Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Nottingham Community Housing Association Limited (202125527)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202125527

Nottingham Community Housing Association Limited

30 January 2024


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 of a leak and repairs to the bathroom extractor fan.
    2. The resident’s queries about the landlord’s methods of communication.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
  2. On 21 November 2019, the resident reported several bathroom repair issues, including a water stain on the ceiling by the extractor fan. On 10 December 2021 the resident chased the repairs and stated water was entering the bathroom around the extractor fan, which had stopped working. 
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 16 January 2022. He said the landlord had not responded to his emails in 2019 about water ingress and the leak had damaged the extractor fan. He said the repair caused risks to his health and could cause further damage.
  4. In the landlord’s stage 1 response, it said it did not store records from 2019, so it was unable to confirm why it did not respond to his initial emails. It had attempted to access the property to assess the cause of the water ingress on 25 January 2022. It asked the resident to rearrange the appointment.
  5. The resident raised a second complaint on 9 August 2022 as the leak was intermittently ongoing when it rained and was causing stains, damage to the plaster, and the extractor fan had stopped working. He said the landlord had advised several times it was trying to source scaffolding to access the roof and complete the repairs but had not confirmed when the works would be completed.
  6. In the landlord’s stage 1 response on 25 August 2022, it said the delays had been caused due to “the aftermath of the pandemic, a national shortage of tradespeople and difficulty in sourcing supplies”. It also said the scaffolding supplier had ceased trading without prior notice. The repair had been escalated to the contractor’s management and would be monitored weekly. It said the scaffolding would be erected on 25 August 2022 and the works should be completed within 48 hours subject to the weather.
  7. The resident escalated his complaint on 3 September 2022. The Service has not been provided with a copy of the escalation request, but in a later email to the resident, the landlord said the resident did not provide any reasons for the request. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 30 September 2022. It said the gutter had been fixed, and the contractor said, “the bathroom leak is caused by a condensation from an extractor pipe and the cupboard leak has been repaired.” It said its repair contract had been renewed with a different contractor on 1 October 2022. The new contractor would attend the property to inspect the work and complete further remedial work if required. It apologised for the inconvenience caused and offered £50 as a gesture of goodwill.
  8. The landlord sent a letter to the resident on 8 September 2022 following the resident raising further concerns about its communication methods. It said it allowed multiple methods to accommodate residents’ needs. It said all written communication would be sent by email, and it would only use one email address at a time. The resident then raised a complaint on 7 November 2022 as the landlord had insisted that he use one email address. He said he used the Resolver system for emails, an external complaint service, which created unique email addresses for each complaint point.
  9. In the landlord’s stage 1 response on 18 November 2022, it said it would facilitate future email correspondence using Resolver, using the unique emails for each issue. It asked the resident to include a subject header, use each Resolver email address for only one issue, and send new issues to the designated contact point. It also asked him for an email address so it could contact him about any issues unrelated to those raised on Resolver. 
  10. The resident escalated the complaint as he raised concerns with the landlord’s conditions on using Resolver. In its stage 2 response on 1 December 2022, the landlord said the resident should proceed with his approach to email subject lines and it would endeavour to do the same. It also said it would aim to respond using the relevant email address associated with the specific matter and acknowledged that Resolver pre-populates the landlord’s email address, so he was unable to change it. It asked the resident to forward any confirmation emails from Resolver to the direct contact to ensure it is not overlooked. It said any additional correspondence outside of Resolver would be sent by post.
  11. In the resident’s complaint to the Service, he said he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the repairs, and he experienced issues arranging repair appointments to resolve the issue in full following the completion of the complaints process. He was also unhappy that the landlord used the Resolver system incorrectly and he thought the landlord’s staff members had differing levels of understanding regarding how to use it.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42 (c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints that “were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising”.
  2. It is recognised that the resident initially reported bathroom repair issues in November 2019, but there is no evidence that he subsequently pursued the issue or raised a complaint with the landlord until 10 December 2021. The investigation will therefore focus on the landlord’s handling of the repairs from December 2021 onwards. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and repairs to the bathroom extractor fan

  1. In accordance with the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property. The landlord’s property service and maintenance guidance states that routine repairs will be completed within 28 calendar days. As such, when the resident reported on 10 December 2021 that rainwater was entering the bathroom and the extractor fan had stopped working, the landlord should have acted in accordance with its policies.
  2. In this case, limited contemporaneous evidence has been provided by the landlord in relation to the repairs. As a result, the investigation has largely relied on the information provided by the landlord in its complaint responses, and it will be highlighted when insufficient evidence has been provided. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. The Service’s knowledge and information management (KIM) spotlight report found that failures to accurately record information led to landlords “not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress”. Furthermore, if there is insufficient evidence the Service may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. 
  3. The landlord initially acted appropriately as it told the resident it had logged the repair with its contractor on 17 December 2021. However, there is no evidence that the contractor contacted the resident until 13 January 2022, which was an unreasonable delay. The resident then told the landlord the contractor said they were not informed of the leak and the extractor fan could not be repaired until the leak was resolved. It therefore appears the landlord did not provide the full details of the repairs. The landlord should ensure that it correctly raises repair issues so that appointments are arranged with suitably qualified contractors, to prevent any unnecessary delays in progressing the repairs.
  4. In the landlord’s stage 1 response on 7 February 2022, it said a contractor attended the property to inspect the leak on 25 January 2022, but was unable to gain access. The landlord has not provided evidence to confirm that the resident was notified of the appointment, so it is unclear whether he was given reasonable opportunity to allow access. The KIM spotlight report states that landlords should “set out clear requirements of operatives before they are allowed to record an appointment as missed”, including ensuring the resident was notified of the appointment and confirming they are available to provide access. It was appropriate that the landlord explained how to rebook the appointment, but it is unclear from the evidence whether it was reattended.
  5. The Service has not received any evidence relating to the repair between 18 February 2022 and 9 August 2022, when the resident raised his complaint. Nonetheless, it is evident that the resident was somewhat updated on the progress of the repairs as in his complaint he said he was told scaffolding was required to complete roof repair works. As there is a significant gap in the evidence, the Ombudsman is unable to assess whether the landlord’s actions during this period were reasonable.
  6. It is acknowledged that there can be understandable reasons why the landlord may not be able to adhere to its repair response timeframe. In its complaint response, the landlord said it had been unable to complete the repairs within its service standards due to a shortage of tradespeople and supply issues, caused due to COVID-19. While these were fair reasons for the delays, there is no evidence that the resident was provided with this information prior to the landlord’s complaint response. The landlord is expected to reasonably manage the resident’s expectations regarding when the repairs will be completed, which it failed to, resulting in the resident having to spend additional time and effort in chasing the completion of the work.
  7. In its stage 2 response, the landlord stated it had fixed the gutter and said, “the bathroom leak is caused by a condensation from an extractor pipe and the cupboard leak has been repaired.” However, there are no repair records to confirm this. Furthermore, the contractor told the landlord on 8 September 2022 “I’ve repaired it but can’t guarantee”. The landlord should ensure it has put in place a full and lasting repair, so if the contractor was unsure whether this was the case, it should have completed a post-inspection to ensure the suitability of the works.
  8. The resident subsequently raised concerns about the repairs. He asked for evidence of the completed repairs and confirmation of whether any repairs had been completed to the bathroom leak caused by condensation from the extractor pipe. There is no evidence that the landlord addressed his concerns, but it arranged an appointment for 12 October 2022. The contractor was unable to gain access, but the resident said he had notified the contractor on 10 October 2022 that he would be unavailable. No evidence has been provided to confirm whether the appointment was rescheduled.
  9. The landlord has confirmed to the Service that the repairs have been completed, but it has not provided any supporting evidence. It is therefore not entirely clear how it satisfied it had fulfilled its repair obligations. As the resident initially chased the repairs in December 2021, although it is unclear when the works were completed in full, the evidence confirms they remained outstanding for a minimum 10-month period. This was an unreasonable delay which caused distress and inconvenience to the resident, particularly as he was concerned about the health and safety risks of damp and mould and the potential risk of electrocution due to water ingress into the extractor fan. He also experienced time and trouble pursuing the issue. It is acknowledged that the impact to the resident was somewhat reduced as the leak was intermittent and only occurred when it rained.
  10. In its final complaint response, the landlord offered £50 compensation as a gesture of goodwill. Due to the length of the delays, this was not proportionate to the impact on the resident and the level of failing. In line with the Service’s remedies guidance, awards of £100-£600 are appropriate in cases where the landlord has acknowledged failings, but failed to address the detriment to the resident and the compensation offered was not proportionate to the failings identified in the investigation. The landlord is therefore ordered to pay the resident an additional £300 compensation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s queries about the landlord’s methods of communication

  1. The landlord’s communication service standard guidance states it will “offer a high standard of communication to all our customers”. It will respond to emails within 3 working days and social media messages within 1 working day.
  2. The landlord sent a letter to the resident regarding its communication methods on 8 September 2022 following the resident’s concerns. The landlord should work with the resident to mutually agree on a suitable communication method. The landlord agreed that all written communication would be sent by email and said it would only correspond with one of the resident’s email addresses at a time. It also explained some texts were automated, but he was not obliged to respond and while it would respond to Facebook messages, it was unable to proactively send communication due to regulatory or procedural issues. It was reasonable for the landlord to manage the resident’s expectations of the limitations of its communication methods.
  3. It is understood that the resident’s preferred communication method was to use Resolver, a third-party online complaint tool. Resolver generates a unique email address for each issue, so he can manage them separately. It is therefore understandable that the resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s assertion that he had to use one email address, as he was unable to utilise the full benefits of Resolver.
  4. It was reasonable that when the resident raised a complaint regarding the issue, the landlord investigated how to properly use Resolver and agreed to accommodate the resident’s request to use multiple unique email addresses for separate complaint issues. It is understood that the resident had additional concerns following the conditions of use the landlord raised in its stage 1 response, which it promptly responded to and resolved.
  5. Overall, although it is recognised that the landlord’s initial position on using one email address caused inconvenience and frustration to the resident, it was reasonable that it used the complaint process to address and resolve his concerns. Ultimately, the landlord facilitated the resident using multiple email addresses using Resolver, which has resolved the complaint. The landlord should consider providing additional staff training regarding how to use the communication tool, to prevent recurrence of similar issues.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the way the landlord handled the resident’s reports of a leak and repairs to the bathroom extractor fan.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the way the landlord handled the resident’s queries about the landlord’s methods of communication.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. In addition to the £50 compensation already offered, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £300.
  2. The landlord should provide evidence to the Service to confirm how it repaired the bathroom leak and extractor fan.
  3. The landlord should provide evidence that it has complied with the orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord provides additional staff training on how to use Resolver.
  2. The landlord should review its record handling practices and the Service’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management (available on our website), to ensure it retains clear records relating to repairs.