One Housing Group Limited (202112363)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202112363

One Housing Group Limited

5 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s various disrepair concerns;
2. Service charge information;
3. Complaint handling;
4. Record keeping.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant and the tenancy began in 2007. The property is a two-bedroom flat in a block. The resident occupies the property with her children. One of the children was a baby during the events described below. No information was seen to show the family have any health based vulnerabilities. Information from the Regulator of Social Housing suggests average weekly rents in the area were £106.95 per week for the year 2021-22.
The tenancy agreement confirms the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the property in good repair. This includes internal walls and plasterwork. It must also take reasonable care to ensure the block’s common parts are in reasonable repair and fit for use. The resident is responsible for the property’s internal decoration and minor repairs. The landlord is responsible for decorating communal areas.
The landlord’s repairs policy, effective from 2013, shows it will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours. Any follow up work will be raised as a new job prioritised accordingly. Urgent repairs will be completed within five working days. Routine repairs will be completed within 20 working days. Where the landlord is unable to gain access, its contact centre will attempt to reschedule the appointment. Up to two contact attempts will be made before the repair is cancelled.
The landlord operates a two stage formal complaints procedure. Its complaints policy shows it aims to respond to complaints within ten working days at stage one. At stage two, it aims to respond within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaints team will acknowledge all complaints within two working days.

Summary of events

The landlord provided the block’s repair history from 2015 to date. It shows two repair orders were raised in early 2016 to address a “loose” communal aerial that was “knocking on the roof”. Notes on the first repair order said the resident had been left messages but had not responded to make an appointment. Both orders were marked cancelled. The second order did not contain any notes. No information was seen to show there were any further aerial reports until June 2021.
It also provided the property’s repair history from 2010 to date. These records show two repair orders were raised between November 2014 and February 2021. The first, from 2017, related to a communal door and window. The second, raised in October 2019, related to the property’s windows. Corresponding notes said the resident reported none of the windows aligned with their frames. Further, the landlord should inspect them and report its findings with supporting images.
The inspection order was marked complete on 14 November 2019. Further notes said, “called tenant as had no answer at door…says she cancelled appointment this morning so can we rebook this please” From the records, it was unclear whether this inspection ever took place. No information was seen to show another inspection order was raised. Nor was any seen to suggest the resident made additional reports around this time.
In December 2020 the landlord issued a stage one complaint response. It addressed several issues including the resident’s concerns about service charges for garden and grounds maintenance. From the information seen, its contents had limited relevance to the events described below. However, it said the block was part of a larger estate that required maintenance. Further, the landlord was responsible for maintaining trees and a green opposite the block. The landlord’s later correspondence contained contradictory information.
On 10 March 2021 the landlord emailed the resident about rent arrears. It said two payments were missed on her rent account and the current arrears amounted to around £3.5k. It also said she should make urgent contact to settle the missed payments.
The resident replied the following day. The landlord’s complaints team was copied into her email. She said she had spoken to a representative about her rent the previous week. Further, she told them she would not pay any rent until her “disrepair issues” were resolved. She also said her service charges were unfair because she was paying to maintain a public space outside the block. In addition, the landlord previously advised her it was withholding repairs due to the arrears, which was illegal. Her main points were:
1. Despite a previous complaint to the landlord’s local manager, issues with trip hazards, large cracks and accessible post in the communal area were unresolved. In addition, a communal aerial had been broken for years even though the resident paid service charge contributions to maintain it. Further, the resident was “nearly electrocuted” while attempting to “fix” one of the landlord’s (unspecified) repairs.
2. The property’s balcony was unusable due to pests and broken flooring. Several windows were inoperable and a previous repair attempt damaged the bathroom. The water pressure regularly dropped due to a pipe leak, which caused boiler breakdowns. The boiler had broken down while the resident was in labour. There was untreated mould, tap water was cloudy and the electrics were dangerous. Overall, the landlord was in breach of its obligations.
3. The above repairs were reported before lockdown but remained unresolved. The landlord also failed to respond to the resident’s previous request for a surveyor. She should not have to supply supporting images before it acted. The landlord failed to respond to a complaint she raised around six months ago. These actions showed it was concerned about the rent but it did not care about the property’s condition.
4. The resident received a maternity allowance and she had been borrowing funds to pay the rent. In light of the above issues, she had decided this approach was not worth the related stress. The landlord was welcome to take legal action in relation to the arrears. However, the property’s condition was unfair and the resident would raise this during any legal proceedings. She was also considering launching her own disrepair claim.
The landlord responded the same day. It thanked the resident for her email and for copying in its complaints team. It said it was sure she would hear from the relevant team as soon as possible.
The next repair order was dated 12 March 2021. It said the landlord should investigate sockets and switches that were buzzing, sparking and unsecured. It is reasonable to conclude this wording reflected a report from the resident. The order was marked complete the same day. The notes said a faulty switch in the property’s hallway had been replaced. However, a further appointment should be scheduled as soon as possible because a kitchen light needed replacing and the fridge socket was faulty. The repair history did not record a follow up appointment.
The resident updated the landlord on 26 March 2021. She said a surveyor had recently inspected the property. Further, she was awaiting details of the repair works and the corresponding appointment dates. She also said several electrical repairs were complete, including works to: a light switch, socket and kitchen light fixture. The Ombudsman has not seen a copy of the surveyor’s inspection report. The landlord later told us “(it) did not populate actual inspection reports”, but its corresponding repair orders gave detailed descriptions of the required works.
On 5 May 2021 the resident told the landlord she wanted to escalate her complaint. This was on the basis it had not responded to her concerns. She said she first reported trip hazards on the communal stairs, along with other communal repairs, in March 2020. However, the landlord’s representative was rude and it failed to act on her reports. Their actions should therefore be included in the complaint, along with: the resident’s time and trouble, the landlord’s communications, its failure to comply with its repairs procedure and unfair service charges.
The next repair order was raised on 17 May 2021. This was around seven weeks after the surveyor’s inspection. It said the listed repairs were reported by the landlord’s surveyor: missing communal stair nosing; replacement radiator and TRV valve in kitchen; window restrictors to all windows; replacement: UPVC splashbacks, bath panel, shower and vinyl flooring in the bathroom, along with overhauled door lock; prep and repair all fractured plaster works to door frames; redecorations to hallway; redecorations to “one wall only” in bedrooms one and two and mould washing and stain block works to bedrooms and bathroom.
The parties exchanged emails between 26 and 27 May 2021. The landlord apologised for not responding to the resident’s “queries”. It asked her to clarify the content of her formal complaint. The resident said she provided the relevant information in March 2021 and received an email acknowledgment. The landlord replied it closed a complaint around this time because a surveyor had been arranged. However, it was sorry for the delay and a stage one complaint had now been logged. This was around eleven weeks after the resident’s “disrepair” email.
In a follow up email on 30 May 2021, the resident said she complained by phone and in writing during March 2021. Further, her preferred resolution was discussed and urgent electrical repairs were completed as a result of these interactions. As a result, the landlord should not have closed her complaint after arranging a surveyor’s inspection. In addition, her complaint should now be investigated at stage two given the time that had passed.
During an email update to the landlord on 4 June 2021, the resident said she had spoken to a complaint handler and a response was due by 25 June 2021. Further, a leaking radiator was due to be repaired within days. However, other repairs were outstanding and she had not received the “repairs report”.
The block’s repair history shows the next aerial related works order was raised on 7 June 2021. It said a cable was banging on the roof in windy conditions. A repair order was marked complete around one week later. Around the same time, another order was raised to inspect the block’s mail boxes. The notes said post had been stolen and the landlord’s contractor had provided a quote. No information was seen to suggest any works were ultimately completed to the mailboxes.
The landlord’s stage one response was dated 25 June 2021. The information seen indicates it may have been sent the following day. This was around 15 weeks after the resident’s complaint email. The landlord said it was sorry it had been unable to resolve the resident’s concerns informally in line with its complaints policy. It also said the resident had complained on 26 May 2021. The resident’s complaint was partially upheld. The main points were:
1. The landlord’s surveyor completed a joint inspection with its contractor on 26 April 2021. On 17 May 2021 a repair order was raised to address the identified repairs and it was subsequently agreed works would begin on 12 July 2021. On 17 June 2021 the resident raised concerns about a staircase trip hazard and a corresponding repair was completed on 24 June 2021.
2. Analysis of water samples taken from the property on 19 June 2021 returned satisfactory results. The clouding may be due to dissolved oxygen in the water. However, a monitoring regime had been put in place for the block’s booster units, which would also be cleaned and disinfected.
3. The landlord’s repair records showed the resident reported the communal aerial twice in 2016. The repair orders were ultimately cancelled because its contractor was unable to contact the resident. While there were no reports during the interim period, the contractor tightened the aerial’s fixings on 12 June 2021. The landlord was obtaining a quote with a view to reinstalling the aerial in a more secure fashion.
4. Service charges for grounds maintenance only covered works within the block’s boundaries. The footpath and trees shown in the resident’s photographs were an external public space. In contrast, paved and landscaped areas within the block’s boundary walls were covered. The grounds were currently maintained for one hour each week.
5. The landlord contacted the resident to schedule an appointment in relation to her water pressure and leaking radiator concerns. It understood her maternity leave had ended and she was unable to take time off work. It subsequently arranged an external contractor to attend an out of hours appointment.
6. The landlord arranged its pest control contractor to attend the balcony on 18 June 2021. The visit was intended to clean the balcony and assess what proofing was required. During a confirmation call, the resident advised the visit should not take place unless all outstanding issues were resolved that day. The landlord was sorry the contractor attended anyway. A new appointment had been agreed and would now take place on 23 July 2021.
7. The landlord closed the resident’s initial complaint after speaking to her following the surveyor’s inspection. On 5 May 2021 the resident made an email request for the complaint to be made formal. Nevertheless, due to an oversight, the complaint was not escalated until 26 May 2021. To recognise the delay the resident was awarded £75 in compensation. Feedback had been provided to the complaints team to prevent similar errors.
8. In relation to the resident’s other concerns, there was a lack of communication on the landlord’s part. The resident was therefore awarded an additional £50 under Right to Repair and £50 as a goodwill gesture. The landlord was sorry about the level of communication received and feedback had been provided.
On 8 July 2021 the landlord sent the resident the surveyor’s list of previously identified works. Within days, the resident replied there were several items missing from the list. They included mould treatment and a pipe leak near the kitchen sink. Her email also included several updates. The key points were:
1. There had been an altercation with the landlord’s out of hours contractor. The resident disputed the contractor had been denied access. She said she would now lose annual leave facilitating another appointment.
2. A repair to nosing on the staircase had been postponed. The landlord should be embarrassed given glue and Sellotape had already been used to repair the communal trip hazards. These poor repairs needed to be addressed.
3. Cracked plaster was being filled throughout the property. However, the landlord’s schedule said one wall would be painted. The resident accepted the landlord was unable to match the existing paint colour, but its approach would not cover all the repaired areas.
4. Due to dust, fumes and chemicals, the resident was staying in a bed and breakfast with her daughter and baby. She wanted to know where to send the invoice for her temporary accommodation. In addition, there were multiple errors in the landlord’s stage one response.
The landlord’s surveyor updated colleagues during internal correspondence on 16 July 2021. They said they attended a handover with the landlord’s contractor. However, a radiator valve and “nosing” to the communal staircase were still outstanding. Further, additional issues, such as cracks, water damaged pipe boxing and defective door handles, had occurred since their initial inspection. They said the landlord was in the process of obtaining a quote to address the new issues.
The repair history shows the surveyor’s works were marked complete on 26 July 2021. The resident asked to escalate her complaint the same day. She said the landlord had not responded to her March 2021 complaint. Instead, she said, it deliberately focussed on her May 2021 escalation request to avoid admitting it had breached its complaints policy. Since the referenced repairs dated back to 2015, the landlord’s actions confirmed it did not listen. The resident’s main points were:
1. The landlord had agreed all necessary repairs would be completed together. This was to avoid depleting the resident’s annual leave. Nevertheless, repairs were still outstanding. Further, the resident asked to be decanted for her baby’s welfare. She ultimately arranged her own accommodation given the landlord’s lack of action. Though its surveyor had apologised, the resident wanted her expenses reimbursed.
2. The initial staircase repairs were unacceptable. Though rectified, the contractor left a mess and nosing works were outstanding. This showed a lack of care and quality from the landlord. The resident was awaiting an update in relation to the outstanding repairs and another decant was needed to facilitate them.
3. The resident was never contacted about the aerial, which had never worked. Though it recognised the aerial was making an “excruciating noise” the landlord’s contractor had misrepresented the extent of the recent repair, which involved cutting the aerial. It also arrived on the wrong day and the resident felt this was to avoid interacting with her. The unexpected visit caused the baby to fall off the bed prompting a hospital trip. The landlord should refund the resident’s relevant service charge contributions.
4. Other service charges were unfair. For example, in December 2020 the landlord’s service charge specialist advised the landlord was responsible for maintaining trees and a green opposite the block. The resident was not receiving this service and the space was in the public realm. Further, there were issues with the water quality despite a water maintenance charge. The landlord’s contractor recently confirmed it smelled “putrid”. The resident attributed its quality to unmaintained water storage facilities. This was further evidence that chargeable services were not being provided.
5. An invoice from the landlord’s relevant contractor was not sufficient to confirm water treatment works had been completed. Overall, the water was unsafe and the resident had not drunk it since 2015. The relevant service charge should be refunded and the landlord should compensate her for bottled water usage from the above date.
6. Despite reporting them to the landlord several times, the resident had been unable to use her balcony since 2018 due to pest (pigeon) and repair issues. The landlord should therefore compensate her for loss of use. It was also responsible for recent communication errors that delayed the balcony repairs by around four months. In summary, the landlord had breached all of its obligations to the resident whilst still collecting her rent. It should compensate her accordingly and complete the outstanding repairs.
Between 28 and 31 July 2021 the landlord contacted the resident in relation to her arrears. It subsequently asked to discuss her escalation request. This was on the basis it covered various issues which the landlord wanted “to understand in more detail” before it escalated the complaint. The resident replied her email was clear and detailed. As a result, no further conversations were necessary and the landlord could not withhold the escalation.
On 9 August 2021 the landlord’s specialist contractor risk assessed the block’s water systems. The Ombudsman has seen the corresponding Legionella Risk Assessment report. It said the block’s overall risk rating was “low”. The report did not list any recommended remedial actions.
The landlord emailed the resident on 23 August 2021. it enquired about the status of repairs to the property and advised her complaint was being addressed. It also said her arrears were now around £7K. During a brief same day reply, the resident thanked the landlord for the update.
On 24 August 2021 the landlord issued a stage two response. This was around 21 working days after the resident’s second escalation request. It accepted the resident’s complaint was previously closed incorrectly and this error had prompted its incomplete stage one response. The landlord apologised for this failure. The response suggested the landlord did not agree with all the resident’s complaint points. The main points were:
1. Repairs had been completed to the property’s wiring and window restrictors, along with the block’s communal stair case. The landlord was sorry the reported trip hazards were not repaired in a timely manner. It also understood the resident was unhappy with recent nosing repairs. These repairs would be inspected and any identified issues would be addressed. Pest control had completed works to the balcony where pigeon fouling was cleaned and disinfected.
2. Microbial water samples produced satisfactory results. Nevertheless, the landlord’s compliance team had put in place “planned preventative maintenance measures” to monitor the block’s booster units. The local authority was responsible for the public spaces the resident referenced and she had not been charged for works outside of the estate.
3. The resident had been incorrectly told repairs were being withheld due to the arrears. This was an error by the landlord’s representative and the matter had been dealt with internally. The landlord was sorry for any distress caused. In contrast, the landlord’s surveyor had confirmed the works did not require a decant. However, the landlord had asked the resident to provide her receipts. Given her welfare concerns, the landlord would review the matter upon receiving them.
4. To prevent noise during windy conditions, the landlord’s contractor carried out remedial works to the aerial. It advised the aerial had been left in working order but, if the resident reported further issues, a new order should be raised to relocate the aerial and brackets. The landlord’s records showed there had been no further reports. Nevertheless, the landlord would replace the aerial as soon as possible.
5. An inspection would assess the following issues: painting works not sufficient to cover all repairs, windows in need of overhauling to ease operation, cracks in communal area on the third floor, communal letter boxes in need of attention due to risk of theft and fraud. The landlord’s area repairs leader would attend the inspection and follow up where necessary. Following the completion of any works, the landlord’s senior leader would also like to visit the resident in person to gather her feedback.
6. The resident was awarded a total of £200 in compensation comprising £50 for delays under Right to Repair and a £150 goodwill gesture to recognise any inconvenience caused. Compensation was awarded based on the length of time taken to resolve the reported issues and the landlord’s poor service. The compensation would be used to offset any arrears.
During an email to the Ombudsman on 8 September 2021, the resident advised she was unhappy with the landlord’s response. This was broadly because the landlord failed to read her complaint in full or respond accordingly. She said its approach prompted her to repeat information several times. Further, its investigation lacked thoroughness and did not address the impact to the resident or her family. In addition, repairs were outstanding and her arrears had “skyrocketed”. The key points were:
1. The landlord’s compensation offer had “trivialised” the total delays, which occurred over several years.
2. The landlord failed to address the resident’s service charge concerns or reimburse her losses.
3. The landlord had “behaved negatively” towards the resident since she raised her complaint.
An additional repair order was raised on 15 November 2021. It said the works were reported by the landlord’s surveyors and a senior leader. It detailed the following works: renew five sets of door handles and pipe boxing to bathroom; full redecoration (minus skirting and door frames) to: bathroom, kitchen, living room and both bedrooms; redecorate six doors; redecorations to ceilings and walls on communal landing and supply window restrictors to communal landings. The information seen suggests this order was never completed.
A further repair order was raised around one week later. It said the communal aerial should be replaced along with a mast and bracket. The order was cancelled in January 2022. Corresponding notes said the contractor had been unable to complete the works and it had not been given any subsequent instructions.
The resident emailed the landlord on 6 January 2022. She said repairs to the windows were outstanding and the property was “freezing” because they did not close properly. Further, her energy bills were excessive and the situation was bad for her baby. This was around 19 weeks after the landlord’s stage two response, which said the windows would be inspected.
In mid-February 2022 the resident addressed a similar email to the landlord’s repairs leader. She said she was unable to sleep in her room due to the draught from the windows. Further, despite being aware of the baby, the landlord was refusing to complete repairs because the resident had approached the Ombudsman. The resident said the matter should be treated as a formal complaint. She also restated her previous service charge concerns.
On 22 August 2022 another repair order was raised for the full redecoration works. This order included the following additional repairs: re-silicone around kitchen sink and bath taps; replace warped balcony decking and fit shower rail and curtain to bathroom. The order, raised with a different contractor, was marked complete on 31 August 2022. Similarly, a repair order to: overhaul, ease and adjust all windows, renew beading and “chaulk” around sills was raised and marked complete on 3 August and 14 October 2022 respectively.
The resident updated the Ombudsman during a phone call on 14 April 2023. She said the repairs leader did not respond to her email. There were also quality issues with completed window and aerial repairs, along with pigeon proofing works. Further, there was still mould in the property, she was concerned about the water quality and the landlord’s service charge team had given contradictory information. She was also out of pocket for £250 in decant costs. The landlord failed to install a letter box hatch as agreed to protect the resident’s mail. The resident said parcels had been stolen and she had been a victim of fraud.

Assessment and findings

It is recognised the situation is distressing for the resident and her family. The timeline suggests it has been ongoing for a considerable period of time. It also confirms the resident has multiple concerns about the property and the landlord’s activities. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress, inconvenience and loss of amenity.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s various disrepair concerns

Though we have not seen the referenced advice, the landlord accepted it previously told the resident it was withholding repairs due to arrears on her rent account. In addition to apologising, its complaint correspondence suggests it awarded her £100 in related compensation. Further, it provided feedback or staff training with a view to avoiding repeat occurrences. Since this was a concerning and inappropriate incident, remedial action was necessary.
The resident’s initial complaint said she was asked to provide images to support her reports of repairs. It is understood she felt no action would be taken until the landlord received the images. In September 2021, the resident told us the landlord had behaved “negatively” towards her after she raised a complaint. These potentially serious concerns were noted during the assessment. However, from the information seen, we were unable to confirm the resident’s version of events.
From the information seen, there was no evidence to confirm the landlord failed to respond appropriately to any repairs before March 2021. However, the timeline shows it was responsible for significant failures after this date. For example, on 8 July 2021 the resident said instructions to paint one wall, in each affected room, would not cover the landlord’s plaster repairs. Following an inspection apparently attended by a repairs leader, the landlord later instructed full redecoration works. Its repair history shows these works were completed on 31 August 2022.
The above suggests the landlord ultimately agreed with the resident’s comments. Where a landlord has an obligation to repair, it is also obliged to “make good” any damage to decorations resulting from the repair work. In this case, leaving exposed filling works was both inappropriate and contrary to the landlord’s obligations. It was noted the landlord’s repairs policy, around ten years old at the time of this assessment, did not reference its responsibility to make good. The landlord should review and update its policy to ensure it remains relevant.
Though the landlord eventually recognised its error, the timeline shows it took around 14 months to rectify the situation. This was based on the period between 1 July 2021 and 31 August 2022. Since one month represents a reasonable timescale to complete routine repairs, the evidence points to an inappropriate delay of around 13 months. The Ombudsman has seen an image showing extensive filling works to a wall. The resident’s comments indicate several walls were similarly affected. It reasonable to conclude her enjoyment of the property was reduced during the above identified delay period. Further, the resident experienced a second set of disruptive works that should have reasonably been avoided.
The timeline points to a similar delay in respect of the windows. It suggests, after the landlord completed its initial restrictor works, the resident reported further operability concerns around July 2021. Nevertheless, repair records show the windows were not overhauled until 14 October 2022. This represents an overall timeframe of around 15 months and, using the method above, an inappropriate delay of around 14 months. As will be shown in the relevant section below, this delay likely stems from a record keeping failure.
During the interim period, the resident raised additional concerns about the windows on at least two occasions. It should not have been necessary to contact the landlord again following its stage two response. Given the family’s circumstances, it is reasonable to conclude chasing the landlord was both distressing and inconvenient for the resident. From the information seen one of its repairs leaders failed to respond to her direct correspondence, which requested a new formal complaint. The above is further evidence of the landlord’s inappropriate response.
Given the above, the Ombudsman will award increased compensation to put things right for the resident based on the information seen. Our order will include a rent reduction element based on a refund of around 5% for the identified delay period in relation to the decoration works, and a refund of around 10% for the identified delay period to rectify the issues with the windows. It is appropriate to award a higher percentage for the windows as the impact of this (including the resident and her baby being cold during the time they were awaiting works to be completed) is greater than the impact of failing to complete decorative works. The rent figures have been used as a guideline only and are not intended to amount to an exact refund. Overall, the evidence shows there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response the resident’s various disrepair concerns. The timeline points to inappropriate delays of around 27 months in total.

The landlord’s service charge information

In December 2020 the landlord told the resident she contributed towards maintaining trees and a green opposite the block. From March 2021 it repeatedly gave her contradictory information. The information seen suggests its later advice was correct. However, the timeline shows the resident was prompted to query its initial advice on several occasions. Again, it is reasonable to conclude this was both distressing and inconvenient. The landlord should have been readily able to clarify the extent of the block’s boundaries and the composition of the disputed charge.
It unlikely the resident has contributed towards the maintenance of a public space. In contrast, the timeline confirms the resident was adversely impacted by the landlord’s incorrect information. No information was seen to show the landlord acknowledged its initial error or attempted to redress the resident. It should provide the correct boundary/charge information to fully resolve the matter. The Ombudsman will award proportionate compensation to put things right for the resident based on the information seen.
Given the above, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s service charge information.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord accepted it unfairly closed the resident’s initial complaint from 11 March 2021. Further, its stage one response was incomplete as a result. Its stage one response identified a complaint handling delay of around one month. Overall, the wording of its complaint correspondence indicates the landlord awarded the resident a total of £125 in respect of these failures. This figure was based on £75 awarded at stage one, and £50 awarded at stage two. The timeline confirms the landlord was right to compensate the resident given what happened.
However, it also confirms the landlord overlooked several issues that were important to the resident. For example, her May 2021 escalation request said the landlord’s investigation should include her concerns about a “rude” member of staff. Her July 2021 escalation request said the landlord should: reimburse her aerial related service charges, compensate the lost use of the balcony and cover her costs for bottled water. Nevertheless, the landlord’s stage two response failed to address any of these requests directly.
This was contrary Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) as published in July 2020. Section 3.14 of the Code said, “Landlords shall address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions…”. The resident subsequently told us the landlord failed to read her complaint fully and its approach prompted her to repeat information several times. The timeline shows these comments were not unfair given the content of the landlord’s stage two response.
From the information seen, her above concerns remain unresolved around 12 months later based on the timing of this assessment. This was unfair to the resident and it represents inappropriate complaint handling on the landlord’s part. If it wanted to subject some of these concerns to both stages of its complaints process, the landlord could have reasonably raised a new complaint to address them. It could not fairly overlook them in any case. The landlord’s stage two omissions compounded its failures at stage one.
Similarly, contrary to the actions agreed in its stage two response, the block’s repair history suggests the landlord ultimately failed to replace the communal aerial. Nor was any information seen to show the landlord considered the resident’s decant expenses. This raises questions about its capacity to record and follow up actions agreed during its complaint investigations. These failures are additional evidence of inappropriate complaint handling. The landlord’s record keeping will be considered further in the next section.
Whilst no information was seen to show it failed to respond to a previous complaint, the timeline indicates a tendency towards informal complaint handling by the landlord. For example, in May 2021 it apologised for not responding to the resident’s “queries”. The landlord subsequently apologised it was unable to resolve the resident’s concerns informally in line with its complaints policy. Since her complaint included “disrepair issues, loss of use and unfair service charge concerns, informal complaint handling was unlikely to resolve matters to the resident’s satisfaction.
The landlord should be mindful that informal complaint handling is often an inappropriate means to resolve complaints involving multiple or serious issues. Further, it can often aggravate a complaint in situations where it is perceived as a barrier to accessing a landlord’s formal complaints process. It is reasonable to conclude the landlord can improve its overall complaint handling by skipping its informal stage when responding to complex cases.
Overall, the evidence shows there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling. Its failure to address the resident’s concerns in full was both unfair and contrary to the Code. The information seen suggests a number of her concerns remain unresolved around 12 months later.

The landlord’s record keeping

The timeline points to significant failures in respect of the landlord’s record keeping. For example, its repair records did not contain details of a follow-up electrical appointment, around March 2021, to address the faulty socket and kitchen light. They also failed to record the pest control, trip hazard and mould treatment works. The only confirmation these repairs were completed was found in the parties’ correspondence. This was inappropriate given the health and safety implications of the above referenced works.
The landlord’s comments around “populating” inspection reports were noted. Nevertheless, the evidence confirms there are several disadvantages to its approach. For example, descriptions in repair orders can be used to gauge a surveyor’s response to a reported problem. Nevertheless, their value is limited because they do not provide the surveyor’s professional opinion. For example, the timeline shows mould treatment works were completed to three rooms by 26 July 2021. However, the cause is unknown and there was limited information to show the severity of the problem. This information should be included in an inspection report.
Similarly, repair orders only refer to works that have been approved. In contrast, an inspection report can be used to capture details of any requested repairs that were not authorised, along with a supporting rationale. In this case, the landlord’s stage two response promised an inspection would assess various issues including windows in need of overhauling and communal letterboxes in need of attention. Since these items were missing from its November 2021 repair order, it is reasonable to conclude the landlord either:
1. Failed to record details of the promised actions and act accordingly.
2. Inspected the reported issues and decided the items were in a satisfactory condition (only to later change its mind in respect of the windows).
In any case, the above is further evidence of inappropriate record keeping. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections and investigations. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s complaints processes are not operating effectively. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these, as should contractors or managing agents.
Inspection records can also be used to capture a surveyor’s opinion about a requested decant. In this case, the resident disputed the landlord’s assertion that a decant was unnecessary. No information was seen to show how it reached this important decision. Given both the extent of the works and the family’s situation, the landlord should be able to evidence its underlying rationale. Because it hasn’t, the landlord should assume responsibility for the resident’s decant costs. Its failure to produce this information again demonstrates inappropriate record keeping.
Ultimately, this assessment was unable to measure key aspects of the landlord’s performance due its inappropriate record keeping. For example, we could not establish whether unreasonable delays occurred in respect of: radiator repairs, mould treatment or pest control works. There was no evidence to indicate the landlord only provided partial repair records. Given the circumstances, it is reasonable to conclude incomplete records can impact the landlord’s, and the Ombudsman’s, ability to put things right for the resident.
The number and of significance of the above identified failures confirms there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s record keeping. Poor record keeping can have a detrimental impact on a landlord’s repair and complaint handling operations. It can also hamper an Ombudsman investigation. The landlord’s current record keeping contravenes good practices and, from previous cases we have seen, does not align with standards routinely adopted by other landlords.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s record keeping.
2. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s:
  1. response to the resident’s various disrepair concerns.
  2. service charge information.
  3. complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord’s repair records failed to record details of multiple repairs with safety implications. In addition to other record keeping failures, the landlord was also unable to evidence its rationale for declining a decant request. Again, there were potential safety implications to the landlord’s decision. We were unable to measure key aspects of the landlord’s performance due its inappropriate record keeping
The timeline points to inappropriate delays of around 27 months in respect of decorating and window repairs. Around half of these delays stemmed from the landlord’s failure to fulfil its obligation to make good. The delays caused the resident unnecessary distress and inconvenience.
The landlord gave the resident contradictory information about her service charges. It failed to recognise its previous information was incorrect or redress the resident accordingly.
The landlord’s failure to address the resident’s complaint in full was both unfair and contrary to the Code. The information seen suggests several significant issues remain unresolved around 12 months later. The evidence suggests a tendency towards informal complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord’s senior leadership to issue the resident a written apology for the above identified delays and failures. The apology should recognise: the extent of delays to decorating and window repairs, incorrect service charge information, missed complaint issues and poor record keeping. It should be issued within four weeks and the Ombudsman should be given a copy.
The landlord to inspect the property for mould and inadequate repairs. The landlord should share its detailed findings with the resident and the Ombudsman within four weeks. Any identified repairs should be addressed accordingly.
The landlord to complete the actions agreed during its stage two response. Within four weeks it should complete the agreed aerial repair and inspect the communal mailboxes to ensure they are secure. Again, the landlord should share its inspection findings with the resident and the Ombudsman.
The landlord to pay the resident a total of £3375.37 in compensation within four weeks. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises:
1. £1775.37 rent reimbursement for loss of enjoyment/amenity caused by the landlord’s delayed decoration and window repairs.
2. £750 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s inappropriate response to her various disrepair concerns.
3. £300 to cover the resident’s decant expenses from around July 2021.
4. £275 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above identified complaint handling delays and failures.
5. £275 which the landlord previously awarded the resident at stages one and two of its internal complaints procedure. Any amount which the landlord has already paid directly to the resident can be deducted from the above total.
The landlord to address the following issues through its formal complaints process: delayed and/or inadequate balcony repairs and lost balcony use; the resident’s staff conduct concerns; her requests for refunded aerial service charges and bottled water costs. Before proceeding, the landlord should contact the resident and ask whether any additional complaint issues were previously missed.
The landlord to conduct a senior management review into the key issues highlighted in this report. Within four weeks, the landlord should provide the Ombudsman a report summarising its identified improvements. The review should include the landlord’s:
1. processes for recording surveyor’s inspections; repairs record keeping with emphasis on potential safety issues; repairs policy document; tendency towards informal complaint handling; failure to address key complaint issues in line with the Code and its failure to follow up agreed 18 complaint actions. It should cascade the report’s findings to its relevant staff for improvement purposes.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within four weeks