these areas in working order.
The landlord’s repairs policy and maintenance policy sets out the landlord’s approach to responsive repairs, planned and cyclical maintenance. Under this policy, the landlord aims to ensure that responsive repairs are completed in one visit and are “right first time”. Repairs are responded to according to their level of priority, such as whether they are emergency, urgent or routine. Where circumstances are appropriate or necessary, such as a tenant with support needs, a repair may be escalated to a higher priority.
The landlord’s internal transfer procedure sets out the ways in which a tenant can transfer to another property. This explains that the landlord would consider a move on management grounds to be required only in exceptional circumstances and due to significant issues at the tenant’s current property.
The landlord operates a three stage complaints procedure under its redress policy. As a first response to the initial complaint, the landlord focusses on identifying and agreeing an appropriate remedy with the complainant within 2 working days of the initial complaint. If this is not achieved, a Stage 1 investigation into the complaint is conducted by a manager from the landlord’s relevant service area within 10 working days of escalation of the complaint.
Complaints are escalated to a Stage 2 review if the outcome of the Stage 1 investigation is not agreed or delivered or at the complainant’s request. The Stage 2 review comprises an independent review of the complaint carried out by the landlord’s Customer Feedback and Improvement Team within 5 working days of escalation or within 21 working days of escalation where a Complaints Panel is required. The policy contains no specific requirements for the constitution of a Complaints Panel.
Under the landlord’s redress policy, discretionary compensation will be considered on a case by case basis.

Summary of events

The resident’s tenancy at the property commenced on 4 February 2019.
Following commencement of the tenancy, various repairs were carried out by the landlord to address cold and draughts which the resident was experiencing in the property:
1. On 18 April 2019, the repair log notes that the gaps around waste pipes to the outer kitchen wall required sealing as it was very draughty. The repair log classified the job as minor, requiring action within 21 days. The repair log notes that the landlord’s operative attended on 7 May 2019 but was unable to complete the work due to lack of access.
2. On 23 October 2019, the resident complained to the Supported Housing Manager (SHM) that as the cold weather had come, his property was constantly cold even with the heating on. He could feel wind and draughts coming from the kitchen and found it hard to go into the kitchen as he had arthritis in his hands and feet and the cold made it worse.
3. In response to this email, the landlord’s scheme co-ordinator appears to have visited the property. His recommendation to address the cold draughts in the kitchen appears in the landlord’s repair log for 12 November 2019. This notes that there was damage to the outside brickwork and vents that the draught was coming from which needed inspection and follow on works if required.
4. On 12 November 2019, the landlord’s operative attended the property and inspected and took photos of the external and internal brickwork, pointing and cavity issues. The repair log noted that follow on works were required to the brickwork. These works were approved by the landlord and partially completed on 12 December 2019 but not fully completed on that day due to weather conditions. It appears from the log that these works were completed on 7 February 2020.
5. On 28 February 2020, the repair log records a repair was raised to the windows to the living room and kitchen which was a routine repair required to be carried out within 10 days. An operative attended the property on 11 March 2020 and noted that follow on works were required to adjust windows to the living room and kitchen which were allowing draughts into the property. These works were due to be carried out on 25 March 2020 but were cancelled due to Covid-19 and subsequently completed on 4 June 2020.
On 29 September 2020, the repair log records that the resident raised a repair for a gas engineer, reporting that the radiator in the property was not enough to heat the living room and kitchen. The job was attended on 30 September 2020. The operative’s conclusion from the visit is not clear from the repair log. Information provided by the landlord to this Service indicates that a gas engineer who visited the property advised the landlord that there was nowhere to locate a radiator in the kitchen. There is no record of this advice in the landlord’s records produced to this Service. According to the resident, a surveyor for the landlord visited his property on 4 October 2020 and queried why he should have a radiator in the kitchen when nobody else had one.
The repair log for 8 January 2021 records that a job was raised to upsize the radiator to the living room. A larger radiator to the resident’s living room was fitted on 9 February 2021.
On 9 September 2021, the repair log records that the resident reported he was struggling with cold and needed a radiator in the kitchen. A job was raised for inspection and approval of a kitchen radiator. The landlord’s operative attended the property on 14 September 2021 and a job was raised for the radiator to be fitted.
During September 2021, the resident experienced issues with people intruding into the communal area by the window to his property. The resident alleged he was video recorded while in his flat, which he reported to the police. The resident believed that his window had been tampered with and raised a repair request with the landlord to fix the window on 18 September 2021. The resident’s neighbour reported to him that he had witnessed someone using the area outside the resident’s window as a toilet. Garden furniture was reported to have been stolen.
The resident made the landlord aware of these incidents. The landlord has advised this Service that following the resident’s report that his window had been tampered with, a home visit was completed by the landlord’s scheme manager to reassure the resident. The resident was advised to contact the police and the landlord should there be any further incidents. The incidents were not otherwise formally investigated via the landlord’s ASB procedure.
On 21 September 2021, the landlord’s Scheme Management Officer (SMO) had an exchange of emails and a conversation with the resident. In an email to the resident, the SMO noted that the resident had said that he felt that he could not stay at the property. Regarding issues concerning security and safety, she updated him that the garden foliage was being looked at that week; that the lights in the communal area had been repaired (although not all had been repaired as the electrician needed to return with parts); and that she had requested access to the CCTV for any details of the incidents which had occurred and would chase it again that day. In the email exchange, the resident queried the signage in the block which referred to security protecting the premises.
On the same day, the SMO liaised with the resident’s daughter who had contacted the landlord regarding the resident’s proposed move. The SMO explained the process to obtain a move and that the resident needed to apply for properties via the ‘property pool’. She stated that she presumed that the resident’s previous application to move had lapsed and offered assistance if the resident needed help getting the application back up and running.
On 22 September 2021:
1. The repair log notes that a radiator was fitted to the resident’s kitchen.
2. In an exchange of emails between the resident and the landlord’s SMO, the resident stated that the radiator in the kitchen had made a difference but that the coldness seemed to be coming from behind the kitchen units.
3. The resident asked the SMO for an update on his request for CCTV footage of the intruders and the proposed gate to the communal area.
4. The SMO confirmed that, after investigation, the security signage did not relate to a company in recent use and presumed that the sign had remained there in excess of 10 years.
5. The resident logged a formal complaint with the landlord by email.
The resident’s formal complaint dated 22 September 2021 raised a number of issues, in summary:
1. That some repairs were outstanding that had been reported a long time ago. The only item that had been completed was that he had asked for a radiator to be installed in his kitchen in 2019 which was finally installed on 21 September 2021, well over 12 months later. The resident asked for a list of opened, completed and outstanding repairs to his property.
2. He wanted to know what was being done with regard to the security and safety of residents. In particular:
  1. He had asked for copies of footage from security cameras and signage relating to it.
  2. Garden furniture had been stolen due to lack of security.
  3. The garden was overgrown and so it was not possible to see anything at night, let alone intruders.
  4. He had sustained an injury due to a person videoing him in his living room, for which he had a crime reference number and a doctor’s letter.
3. There was an infestation of rats.
4. He wanted to know if his tenancy was the sheltered housing which he had signed up for. This was for over 55s but younger people were moving in. He had asked for a copy of his tenancy agreement.
5. He did not wish to stay at the property. The landlord had not made the premises secure. The resident felt that as he was on the ground floor he was more at risk from intruders and informed the landlord that he was still live on the property pool and so would not need to re-register.
On 23 September 2021, the Asset Management Surveyor for the landlord requested that further works be carried out at the resident’s flat. These works were to remove the kitchen worktops, sink and corner unit to check for draught holes and for these to be repaired, if found, to alleviate draughts.
On 27 September 2021, the resident queried where he was with the official complaint as he had not heard anything.
On 27 September 2021, the resident’s email of 22 September 2021 was acknowledged by the landlord’s SMO. She provided some comments on the points raised and informed him that all issues would be discussed with the redress team and that a formal response would be sent to him.
On 12 October 2021, the landlord’s Feedback and Improvement Officer (FIO) provided a formal Stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint. This addressed each item of the complaint separately:
1. With regard to repairs, the landlord’s FIO provided a list of opened and completed repairs carried out at the property between 7 May 2019 and 22 September 2021.
2. The landlord provided a list of outstanding works with the dates when the repair was first raised and the date they were due to be completed. There were four outstanding repairs being:
  1. a repair to the living room window which was raised on 18 September 2021 and booked to be repaired on 19 October 2021;
  2. a hole in the living room wall which was raised on 1 October 2021 and booked to be repaired on 21 October 2021;
  3. ducting for pipes which was raised on 1 October 2021 and attended to on 8 October 2021 for which follow on works were required from a heating engineer;
  4. kitchen works to draught holes which had been raised on 1 October 2021 and booked for repair on 15 October 2021.
3. The landlord requested that the resident let it know if any other repairs were outstanding, or not listed, so that it could chase these up.
4. With regard to safety and security issues, the resident was advised that the Scheme Management Officer (SMO) was looking at options.
5. The licensee of the CCTV had been asked for its permission for footage to be used of the incident involving the resident. It had been ascertained that details of the incident could not be seen on the live feed of the gardens. A contact number was provided which the resident could supply to the police investigating the incident if required.
6. With regard to the overgrown garden, bushes had been cut back and a felled tree had been removed.
7. The landlord confirmed that the resident’s tenancy contract was an older one and that the contract had changed slightly under the present landlord.
8. With regard to the rat infestation, Rentokil had been authorised to commence works in the garden to treat the rats and the landlord was waiting for a date when traps would be laid down.
9. With regard to the resident’s request for rehousing, the SMO had previously offered advice to the resident’s daughter on options. The resident had confirmed to the FIO that he was seeking a move through a private landlord.
10. The response advised that the resident could request a complaint review within 15 working days.
On 3 November 2021, the resident had a meeting with the landlord’s Supported Housing Manager (SHM) to discuss the issues raised in the complaint. The landlord summarised the conversation in an attendance note. It was agreed at this meeting that the resident’s complaint should be heard at Stage 2. The note recorded the reasons the resident required a Stage 2 review, these being:
1. There had been no acknowledgement or investigation into the time it had taken to get repairs done.
2. There was no mention of the length of time to install the radiators, being 6 months in the living room and 30 months in the kitchen.
3. There was no recognition that the resident felt he had had to fight for everything. He felt frustrated, angry and upset by the whole situation. He was not able to talk this through during the investigation as he did not receive a phone call.
4. There was no recognition of the inconvenience caused by waiting for operatives to attend and not turning up.
5. The situation had had an impact on his mental health and wellbeing. It had caused stress and anxiety.
6. The resident had been told by the surveyor who attended on 4 October 2020 that he could not have a radiator installed in the kitchen as no one else had one. His circumstances were not taken into account.
The note of the meeting records that during this meeting the resident reported that the installation of the large radiator in the living room and in the kitchen had helped but he still felt cold. It recorded that the resident and the landlord’s SHM discussed a number of other issues relating to the resident’s living conditions at this meeting:
1. With regard to the rat infestation, the landlord had asked Rentokil to attend and resolve the issue. The resident confirmed that since they had installed grates in the ground the situation had improved.
2. With regard to security, and the incidents suffered by the resident, the SHM confirmed that the CCTV did not record the incident and that if it happened again to call the police or use the pull cord.
3. With regard to security, the landlord was carrying out a consultation with regard to security gates.
4. The resident reiterated that he was not happy in his home and wanted to move as soon as possible. He was frustrated that information he had supplied had not been added to the property pool. The landlord’s SHM agreed to check this for him and the attendance note records that this was subsequently done. The landlord’s SHM offered to help the resident bid on properties in the property pool but the resident advised that he could do this himself.
On 4 November 2021, the landlord’s SHM made a formal request on the resident’s behalf for the complaint to be escalated to Stage 2 and set out the reasons for the request, as set out above. The SHM requested that the review be held face to face, being the resident’s preference to a video call.
On 15 November 2021, the landlord’s FIO wrote to the resident with details of the Stage 2 review meeting and the issues which would be covered. In the letter, the FIO made clear that issues relating to the death of the resident’s brother and rehousing options would not be part of the review as they were not part of the initial complaint and would be dealt with separately.
A hearing of the landlord’s review panel took place on 23 November 2021 to discuss the resident’s complaint. The panel consisted of the landlord’s FIO, the landlord’s Feedback and Improvement Manager and two tenant panel members trained to facilitate Stage 2 panel hearings. The note of the meeting records that the resident objected to the fact that panel members were all from Manchester and that the FIO was on the panel. The resident participated at the meeting and provided further information regarding his concerns which were discussed at the meeting. The issues discussed included:
1. The resident had reported to the landlord that the property was freezing cold on 19 April 2019. The radiator in the living room was tiny and was the only radiator in the living room through to the kitchen. The resident suffered from Reynaud’s in his hands.
2. It took 22 months to have the longer radiator installed in the living room. This made a big difference when it was fitted in February 2021.
3. The request for a radiator in the kitchen took 30 months to fit. On 4 October 2020, the kitchen was inspected and the surveyor queried why he should have a radiator in the kitchen when nobody else had one. The radiator was fitted in the kitchen in October 2021.
4. In the meantime, the resident had put his own fire in the living room which had cost him £700.
5. The resident confirmed that these issues were now resolved but felt he had suffered for 30 months and that this had caused him upset.
6. With regard to security, the landlord’s website stated that there is full security in the flat and communal areas. The landlord kept advising that it was going to improve security but had not done anything about it. In particular, the resident expressed particular concerns that:
  1. His neighbour had witnessed somebody make a mess outside his property. The resident had asked to review the CCTV to identify who had done this but had been given different reasons by the landlord for not being able to review it. The landlord confirmed at the meeting that there was no evidence on the camera. The resident wanted a barrier to be put up to block access to his flat window.
  2. The pathway outside the front of the block was not well lit at night.
7. With regard to the resident’s requested move, in October 2019 the resident had emailed the SHM and requested a move from the property as it was too difficult living facing his brother’s property who had died. He still wanted to move. He could not sleep in the property due to the security issues. A doctor’s letter had been sent through supporting this request.
8. The resident shared his medical record with the meeting panel and that he had had a breakdown in relation to the events. He had not felt supported by the landlord.
9. In relation to the investigation, the resident had been informed that the landlord would contact him within 2 days. The resident had contacted the landlord on 6 October 2021 and it had then taken 7 days to get a response.
10. The resident asked for clarity on the age restrictions at the property. He had signed up for a tenancy for people aged 55 and over and queried how somebody with a child could be in sheltered housing.
The conclusion of the meeting was that moving was the resident’s number one priority. The other main issue was security, that being fencing under the window to the resident’s flat and lighting on the path. The landlord agreed to look into these issues and the impact that this had had on the resident. The outcome sought by the resident was to have enough money to be able to move to a private landlord. He wanted a 100% refund on his rent for 30 months and compensation for stress.
Following the meeting, on 25 November 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident and informed him that it had agreed to progress a management move for him. It was explained that this was a move arranged outside the property pool and that the landlord would look at directly moving the resident to an available suitable property. The resident was advised that the SHM would be in contact with him further about this and was also looking at the lack of lighting on the pathway which was of immediate concern. The letter stated that a written response to the complaint would be provided by 9 December 2021.
On 9 December 2021, the landlord provided its Stage 2 response:
1. It summarised the issues raised as part of the resident’s complaint and further explained at the meeting, as summarised above.
2. It acknowledged that the delay in contacting the resident to acknowledge the complaint was not acceptable. It also recognised that, although the Stage 1 response had covered the issues raised, it did not acknowledge the extent of the impact on the resident. The landlord offered an apology for this.
3. With regard to the substantive issues in the complaint:
  1. The response agreed that the time taken to provide an additional radiator in the kitchen and replace the radiator in the lounge with a larger radiator was excessive and had had an impact on the resident’s physical and mental wellbeing. The landlord recognised that the resident was particularly susceptible to the cold given his medical conditions and that he had made multiple attempts to pursue this matter before it was eventually resolved, resulting in inconvenience and distress. The landlord offered a discretionary compensation payment of £250.
  2. With regard to security, following the meeting, the landlord’s SHM had been instructed to look at the issue of lighting around the path to the entrance of the block as a matter of priority. She had arranged for a survey of the lighting to take place and would share the results of this when it had been completed.
  3. In relation to the fencing proposals, a letter had been delivered to all residents on the 2 December 2021 in order to carry out consultation. The letter asked for feedback from all residents by 15 December 2021. Should there be a majority approval, then costings would be submitted for funding for the proposal. The letter also asked for feedback on alternative ideas should this not meet majority approval.
  4. The response clarified that the sheltered accommodation was for people over 55 and/or with a support need. If there were tenants living at the scheme who were under 55, this was because they met the support criteria.
  5. With regard to the resident’s need for rehousing, the response referred to the fact that the need for this was related to the resident’s brother’s death which was subject to a separate complaint. Although not part of this particular complaint, the panel felt it was appropriate to raise this matter as living in the flat was clearly have a hugely detrimental impact on the resident’s mental wellbeing. The landlord had therefore requested that a management move be approved in order to support the resident in moving from the property.
  6. The letter recorded that, following the meeting, the landlord’s SHM had been in contact with the resident by telephone on 29 November 2021 to discuss the move when he had advised he would like a one bedroom bungalow. The SHM had further contacted him on 1 December 2021 to advise that all of the landlord’s homes were currently let but that once a one bedroom bungalow became available, she would let him know. She advised that he might want to also consider a ground floor flat to give him more options.
On 18 December 2021, the resident summarised the outstanding issues in his complaint in an email to his MP. The complaint was referred to this Service to consider. The issues identified by the resident to this Service were :
1. He believed that the landlord should have offered further compensation in recognition of the £700 cost of the fire he had had to install due to lack of heating and the distress he had experienced. The heating issues had exacerbated his arthritis.
2. The landlord’s response to his concerns about the safety of his property including fencing, installation of lighting and CCTV. The resident expressed concerns that the landlord had not recognised or compensated him for the incidents which had occurred and the stress and anxiety caused to him.
3. The landlord’s handling of his request to be rehoused. His request for a move – which he made to the SHM in October 2019 – was not acted on and was only acted on because of the Stage 2 meeting. He had been offered no compensation for this.
4. The landlord’s handling of the complaint. The resident felt that the Stage 2 panel all knew each other and queried how the FIO who had investigated the Stage 1 complaint could be a member of the panel.

Post complaint

On 22 December 2021, the landlord’s SHM wrote to the resident to provide an update following the Stage 2 review of his complaint:
1. Following the tenant consultation regarding the fencing to the side of the block, no objections had been received and so the landlord would progress with renewing the fencing. This would improve the safety of the area, as the rear garden would become enclosed. Once she had a date for installation, she would let him know.
2. An upgrade to the CCTV had been requested as it did not have the facilities that are required to be effective. This would be completed as soon as possible. The landlord apologised if the resident felt he had not had accurate information regarding the availability of CCTV. The information shared via email was accurate at the time, however as the landlord looked into the matter further, more information came to light that confirmed it did not have the full range of functionality required.
3. The landlord had removed external building signage which the resident had queried and which indicated that there was a 24 hour security presence available around the building. When the landlord had looked into the signage, the company’s details on the sign no longer existed and although the signage may have acted as a deterrent, it was removed to ensure it did not cause confusion or mislead tenants.
4. The electrical survey had been completed and the landlord would be installing some additional lighting to illuminate the pathway to the entrance door. Once the landlord had a date for installation, it would update the resident.
5. With regard to the property pool and the resident’s concern that the property pool was awaiting information from the landlord, the SHM confirmed that it had supplied the pool with the information requested and had chased the property pool when the resident’s account was showing as pending. On 16 November 2021, it had contacted the manager of the property pool which confirmed it had the required information. It then resupplied the information when requested. The landlord was aware that there had been a backlog in the pool manager processing information.
On 25 January 2022, the landlord suggested mediation to the resident which he was not inclined to pursue.
The resident terminated his tenancy at the property on 13 February 2022 and moved into a new property with the same landlord.

Assessment and findings

Repairs

With regard to repairs, it is apparent from the repair log that the resident reported cold and draughts in the kitchen at his property from close to the outset of his tenancy.
On 18 April 2019, the repair log noted that the kitchen was draughty and the landlord identified that gaps around pipes to the outer kitchen wall required sealing. Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord was responsible for the repair to the brickwork as it was responsible for the structure and exterior of the property. Under the landlord’s repairs policy, no specific timeframe is provided for responsive repairs which are responded to according to their level of priority. The landlord classified the repair as minor, requiring it to be completed within 21 days.
The landlord’s operative attended to seal the gaps to the kitchen wall on 7 May 2019 but was unable to complete the work due to lack of access. It is unclear from the landlord’s records what further action the landlord took or planned at this stage to seal the gaps to the exterior wall.
It seems that it was not until 23 October 2019, when the resident complained again of cold and draughts in the kitchen and that these were affecting his arthritis, that the landlord arranged for an inspection which resulted in a recommendation that works to the brickwork should be carried out. These works commenced on 12 November 2019 with a visit to the property and were completed on 7 February 2020.
The issue of draughts to the kitchen arising through exterior brickwork therefore took a period of almost 10 months to resolve. Although it is noted that some of the delay during this period was due to lack of access to the property and bad weather conditions, those factors do not account for all of the delay to the works which were completed significantly beyond the 21 days assessed as appropriate by the landlord.
Subsequently, the landlord carried out works to the living room and kitchen windows which were also allowing draughts. The landlord was responsible for these repairs under the tenancy agreement. The works were raised on 28 February 2020 and were scheduled to be completed within a reasonable time on 25 March 2020. Due to the impact of Covid-19, the works were not completed until 4 June 2020. Although these repairs were conducted well in excess of the landlord’s repairs timescales, there was mitigation in this instance due to the Covid-19 lockdown.
The issue of cold at the property persisted, however. The resident raised a repair for a gas engineer on 29 September 2020, reporting that the radiator was not offering sufficient heating for the living room and kitchen. The outcome of the gas engineer’s visit on 30 September 2020 is not clear, indicating poor record keeping by the landlord.
A larger radiator to the resident’s living room was eventually fitted on 9 February 2021. This was some 4 months after the resident’s request on 29 September 2020 and the reason for this delay is not clear from the landlord’s records.
It is also unclear from the landlord’s records why the kitchen radiator was not installed at the same time. It is understood that the landlord was advised that there was nowhere to locate a radiator in the kitchen, although there is no record of this advice on the repair log. Notwithstanding that advice, the landlord did eventually install a radiator to the kitchen on 22 September 2021, after the resident again complained of cold in the kitchen on 9 September 2021. The kitchen radiator was therefore installed almost a year after the resident had raised the issue of inadequate radiator heating with the landlord by way of a requested repair on 29 September 2020 and a considerably longer period from when he first reported cold and draughts to the kitchen on 18 April 2019.
At the time of the resident’s formal complaint on 22 September 2021, the landlord had planned further works to try to counter the draught in the kitchen, which persisted. Works to repair the draught holes were raised on 1 October 2021 and booked for repair on 15 October 2021. The resident reported to the Stage 2 panel hearing on 23 November 2021 that the issue had been resolved.
In all, the resident suffered a lengthy period of cold and draughts in his property from 18 April 2019 and for about two and a half years.
Given the nature of the problem and number of potential causes of it, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have conducted an inspection of the property at an early stage to identify the possible sources of the cold and draughts and then to have planned and actively managed the works and monitored their effect to ensure that they were successful. It would have been reasonable for a review of radiator size and requirements to have been made as part of this process.
Instead, the landlord took steps to address the problem as and when the resident complained, by attempting various repairs to the external brickwork, the windows, and ultimately the installation of extra heating. However, this meant that the onus was left on the resident to raise his concerns with the landlord. The works were responsive and in themselves unreasonably delayed. This meant that the resolution of the problem was unnecessarily prolonged.
This caused detriment to the resident. The resident had to live in cold and draughty conditions for a significant period which impacted his physical and mental wellbeing. The effect of this was amplified for the resident due to his medical conditions of which the landlord was aware. He was caused inconvenience in having to chase repairs and he advised that he had chosen to spend £700 to install alternative means of heating in the living room in order to keep himself warm.
It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge in its Stage 2 response that there had been an excessive delay in providing additional heating to the resident’s property and to recognise the impact on the resident’s physical and mental wellbeing as well as the inconvenience and distress this had caused. However, the £250 compensation offered to the resident was not proportionate to the adverse effect caused to the resident by the length of time he was without a warm, draught free home, the numerous occasions when he had to raise and attend repairs, and that he was put to additional costs in order to heat the property.
In light of this, the landlord is ordered to pay a further award of compensation of £500 for its maladministration with regard to the unreasonable delay in addressing the poor heating in the resident’s flat and the inconvenience and distress caused to him.

Security

With regard to security at the resident’s property, in September 2021 the resident suffered two incidents at his property where intruders were apparently able to access the area beneath his window. On one occasion, the resident was filmed in his property and on the other an intruder used the area beneath the window as a toilet. Understandably, this caused the resident distress and exacerbated his concerns regarding his security and safety at the property. This included concerns regarding the security of the garden from which furniture had been stolen.
The resident made the landlord aware of these incidents and referred one matter to the police. This is reflected in the contemporaneous email exchanges between the resident and the landlord’s SMO in September 2021.
The landlord responded to the security issues which the resident raised, as described in emails of 21-22 September 2021. The steps outlined in these emails were that:
1. It arranged for the overgrown foliage in the garden to be looked at, which the resident felt made it difficult to see anything at night. The foliage was subsequently cut back and a felled tree removed. These works had been done by the time of the Stage 1 response on 12 October 2021.
2. The lights in the communal areas were repaired to improve lighting.
3. It arranged for the CCTV footage to be reviewed for details of the intruders although unfortunately this did not shed any light on their identity. The landlord confirmed this to the resident and supplied a contact number for the resident to supply to the police if required.
4. It reviewed its security signage and removed it as it was outdated.
The landlord subsequently more generally reviewed options for safety and security as follows:
1. On 2 December 2021, the landlord carried out a consultation with residents to renew fencing which would improve the safety of the area as the rear garden would be enclosed. It is noted from post complaint correspondence of 22 December 2021 that no objections were received to the proposal and that the landlord intended to progress it.
2. The landlord arranged to carry out a survey of lighting around the pathway to the entrance of the block. This was confirmed to the resident in the Stage 2 response of 9 December 2021. It is noted from post complaint correspondence of 22 December 2021 that the result of the electrical survey was that the landlord intended to install additional lighting to illuminate the pathway.
3. The landlord upgraded its CCTV as the existing CCTV did not have the full range of functionality required.
The landlord also took steps to support the resident. Reassurance was provided by a home visit to the resident by the landlord’s scheme manager and appropriate advice was given to contact the police in the event of further incidents. The resident was advised by the landlord’s SHM on 3 November 2021 that if any further incidents occurred the resident should call the police or use the pull cord.
It is noted that in his complaint to this Service, the resident expressed concerns that the landlord had not recognised or compensated him for the incidents which had occurred and the stress and anxiety caused to him. Although this Service appreciates that the resident was caused distress by the perpetrators’ behaviour, the landlord’s actions as set out above were an appropriate and proportionate response to the circumstances which occurred.
The landlord promptly reviewed the existing security arrangements and improved them where it considered this necessary and appropriate. It acted consistently with its obligations under the tenancy agreement to take reasonable care to keep shared areas in repair and keep the lighting of these areas in working order. The resident was given appropriate support and advice on how to deal with future such incidents.
Under the circumstances, this Service has found no service failure in respect of the landlord’s responses to the resident’s reports of his concerns for safety and security.

Re-housing request

With regard to the resident’s request to be rehoused, it is understood that following the death of his brother, the resident indicated to the landlord in October 2019 that he wished to move somewhere else. He reiterated this request in his subsequent email of 21 September 2021 and referred to it in his formal complaint of 22 September 2021. For the reasons explained above, this investigation report has only considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s later request.
It is clear that the resident was aware of the process for applying for a move via the property pool and that he felt able to manage the process himself. This was discussed in particular at the meeting on 3 November 2021.
The landlord made reasonable offers of support to the resident in the event that he needed assistance in the move. On 21 September 2021, when the resident informed the landlord that he felt he could not stay at the property, the SMO liaised with the resident’s daughter to explain the process and to offer assistance if the resident needed help in getting the application back up and running.
On 3 November 2021, the landlord’s SHM followed up on the resident’s behalf to add the information which the property pool stated was missing and reported back to the resident. The landlord’s SHM offered to help the resident bid on properties in the property pool but the resident advised that he could do this himself.
The resident’s complaint is that his request for a move was made in October 2019 and was only acted on because of the Stage 2 meeting. However, it was explained by the landlord in its letter to the resident on 25 November 2021, following the Stage 2 review meeting, that it had decided to facilitate a management move for the resident. This was a move outside of the property pool under which the resident had previously applied.
Under the landlord’s internal transfer policy, the landlord would consider a move on management grounds only in exceptional circumstances. The landlord’s decision to progress a management move was made after taking into account the evidence which it heard during the Stage 2 review meeting and, in particular, the impact it was having on the resident to stay at the property. It was reasonable for the landlord to satisfy itself that the exceptional circumstances required for a management move had been met and it took appropriate action once it had done so.
Under the circumstances, this Service has found no service failure in respect of the resident’s request to be rehoused.

Complaint handling

With regard to the landlord’s handling of the complaint, the resident logged his complaint with the landlord on 22 September 2021. Under the landlord’s redress policy, the landlord should have contacted the resident within 2 working days with a focus on identifying and agreeing a remedy with him. The resident received a response to his email complaint from the SMO on 27 September 2021. This confirmed that a formal response would be sent and the Stage 1 response was issued to the resident on 12 October 2021.
The resident was therefore not contacted within 2 working days to identify and agree a remedy as set out by the redress policy. In the landlord’s response of 27 September 2021, it would have been helpful for it to clarify for the resident’s benefit that the complaint had been escalated to Stage 1 and the timeframe within which he would receive a response. It is apparent from the notes of the Stage 2 review meeting that the resident had been expecting contact within 2 working days and was caused upset that this did not happen and by the lack of information given to him during this period.
As part of the Stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged this and the delay and provided an apology. This was an appropriate and reasonable response to the landlord’s service failure.
As part of the resident’s complaint to this Service, the resident has also expressed concerns that the members of the Stage 2 review panel all knew each other and he queried how the FIO who had investigated the Stage 1 complaint could be a member of the panel. It is noted that the resident raised these objections at the beginning of the Stage 2 review meeting. It appears that the Stage 2 meeting proceeded with the panel as constituted notwithstanding his objection.
The landlord’s redress policy does not specify any criteria for members of its Stage 2 review panels. It is to be expected that the landlord will resource such panels from members of its own staff familiar with the issues to be discussed and other members trained to facilitate review meetings, as it in fact did. It is also possible under those circumstances that the members will be drawn from the same geographical area and might know each other. These are not reasons in themselves to preclude an individual from membership of the panel.
However, it was not appropriate for the landlord to include as a Stage 2 panel member the same individual who had considered the complaint at Stage 1. This was not consistent with the principle behind the landlord’s redress policy which states that a Stage 2 review should comprise an independent review of the complaint.
The landlord may also wish to note that the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code provides (albeit not specifically in relation to panels) that the person considering a complaint at stage 2 should not be the same person that considered the complaint at stage 1. While there is no evidence to suggest that the Stage 2 review meeting was anything other than impartial and properly conducted, to avoid any contrary perception the landlord should not have included the FIO as a Stage 2 panel member given her previous involvement as investigator at Stage 1.
There was a service failure in this aspect of the landlord’s complaint handling. The resident was caused concern as to the fair handling of his complaint. Under the circumstances, an award of £100 would be reasonable compensation for the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs required to address the heating issues in the resident’s property, in particular, the installation of radiators to his kitchen and living room.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its responses to the resident’s concerns about safety and security including fencing, installation of lighting and provision of CCTV to his property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be re-housed in the period covered by this investigation report.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaints handling.

Reasons

The landlord failed adequately to address the cause of cold and draught issues which impacted the resident’s property over a prolonged period of time. There were delays in the repairs carried out which were outside the landlord’s repair policy timescales. This caused detriment to the resident who had to live in cold and draughty conditions. The effect of this was amplified for the resident due to his medical conditions of which the landlord was aware and its compensation award was insufficient given the circumstances of the case.
The contemporaneous evidence shows that the landlord appropriately responded to the resident’s reports of security incidents, including taking action to improve security and safety where necessary.
The contemporaneous evidence shows that the landlord provided reasonable assistance to the resident with regard to his application for an internal transfer and facilitated a management move when satisfied that the criteria had been met.
The landlord’s Stage 2 review meeting panel included the same member of the landlord’s staff who had conducted the Stage 1 complaint investigation. This was inappropriate and caused concern to the resident as to the fair handling of his complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £750 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to him by the failures in its handling of the repairs to his property which are the subject of this complaint (inclusive of the £250 awarded through its complaints process, if this has not already been paid).
3. The landlord should pay the resident £100 compensation for the distress caused to him by reason of the failings identified in its complaint handling.
The landlord should contact this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this determination to evidence its compliance with the above orders.