Swan Housing Association Limited (202210236)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210236

Swan Housing Association Limited

17 October 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, and communication about, reports of outstanding repairs at the property specifically the pigeon proofing of the balcony and a broken vent in the bathroom.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident has occupied the property, a ninth floor flat, since 22 April 2021. The resident is a leaseholder and lives alone.
The resident reported that the vent in her bathroom was not working properly, on 25 July 2021, and the landlord’s record state it was fixed on 29 September 2021. However, on 25 January 2022, the resident notified the landlord that the vent was again not working properly and there was a bird’s nest above her balcony.
The landlord reported the bird issue to the block management team and said a Neighbourhood Officer should deal with the report of the bird problem as a pest issue. It then arranged for a contractor to inspect the vent, on 14 February 2022.
A contractor attended the property on 14 February 2022 as planned, and it checked the filters on the filtration system, and found they were clean. It was noted that the landlord needed to request another contractor to attend and investigate further. The landlord failed to arrange this.
On 1 April 2022, the landlord advised all residents that it was awaiting a date to carry out pigeon proofing works.
On 19 April 2022, the resident chased the landlord for an update in relation to the bathroom vent. She said the contractor that attended on 14 February 2022 told her to report that he did not know the system and it would be best for the company that fitted it, to attend. She said she had called the landlord three times and no one had yet arranged for someone else to be sent. It is unclear whether the landlord responded, or what transpired immediately after this.
The resident complained to the landlord on 3 July 2022. She said having moved in to a new build property, there were still two issues outstanding:
1. The balcony needed pigeon proofing.
2. The vent in the bathroom was not taking in any air.
She commented on how the contractor that visited the flat on 14 February 2022 did not know the system, so could not do anything about the vent; that despite calls and emails to the landlord, she had no response. She wanted an update as to when both issues would be fixed as she was paying a service charge but could not use her balcony. She said she wanted to be compensated for the issues.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 4 July 2022 and on 6 July 2022, it issued a stage one response to the complaint. It said:
1. The issues complained of were:
  1. pigeon infestation.
  2. an issue with a vent in the bathroom.
  3. a lack of communication.
  4. a number of defects in the property.
2. An issue with the vent was reported in January 2022, and a contractor attended on 14 February. It accepted the report had not been provided to the resident; nor had there been correspondence in general.
3. The pigeon issue was also reported in January 2022, and was passed to the block management team. It also accepted there was a lack of communication about this point.
4. It apologised for the length of time it had taken to resolve the issues, and the lack of communication in general. It had arranged for a contractor to visit on 14 July, to look at the vent. It had also chased another team regarding the pigeon issue, which would start in October 2022, due to a delay in materials.
5. Once the works were complete, it would be arranging an external clean of the building. It added that it would also communicate with the resident weekly to ensure that all works were completed.
6. It offered £100 compensation for the delay in rectifying the defects in her home.
The resident responded on 13 July 2022, and said:
1. She acknowledged someone was going to the property the following day to look at the bathroom vent, although she had not received a time. She asked when she would get a call.
2. She appreciated the offer of £100 compensation but she did not think this was sufficient, as it didn’t cover one month of service charges and it had gone on for over a year.
3. The pigeon infestation had been reported in November 2021. She was told someone would look in to the issue but she had to chase again in January 2022 but nothing happened, and she had been told it would be October 2022 when the matter would be resolved. That meant she had been unable to use her balcony for 2 summers.
4. She wanted the landlord to consider paying her £300 compensation to recognise that she had had to chase since 2021 and messages had not been passed on and call backs not made. In addition, it had been stressful.
The landlord responded the same day, and said it would pass her comments to the person dealing with the complaint. There is no evidence of anyone responding to the resident.
On 8 August 2022, the resident emailed the landlord. She said it was nearly a month since she sent her last email, and it was disappointing she had had no response and had to chase, when her complaint had also been about a lack of communication. She asked that someone respond to her, as she wanted to be compensated and the bathroom vent issue to be resolved.
On 19 August 2022, the landlord updated all residents on pigeon proofing. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused, and said works would start on 5 September 2022 and last five weeks. It said remedial work involved:
1. Lifting decking to remove and clean waste matter.
2. Infill panels being installed to openings to block gaps for pigeons to enter balconies.
3. Cleaning of any bird waste from balconies via abseil.
The resident emailed the landlord again on 2 September 2022, to complain she had not received a response to her complaint for two months, and therefore wanted it escalated. On 5 September 2022, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s request, and said she should receive a response within 15 working days of escalation request.
The landlord issued its stage two response, on 12 September 2022. It said:
1. The complaint related to a defect to an air vent in the bathroom and the lack of communication following the resident’s stage one complaint.
2. It responded at stage one on 8 July 2022 and offered £100 compensation as a result of the vent issue being outstanding.
3. It noted her response to that letter remained outstanding, and accepted the vent was still an issue; however, a contractor was due to attend on 21 September 2022. It said it would follow up on this to ensure any other remedial work was actioned.
4. The pigeon proofing was ongoing, and would commence in October 2022, and that the resident should contact her property manager for any information.
5. It apologised for and acknowledged a lack of response, which it said was due to changes in the team. It said the team had more staff so hoped to improve its service.
6. It re-offered the £100 compensation to the resident.
On 16 September, the resident told the landlord she would not be home on 21 September 2022 and the appointment was rearranged for 23 September. The contractor’s report having attended, said it had checked the power and either the unit needed to be replaced or the original installers needed to return and check the system.
The resident asked the landlord, on 30 September 2022, to reconsider the offer of compensation, as more work was needed. The vent needed replacing, and it was adding to her frustration and she was having to chase updates.
On 17 October 2022, the resident chased the managing agent as she had not heard any more about the vent being replaced. She had also not received a response to her 30 September email. She asked if the pigeon proofing had started. It responded on 20 October, and apologised as the person the resident had liaised with before had left. It noted the balcony required a clean once the pigeon proofing was complete. It was unable to provide a timeframe, but said she should receive another email soon and the works were in process.
On 3 November 2022, the managing agent told the resident the remedial works to cover the holes that the pigeons were getting through would be done. The cleaning of the balconies would be arranged once the cladding had been repaired. It asked for patience and said it wanted to ensure that cleaning was done only once, after the holes were covered. The resident responded the same day, to confirm she needed holes on her balcony covered.
The resident spoke with the managing agent on 25 November, and she sent photographs of her balcony as requested.
The resident chased the landlord again, for an update on pigeon proofing on 1 December and in relation to the vent repair on 19 December 2022. She said her fire alarm went off when she showered as the vent was not working.
The resident chased the landlord again on 16 January 2023, and said she had not received a response to her email of 30 September 2022. On 24 January 2023 the landlord records it spoke with the resident, and created a new job for a contractor to look at the vent, as it remained outstanding.
A contractor visited the property on 6 February 2023, and repaired the vent.
The landlord spoke with the resident on 22 February 2023, who confirmed the vent had been repaired, but pigeon proofing was outstanding. The landlord noted the resident wanted £1,000 compensation for stress and inconvenience. On 3 March 2023, the landlord apologised for the time things were taking, and agreed to pay the resident £800 compensation. On the same day the landlord recorded it had been unable to resolve the pigeon proofing/cleaning issue as the flat above had been sub-let and it could not gain access.
The landlord’s records show the balcony of the property was cleaned on 30 March 2023; however, on 31 March, the resident advised that the base of the balcony above needed to be cleaned as there were pigeon droppings and feathers stuck there. The landlord referred the job to an external contractor on 3 April 2023.
On 14 April 2023, the resident emailed the landlord and confirmed her balcony had been cleaned, but the top still needed cleaning and she attached photos. The landlord acknowledged this on 19 April and said it had passed the matter to the managing agent. However, having heard nothing further, the resident chased the landlord again on 15 May 2023 and the managing agent replied the same day. It said the job had been referred to the company that did the balcony cleaning, and it would be in touch with her.
The resident contacted the managing agent and landlord again, on 22 May as she had a missed call, but no message had been left. She asked again when someone was going to clean the rest of her balcony. The landlord replied the following day and said the balcony was cleaned on 30 March 2023 and the team that did the cleaning was unclear as to what was outstanding, and asked for photos. The resident responded the same day, and pointed out that she had explained what needed cleaning, and sent photos on 14 April 2023. She reattached these to the email.
The resident explained to the landlord on 24 May 2023, that the issue that remained was there was dried faeces and feathers on the top of her balcony. The landlord responded on 26 May by asking her to bear with it while it resolved the matter. It said a job had been sent to a contractor, who would contact her to make an appointment.
The resident chased the landlord for an update on 12 June 2023, and it apologised and then followed up with the external contractor it had referred the job too. A visit was arranged for 19 June, but not all work was completed. A visit to the flat above, was then arranged for 7 July 2023. The landlord’s records state the issue with the balcony above was not deemed to be a defect therefore it was a management issue. As such, it was for the managing agent to take action and arrange for spikes to be fitted.
The resident has told this Service there is still dried faeces and feathers, and possibly a dead bird, on the top of her balcony. On 5 September 2023, the landlord said following the visit to the neighbouring property on 7 July, it was established the contractor needed access to clean the underneath of the balcony. This meant the decking would have to be lifted but the occupier would not grant permission for this. It also said:
1. The balcony required a technical clean, and it had encountered challenges with the height of the block. It has explored options with other contractors which included abseiling which was arranged for 18 September. However, this was delayed due to the abseiling points being out of service.
2. It had arranged for a specialist Aftercare Defects Warranty Manager to visit the resident on 8 September to inspect the roof of her balcony and see what other options it had to safely clean the balcony from below or what interim measures could be put in place.
3. The managing agent was visiting the block on 12 September with Pest Control to develop a strategy for the management of pigeons across the entire building.
4. It acknowledged the resident had at times been passed between itself and the managing agent and that she had had to chase for updates.
5. It apologised for the stress, inconvenience, and frustration this had caused the resident.
6. It had offered the resident £250 compensation in recognition of the time taken to deal with the clean and the stress and inconvenience caused.
7. It also offered an additional £250 compensation as its communication should have been better.
8. It had put in place a contact plan with senior management keeping the resident updated weekly until the issue matter is resolved.
9. It had also arranged a Learning Circle, with this case as the focus, for 13 September.
On 26 September 2023, the landlord advised that:
1. It met with the resident to inspect her balcony to see what options it had to safely clean the roof of her balcony. However, the property above had now agreed to provide access and it was arranging a convenient date with both properties within the next week or two, for the clean to happen.
2. It had a successful meeting with its specialist pest control contractor that week. It discussed a programme to manage pigeons across the entire building which it would be communicating to residents the following week.
3. It had a positive Learning Circle regarding the issues experienced by the resident. It identified challenges including the time taken to resolve defects, lack of ownership, level of communication and difficulties accessing some properties to complete work.
4. With regards to the time taken to resolve defects it was going to:
  1. Have a Director led review of scheme with outstanding defects where they will inspect and ensure issues are recorded and on a plan to be resolved.
  2. Review the different block leases on schemes and have a clear, accessible summary of what is its responsibility and what is the resident’s responsibility.
5. With regards to the lack of ownership:
  1. It was in the process of putting together a responsibility matrix with clear guidance on team structure and responsibilities for each scheme.
  2. It would have an issues log from handover – to have a central log of all operational issues and defects, making clear who, what, when for all schemes in defects.
  3. It would report outstanding/complex issues to a new senior management team monthly meeting which would commence in January 2024.
6. With regards to the level of customer communication:
  1. Ownership tracker – Enhanced communication/ updates monitored via defects tracker to ensure residents are kept updated.
  2. Enhanced staff objective to ensure all customer contact recorded on a system, with no exceptions. This would be monitored by team leaders to ensure compliance.
7. With regards to the level of cross team communication:
  1. Ensure cross team tasks were included in Customer Care watch list to provide additional visibility and ensure actions were completed even if delivered by other teams.
8. With regards to gaining access to other properties, it would enhance work where there is no access.

The landlord’s obligations, warranties and policies and procedures

The property has a 10 year NHBC warranty and had a 2 year defects warranty. The Resident’s Manual says on page 6, that an extractor fan failure would be a defect and that, along with structural defects should be reported.
The landlord’s Repair Standards document says it is responsible for a repair or replacement of an extractor fan within 15 working days. There is no specific mention of work or repairs to a balcony; however, it does say the landlord is responsible for any non-essential repairs not listed, within 15 working days.
The landlord’s Customer Service Policy says it responds to complaints within 2 working days and responds to a complaint in full (when possible) within 6 working days and the managing agent, within 10 working days. In addition, that “all complaints will be taken seriously and we will ensure all lessons learnt from a complaint investigation will be used to inform service improvements.”
The Customer Service Policy says the landlord will try and resolve a complaint informally, but if it cannot be resolved, it will be dealt with at stage one. It says, “the maximum time for the Stage 1 response letter to be sent is 6 working days.”
It goes on to say, “if the complainant advises that the details included in the Stage 1 letter has not resolved their complaint, the complainant should be contacted to confirm why they would like to escalate their complaint. This may result in a review of the Stage 1 response or their complaint being escalated to Stage 2. This decision should be made within 5 working days of the complainant requesting escalation.”
At stage 2, a senior manager should call the complainant and “a full written response should be sent within 15 working days”.
The landlord’s Compensation Procedure has guidance on calculating compensation. Generally it pays compensation of up to £500 depending on the impact. It says:
1. “Low impact: The complaint has been upheld but there has not been significant inconvenience or distress caused. Impact has been no more than a reasonable person could be expected to accept and the compensation is a token in acknowledge of [its] responsibility.
2. Medium impact: Inconvenience and/or distress has clearly been caused as a result of a failure in service. A repeated failure of a low impact event could result in the impact being increased to a medium impact.
3. High impact: A serious failure in service has taken place. This could either be due to the severity of the event or a persistent failure has occurred over a prolonged period of time or an unacceptable number of attempts to resolve the complaint have failed.
Payments should take into account the level of stress, anxiety, frustration, uncertainty and inconvenience caused. This will include the severity, length of time, number of people affected and their individual circumstances.”

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of, and communication about, reports of outstanding repairs at the property.

Having reported a defect with her bathroom vent, and pigeon mess on her balcony, on 25 January 2022, the landlord initially arranged for someone to look at the vent on 14 February 2022, but reported the bird issue to another team to consider. The contractor could not fix the vent. Therefore, bearing in mind its Repair Standards which say a repair should be done within 15 working days, the landlord should have sent another contractor out as noted in its repair records. It failed to do this, or update the resident, which was unreasonable.
Several months went by and the resident was not provided with any information about when the repairs would be carried out. The landlord failed to respond to the resident chasing it for an update on 19 April 2022, despite her bringing to its attention that she had called for an update 3 times, and not received a reply. Having then said someone would attend the property in July, the resident emailed the landlord on 13 July 2022, 8 August and 2 September, seeking an update in relation to the repairs, because she had heard nothing further. The lack of action by the landlord would have been understandably frustrating for the resident, as it would have given her the impression her concerns were not being taken seriously.
The landlord consistently delayed in taking action to resolve the pigeon mess but it is important to appreciate that this work was required on a larger scale, and it was not unique to the resident’s property. That does not excuse the delay, but it could have been a factor in the time things were taking. With that said, the landlord should have still kept the resident updated and been transparent when explaining the reasons for the delay. It failed to update the resident which added to her perception of inaction by it. She had to chase for further updates on 30 September 2022, 17 October, 1 December and 16 January 2023 thereby spending more time and trouble pursuing the repair than would reasonably be expected. This meant the resident was getting more frustrated and upset. The vent was eventually repaired on 6 February 2023, and the balcony cleaned on 23 March. However, this was over a year after the issues were reported. The resident has also informed this Service that there is still some further cleaning work needed to remedy issues on the balcony. As such, the landlord has not yet taken all actions necessary to fully resolve the issue of pigeon mess.
The landlord identified failings in its service, and offered the resident £100 compensation and an apology for the delay in remedying the issues in its complaint responses at stages one and two. However, it failed to address the resident’s proposal of 30 September 2022 for more compensation due to the length of times the repairs were taking. It then continued to not put things right and delay matters further by not ensuring the outstanding works were proactively managed.
The works to the vent and in relation to the pigeons remained outstanding three months later, and the resident had been further inconvenienced as a result of the delays. In the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to increase its compensation offer to reflect the additional detriment that had been caused. By restating the previous offer, the landlord failed to demonstrate that it had taken the circumstances of the complaint, and how the resident had been affected, into account. Generally, landlords should be responsive to the evolving circumstances of a complaint.
In addition, despite apologising and saying on 6 July 2022 that it would keep weekly communications with the resident to ensure all works were completed; it failed to do that. The landlord had identified poor communication at stage 1, but failed to ensure that communication was improved. This resulted in the resident being inconvenienced further and it would also have been disappointing for her that the landlord did not honour its assurance that it would provide weekly updates.
The landlord’s Customer Service Policy says it will ensure all lessons learnt from a complaint investigation will be used to inform service improvements; however, that did not happen in this case. The landlord continually missed opportunities to put things right. Thereby demonstrating that it had not learned from its mistakes.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of, and its communication about repairs was poor. It did accept failings during the internal complaint procedure; however, it only accepted the full extent of failings, after the resident referred the complaint to this Service. It is acknowledged that the landlord has taken steps to improve the way it deals with such matters going forward. However, the resident was left having to chase the landlord and managing agent for over a year, while also waiting for the repairs to be carried out. The landlord failed to adequately maintain oversight of and coordinate the repairs, which is something it needs to review, in order to ensure a situation like this does not happen again.
The resident has advised that there is an ongoing issue with pigeons in the building in general, which the landlord is seeking to address. Therefore it is appropriate that it has said it will continue to work with the resident to find a way of cleaning what it can of the roof of her balcony.
The landlord has already offered the resident compensation of £800, which seems to have been accepted. It was reasonable for the landlord to increase its offer of compensation. However, it is not clear how the figure was calculated.
The landlord’s Compensation Policy does say that factors it should take in to account when considering compensation are:
1. The level of stress or distress caused as a result of an action or inaction that has led to the claim for compensation. This will include the severity of the distress, the length of time involved.
2. The amount of inconvenience (time and trouble) experienced by the resident and how much effort was required by them to resolve the problem.
it would have therefore been reasonable for the landlord to provide a breakdown for its offer setting out how much had been attributed to the delay in carrying out the bathroom vent works, and the pigeons. Setting out the offer in such a manner would have demonstrated that the landlord had taken the time to understand how the resident had been affected by the situation, as she was likely to have been inconvenienced by each differently.
It is noted the landlord has subsequently offered the resident an additional £500 compensation. This was to recognise both the time it took to deal with the clean including the stress and inconvenience, as well as its poor communication.
The landlord’s Compensation Procedure says it deems compensation of about £500 reasonable, when a complaint has been fully upheld and has had a high impact on a resident. Clearly the landlord has already offered more than that to settle the complaint. The Ombudsman acknowledges the landlord offered an additional £500 compensation to resolve the complaint; however, this was made after the complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure, and the matter was referred to this Service. Therefore, taking the circumstances as a whole into account, there has been maladministration on the landlord’s part, and the Ombudsman has made a series of orders aimed at putting things right, taking in to account the compensation already offered.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

The resident first complained on 3 July 2022. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 4 July and issued its stage 1 response on 6 July 2022. The landlord therefore responded within its policy timeframes. The landlord upheld the complaint and offered £100 compensation.
The resident told the landlord on 13 July, that she did not think £100 was sufficient compensation. She expressed further concern over the landlord’s service, and it would have been reasonable for the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2, at that time. Alternatively, it should have sought clarification from the resident as to whether that is what she wanted. By not doing that, the landlord’s actions were unreasonable, and it missed an opportunity to try and resolve matters further, at that stage. As a result, the resident was left to chase the matter
The resident confirmed on 2 September 2022, that she wanted to escalate her complaint to stage two, and this was acknowledged on 5 September, within one working day. The resident was told she would receive a full response within 15 working days from the date her complaint was received. The landlord issued its stage two response on 12 September 2022. While this is in line with its Customer Service Policy, it should have considered dealing with the complaint at stage 2, earlier.
By reaffirming its position as it was at stage 1, the landlord failed to acknowledge that the issues remained unresolved and that it had not provided the resident with weekly updates, as it had assured her it would. It also knew the vent was still not repaired; yet it did not offer the resident, any additional compensation, or respond to her request for more, which was unreasonable.
It is recognised that the landlord did later agree to increase the compensation offered, when the resident pursued the matter. However, this is something the landlord should have considered, without having to be prompted, earlier as the delays to repairs were lengthening. The same can be said for the landlord’s subsequent offer of compensation. While it is positive that the landlord has recognised the shortfalls in its service, this should have been identified a lot sooner that it was. Having been told by the resident that she expected more than £100 compensation, it had failed to give her any assurance, that it would consider a further compensation payment in future, so that her expectations could be managed. In addition, as the situation remained unresolved, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to reconsider its position and whether further compensation was warranted. This has been taken in to account in the orders made by the Ombudsman.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to landlord’s handling of, and communication about, reports of outstanding repairs at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord failed to carry out repairs at the property for over a year.
The landlord’s communication with the resident throughout, was poor.
The landlord has failed to resolve an outstanding issue at the property in relation to removal of bird faeces and other matter, at the top of the balcony.
The landlord delayed responding to the resident’s correspondence in relation to the complaint, and failed to identify an opportunity to put things right, and increase its offer of compensation at stage two of its Customer Service Policy.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within the next four weeks the landlord should:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
2. Ensure the resident’s balcony roof is cleaned.
3. Pay the resident compensation of £1,500, made up of:
  1. £800 for the delay dealing with repairs as already offered (if it has not done so already).
  2. £250 in recognition of the time taken to deal with the clean and the stress and inconvenience caused (if it has not done so already).
  3. £250 for its poor communication (if it has not done so already).
  4. £200 for its poor complaint handling.
Within six weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must, considering the failings identified in this case, provide refresher training to staff on:
1. The processes and systems for recording repairs to ensure that all information relating to the repair is logged and accessible. Furthermore, the landlord should train staff on the processes and systems for monitoring repairs and maintaining oversight of contractors so as to ensure timely completion of logged repairs.
2. Ensuring residents are updated regularly on all outstanding repairs.
3. The process for recording and responding to all communication received from residents; ensuring all correspondence is responded to within an agreed period of time.
4. Its Compensation Policy and remembering to refer to different factors when setting out how a compensation payment is calculated, when communicating awards.