Islington and Shoreditch Housing Association Limited (202201443)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202201443

Islington and Shoreditch Housing Association Limited

2 May 2023

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports that the lock on her water meter cupboard-door had been broken by a contractor, and the subsequent offer of compensation.
   2. The associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord. The property is a flat, in a block of flats, which has a communal riser cupboard on each floor, which houses residents water meters.
3. On 3 February 2022 the landlord provided the resident with a stage one complaint response, which it no longer has a record of, but was not related to the cupboard-door lock complaint. On 17 February 2022 the resident reported to the landlord that the lock on the communal riser cupboard, which housed her water meter, had been broken by a contractor. She requested that it repair this, and add this repair to an ongoing complaint that she had, which she indicated she wanted to escalate. It subsequently asked her for clarification on why she wanted to escalate her complaint, whilst she did not provide a response, she did chase the escalation on 21 February and 8 March 2022.
4. On 10 March 2022 the landlord apologised to the resident that the repair had not yet occurred and explained that it had not escalated her complaint as she had not provided it with her reasons for wanting to escalate. The resident advised that her repair had not been completed, she had been misinformed about the repair, and that it had “ignored” her attempt to escalate to the final stage of the complaints procedure.
5. The landlord responded that a repair order for the door had been raised on 17 February 2022, but that it had been experiencing difficulties with its system, and assured her that the repairs team would look into the matter that day. It also explained that it had not ignored her request for a final stage review, but was instead waiting for her to provide reasons for her escalation as it had addressed all aspects of her complaint in the stage one complaint response. It further explained that because the repair to the cupboard-door had not formed part of the previous stage one complaint response, it was unable to escalate this to the final stage of the complaints procedure, but invited her to raise a new complaint. An appointment was raised and attended on 11 March 2022, where it appears the cupboard was secured shut using sticky tape.
6. The resident raised her complaint to this Service on 21 April 2022 because she was dissatisfied that the repair to the cupboard-door had been with sticky tape, and she wanted the landlord to complete a full repair. She also explained her dissatisfaction that the landlord had declined her request to escalate her complaint. On 6 October 2022 this Service contacted the landlord and requested that it provide her with a final stage response by 20 October 2022. This Service chased the landlord on 19 December 2022 and requested that it provide a written response to her within five working days.
7. The landlord’s final stage complaint response of 23 December 2022 upheld her complaint. It apologised that it did not have a copy of her original stage one complaint and response, and attributed this to “office error”. It also explained that, because a repair order that was raised in March 2022 had been marked as complete, it was satisfied that the damage had been caused by its contractor as it had previously issued a repair order. It apologised that the repair was not completed to a good standard and stated that it would organise a new repair to be completed. It offered her £150 compensation, broken down as:
   1. £50 for inconvenience while the cupboard-door lock was broken;
   2. £100 for inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failings.
8. The landlord contacted the resident on 5 January 2023 to arrange an inspection of the cupboard for 12 January 2023, and for her to provide it with her bank details. It contacted her again on 17 January 2023, in which it enclosed a cheque of its compensation to her. She approached this Service again on 23 January 2023, stating she had not received the final stage response letter but had received the compensation, but remained dissatisfied.
9. The landlord contacted the resident again on 30 January 2023 to confirm whether she had agreed to the inspection of 12 January 2023, as the surveyor was currently off unwell, and apologised that this was not communicated to her before. It asked for her availability so that it could organise a new appointment. She questioned why her presence was required as the repair was outside of her property. The landlord repaired the lock on the cupboard-door on 21 February 2023.
10. The resident referred her complaint to this Service because she sought for the landlord to replace the lock, and was dissatisfied with the level of compensation awarded to her, and sought a further £150 compensation from the landlord.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s reports that the lock on her water meter cupboard-door had been broken by a contractor, and the subsequent offer of compensation

11. The landlord’s repairs policy outlines that routine repairs should be completed within 20 working days. The resident reports that the cupboard-door lock was broken by the landlord’s contractor, and it does not dispute this or that it was responsible for the repair.
12. It was unreasonable that, following her report of the broken door lock on 17 February 2022, the lock was not confirmed to be replaced until 21 February 2023. There were several reasons for this delay (which the landlord informed the resident of on 10 March 2022), which included: that it had experienced issues with its system from 22 February 2022, and a new repair order was then raised on 11 March 2022. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to attend this promptly, because at this time it could still have provided the repair within the 20 working days, set out in its responsive repairs policy, for routine repairs.
13. Following the landlord raising this repair order on 11 March 2022, the evidence suggests that there was no contact between the resident and landlord regarding the broken door lock until the landlord issued its final stage complaint response on 23 December 2022. The resident contacted this Service during this time, and requested that it chase the landlord on 21 April, 19 July and 30 August 2022, causing her further time and trouble.
14. In its final stage complaint response, the landlord advised the resident that it would contact her by 9 January 2023 to arrange a repair. It was therefore reasonable that its surveyor contacted her on 5 January 2022 to arrange and request her conformation for an appointment for 12 January 2023, to which it received no response. It contacted her again on 30 January 2023 to ask the resident whether she agreed to the appointment and explained that its surveyor had been off work unwell, and that it would organise a new appointment in their absence.
15. While the landlord chased the resident outside of its 20-working day timeframe, it was waiting for the resident’s confirmation of the appointment for part of this time. However, after the proposed appointment passed, the landlord internally chased the status of the repair, and acknowledged the surveyor’s absence on 26 January 2023. It would therefore have been more appropriate for the landlord to contact the resident at this time, so that a further appointment could be arranged more swiftly, to prevent further inconvenience to her.
16. It was appropriate that the landlord replaced the cupboard-door lock on 21 February 2023, as this addressed the resident’s concerns and achieved the outcome she was seeking. This was, however, 39 days after it informed the resident in its final stage complaint response on 23 December 2022 that it would provide a repair to her. This was an unreasonable delay, which, considering the delay she experienced prior to its final stage complaint response, would have caused her further inconvenience.
17. While the landlord put some matters right for the resident, the lack of a proportionate amount of compensation to recognise all of its failings in her case was a further failing on its part. The level of compensation that it offered her was disproportionately low given the overall length of the delay, which was over a year. This is because the resolution of the repair remained outstanding until 21 February 2023, which was nearly two months after the resident had received her final stage complaint response on 23 December 2022.
18. In light of the further failings identified above, the landlord is ordered to pay £100 compensation to the resident, in addition to the £50 that it previously offered her, if it has not done so already. This is in recognition of the full length of the delay to resolve the repair to the cupboard-door lock. This is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance, which suggests further compensation from £100 where there has been a failure in service by the landlord which has adversely affected the resident, and its offer was not proportionate to address her detriment, or to the failings identified by our investigation.

The associated complaint

19. Landlords are expected to provide responses to residents’ complaints in line with their own policies and procedures, as well as this Service’s complaint handling code. The code sets out that a landlord should respond to all aspects of a resident’s complaint. It also states that if a landlord chooses not to accept a complaint then it should set this out in writing to the resident with an explanation.
20. It was therefore reasonable that when the landlord informed the resident that it would not accept her complaint of the broken cupboard-door lock as part of her ongoing complaint, that it explained this was because it had not formed part of the stage one complaint. It was not unreasonable that it invited her to raise a new complaint, as this would have enabled it to respond to her concerns. However, the resident had expressed dissatisfaction in its handling of the repair, so it would have been appropriate for it to have raised a stage one complaint on her behalf.
21. The evidence suggests there was no further communication between the resident and the landlord regarding this complaint, until this Service contacted it on 6 October 2022, at the resident’s request. It is inappropriate that the landlord did not respond to this complaint, nor give the resident a written reason if it was not accepting the complaint. This was a failing in its complaint handling, which caused a further delay to the resident, while she waited for this Service to chase it to provide a response.
22. It was reasonable that its final stage complaint response of 23 December 2022 acknowledged that its complaint handling had fallen short of its expected standard. It apologised to her for this and offered her £100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused to her. This was within the range of compensation recommended by this Service’s remedies guidance from £100 for failures that adversely affected the resident.
23. It is also noted that the landlord could not provide the resident’s stage one complaint response of February 2022 to this Service upon request, or consider it in its own internal investigation. It was appropriate that it explained to the resident how it had conducted its investigation in the absence of its initial response, and also provided an explanation for why it did not have access to this. Moreover, it offered an apology and compensation for its overall complaint handling, which was appropriate in light of this failing.
24. Although this Service has still been able to determine this case using the information that was available, it is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. It is therefore recommended that the landlord conduct a review of its record keeping processes, ensuring that there is a clear audit trail for complaints, which includes the contents of the complaint responses.
25. When a landlord is at fault, it needs to put things right by acknowledging its mistakes and apologising for them, explaining why things went wrong and what it will do to prevent the same mistake from happening again. The landlord appropriately apologised to the resident and offered her financial compensation in recognition of its complaint handling failings. However, it failed to show how it would prevent similar future mistakes. It has therefore been recommended below to review its staff’s training needs regarding their application of its customer feedback policy, and of this Service’s complaint handling code, in order to ensure that these are followed to prevent its complaint handling failings in her case from occurring again in the future.

Determination

26. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports that the lock on her water meter cupboard-door had been broken by a contractor, and the subsequent offer of compensation.
27. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered the resident redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its handling of the associated complaint satisfactorily.

Order and Recommendations

28. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £150 compensation within four weeks in recognition of her inconvenience as a result of its delay to repair the cupboard-door lock. This is inclusive of the £50 previously offered.
29. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Pays the £100 that it previously offered the resident for its failings in its complaint handling, if it has not done so already.
    2. Review its staff’s training needs regarding their application of its customer feedback policy, and of this Service’s complaint handling code, in order to ensure that these are followed to prevent its complaint handling failings in the resident’s case from occurring again in the future.
    3. Conduct a review of its record keeping processes, ensuring that there is a clear audit trail for complaints, which includes the content of the complaint responses.
30. The landlord shall contact this Service to confirm it has complied the above orders, and whether it will follow the above recommendations, within four weeks.