Birmingham City Council (202218265)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218265

Birmingham City Council

15 February 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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the boiler.
    2. The landlord’s response to concerns about the conduct of operatives.
  2. This investigation has also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Scope of investigation

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. The Ombudsman is aware of a case (reference 202316773) that includes a complaint about damage to the property and compensation. This report will not address or make any conclusions on these issues.
  3. The resident has stated he was discriminated against by the landlord on grounds of race. While we can consider the events around the reported discrimination and assess whether the landlord has acted reasonably and treated him fairly in response to such concerns, we cannot issue a binding decision on whether the resident has or has not been discriminated against. This is something better dealt with by the courts.

Background

  1. The complainant lives in the 2-bed house with his mother who is the named tenancy holder. The tenancy commenced on 6 October 1986. For the purpose of this report, the complainant will be referred to as ‘the resident’.
  2. The landlord has informed us that the tenancy holder has a vulnerability ‘marker’ for mobility issues.

Summary of events

  1. The Ombudsman has not been provided with evidence of actions that were taken by the landlord prior to its stage 1 complaint response despite an information request sent by this Service.
  2. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 21 January 2022. The response referred to an email from the resident of 4 January 2022 and covered the following issues:
    1. Allegations that past complaints had not been responded to. The landlord found this allegation untrue, stating 6 had been recorded and responded to.
    2. Allegations of racial abuse. The landlord confirmed no previous complaints had been received of such a serious allegation. It informed the resident he could make a complaint if he wished to do so.
    3. Reports of low boiler pressure. The landlord confirmed there had not been any repairs reported that year, and none were outstanding. It said it had raised a repair but reminded him it could not repair something that had not been reported.
  3. On 1 February 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to say he was not getting responses to his emails requesting help. He told the landlord it was all becoming too stressful, and that the continuous discrimination was impacting his mental health.
  4. On 7 February 2022, the landlord emailed the resident referring to his email of 4 February 2022. The staff member advised they could not respond to his queries as they did not work in repairs. The landlord told the resident his email had been forwarded to the appropriate teams and advised that repair issues should be directed to the repairs email address.
  5. The landlord’s internal records show a repair was raised on 21 February 2022 for low pressure, with the appointment booked for 25 February 2022. On the appointment day, the resident told the landlord no one had attended in the timeframe given. He had called the contractor who told him the engineer was delayed on an emergency. He was told the engineer would attend after 5pm, however he attended after 6pm. The resident stated he found this unacceptable and wanted to know what has going to happen about this.
  6. On 1 March 2022, the resident emailed the landlord asking for help with the ongoing issues and engineers not turning up on time.
  7. The landlord emailed the resident on 2 March 2022. The staff member repeated the response sent on 7 February 2022 and confirmed the resident’s emails had been sent to the repairs team. The landlord stated further direct emails to that email address may not get a response. The resident asked who he should go to for help as the lack of response was a running theme. There is no evidence of the landlord responding to the resident.
  8. On 15 March 2022, the landlord sent the resident a letter regarding the missed appointment on 25 February 2022. The letter confirmed the engineer was delayed due a gas leak in another property but did attend after 6pm the same evening. It apologised for the inconvenience and apologised if the resident believed this was a racial matter. It advised appointments can be delayed unexpectedly, and confirmed this was not race related.
  9. On 30 March 2022, the resident emailed several landlord staff, his MP and councillor. He asked for help, stating that the landlord was ignoring his complaints, even those regarding racial abuse. The councillor asked the landlord to investigate the resident’s emails. The landlord confirmed the case was being investigated and an update would be sent.
  10. The resident emailed the landlord on 6 April 2022 to confirm he had still not received a response.
  11. The landlord provided the councillor with an update on 11 April 2022. It confirmed the detail from the response sent to the resident on 21 January 2022. The landlord asked the councillor to pass on its apologies for any stress and inconvenience caused which had impacted the resident’s mental health. It suggested he contact his GP if he still felt that way and confirmed it had made a request for a safe and wellbeing check to be completed if the resident agreed. The landlord said the resident could request a review of the complaint if he remained unhappy and it would respond within 20 working days.
  12. On 13 April 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to ask for help, stating the involvement of his MP and councillor had not assisted. The resident said he was constantly being let down and referred to the treatment being linked to the colour of his skin. He stated he would be contacting the local news if he had not received a response by 5pm that evening. The landlord responded and apologised for the delays. It confirmed it had asked for the case to be looked at as a priority and it would respond once the investigation had finished.
  13. On 2 May 2022, a repair was logged due to no heating. The landlord’s records indicate it attended the same day.
  14. The resident emailed the landlord on 20 June 2022. He stated he had waited 2 months for a response and wanted the issue escalating. He stated being let down was a common occurrence and it was affecting him mentally. The landlord responded, apologising for the delay, and confirmed it had asked for the delay to be investigated and it would respond as a priority.
  15. The landlord and resident exchanged several emails on 1 September 2022. The landlord apologised for the lack of contact and advised the matter had been escalated to management and would be dealt with as a priority. The resident stated he had been told this twice but had still not received a response. The resident alleged it was racial discrimination and unacceptable and asked how to escalate his issues. The landlord confirmed the case had been registered as a complaint and it would ensure he was contacted at the earliest opportunity.
  16. On 5 September 2022, the landlord emailed the resident to confirm it had been asked to investigate allegations of misconduct from the contractor. It confirmed it would call him on 6 September 2022 to discuss this further. The resident replied stating it was not just the conduct. He said it was the constant let downs, the missed appointments, not turning up on time and not doing what it was supposed to. He advised several engineers had been to the property regarding hot water problems and although he had been told the problem was resolved, it continued.
  17. The landlord spoke to the resident on 6 September 2022. The resident stated an engineer attended on 2 May 2022. He was thorough, had checked all the pipework and had fitted parts, but the problem continued. He stated he had not reported further faults due to lack of confidence in the landlord’s ability to resolve the problem. He asked for the boiler to be looked at again. The landlord agreed to see if the matter had been discussed with senior officers. The resident had referred to previous racial abuse from an operative, however had confirmed it was many years ago and he could not recall the detail. The resident reported a more recent incident when the operative who attended was not there to do what the resident was expecting. He said the operative told him he was going to his van before driving off and not returning.
  18. The landlord noted the complaint details via an internal email. It confirmed the resident was continuing to lose pressure and hot water. It noted the actions taken during the visit in May 2022, but that the problem continued.
  19. A repair for low pressure was reported on 6 September 2022. It was recorded as a 24-hour response, however the landlord’s evidence suggests the contractor could not contact the resident, so did not visit.
  20. On 8 September 2022, the resident emailed the landlord regarding an appointment that had been arranged. He had received a call from the contractor confirming an appointment for 3 October 2022, but then received a call shortly after telling him it had been booked for 12 September 2022. The landlord replied to apologise for the inconvenience and confirmed the second caller had not been aware of his working pattern. The appointment was confirmed for 3 October 2022 due to work commitments and the resident wanting to be present for the appointment.
  21. On 6 October 2022, the resident reported a problem with the contractor. He stated that on 2 October 2022, 2 engineers were supposed to attend between 8am and 1pm but did not arrive until after 3pm. He said they were there for 5 minutes, did not look at the leak or anything else, just ordered parts and said someone would return at 10am on 6 October 2022.
  22. On 6 October 2022, the resident said an engineer attended earlier than expected and he was at the shops. He said the engineer knocked quietly and then drove off before his mother could answer the door. The resident asked for a call as soon as possible as the issue needed to be sorted that day. Three further emails were sent by the resident asking for a call and stating he was getting ignored and how this was making him feel.
  23. On 20 October 2022, the resident emailed the landlord, his MP, councillor, and a news channel. He asked for help with the landlord, stating he was being threatened with court for rent which he had tried to pay, and it was not doing what it was supposed to. He outlined the impact this was having on his health.
  24. On 21 October 2022, the landlord’s internal records confirm a safe and wellbeing request was sent to the adult social care team following the email it had received the previous day.
  25. The resident emailed the landlord on 24 October 2022. He noted he had not received any update from it. He said he had reported no heating or hot water and had been told he would have to wait 5 days, however a repair was raised and was attended the same day.
  26. On 24 October 2022, the landlord made an internal note, confirming the case had been escalated as the response was overdue.
  27. The landlord spoke to the resident on 25 October 2022. He confirmed the boiler had been inspected and parts fitted the previous day, but he had no hot water again. He stated his frustration with the continued loss of pressure and hot water. The landlord advised it would ask for the frequency of breakdowns to be reviewed. The resident told the landlord of an incident that happened on 6 October 2022 with the engineers. He said he had overheard comments made between the engineers that he classed as bullying and disrespectful. Following the call, the landlord sent an email to the contractor. It included details of the resident’s allegations of misconduct from the engineers. The landlord asked the contractor to investigate the allegations and provide feedback by 28 October 2022. The landlord also sent an internal request, asking if alternative action was needed due to the frequency of the boiler breakdowns.
  28. The landlord received an email from the MP on 25 October 2022, asking for a close to the situation and an update. The landlord replied to the MP on 26 October 2022, confirming it had spoken to the resident the previous day. It advised it was waiting for comments from the contractor regarding the allegations against them. The landlord confirmed the resident was experiencing continued loss of hot water and this had been escalated to senior management for review. It said it was processing a second investigation after the resident asked for a review of the stage 1 response, but this was delayed due to excessive workloads. The resident had been informed his case had been prioritised and the response would also be sent to his councillor as per the procedure.
  29. On 28 October 2022, the landlord received feedback from the contractor regarding the allegations of misconduct. The engineers had been interviewed separately, and neither could recall the conversation and what had been said, however both offered apologies if they had said something wrong.
  30. On 2 November 2022, the resident asked the landlord for a response to a letter he received on 6 October 2022. It said a response would be sent within 15 working days, but he had not received one. The landlord confirmed the letter was in connection with another complaint that was under investigation. It confirmed it was still investigating the stage 2 response and apologised for the lengthy delays. It told the resident that excessive workloads meant many complaints were overdue and it was not because he was being singled out. The landlord said due to the serious allegations made, it was imperative to give time for feedback. It told the resident it aimed to respond by 4 November 2022.
  31. The landlord’s internal records indicate that on 4 November 2022, it emailed senior management to ask for opinions on the continued boiler problems.
  32. On 4 November 2022, the landlord sent the stage 2 response to the councillor and confirmed this action to the resident. The response letter confirmed:
    1. The resident had reported frequent loss of hot water in recent weeks, even after new parts had been fitted. Hot water had been restored on 25 October 2022.
    2. The breakdowns did not give sufficient cause to replace the boiler.
    3. For the misconduct allegations raised prior to 2020, the landlord was unable to take any action as it no longer worked with the contractor.
    4. In relation to the recent allegations, the engineers could not recall the conversation pertaining to misconduct. Without proof or admission of misconduct, the landlord could not enforce action, other than to stop these engineers from returning to the property.
    5. In response to the resident’s comments regarding his complaints being ignored, it had explained to him that it received large numbers of complaints. As a result, delays could occur, and it was unfortunate the resident had misconstrued these as being ‘race related’ or ‘bullying’.
    6. It was to provide the resident with the necessary support going forward to prevent a repeat of any untoward incidents.

Post complaint

  1. The Ombudsman has received evidence to confirm the problems with the boiler continued throughout November and December 2022.
  2. On 19 December 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to advise the boiler had leaked. An engineer attended on 16 December 2022, but the resident said nothing had been put down on the floor. The boiler cupboard flooring had soaked through to the kitchen ceiling and damaged the fresh decor. He stated he wanted to make a complaint and asked for the damage to be fixed.
  3. On 20 December 2022, the landlord emailed the contractor and advised the boiler had leaked into the kitchen following the last repair. The resident emailed the landlord to say he had received a call from the contractor who was sending 2 engineers to fix the leak. He confirmed the leak had been fixed, but the kitchen had been damaged in the process. He also told the landlord he had a video of one of the engineers confirming he had not been questioned about the incident on 6 October 2022. There is evidence to suggest the resident tried to send the video to the landlord, however due to technical issues it is unclear if this was received successfully by the landlord.
  4. On 22 December 2022, the resident emailed the landlord, MP, and councillor to advise he reported the boiler leaking on 20 December 2022. Although the resident said he was told someone would attend within 4 hours, he had not heard anything 2 days later. He confirmed the boiler was still leaking.
  5. On 22 December 2022, the landlord raised a repair for the boiler leak. An engineer attended, and the resident said the engineer had told him the previous engineer had not tightened the condensate cap. The landlord confirmed it would pass the resident’s comments to the contractor and did so the same day.
  6. It is evidenced that the resident experienced further problems with the boiler into January, March and April 2023 before approval was given to replace it. The boiler was replaced on 27 June 2023.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states:
    1. It is responsible for the maintenance of heating systems.
    2. Emergency repairs will be attended to within 2 hours, urgent repairs within 1, 3 or 7 days based on requirements, and routine repairs within 30 days of the repair being reported.
  2. The landlord’s complaint procedure states stage 1 complaints will be acknowledged within 2 working days and responded to within 15 working days. Stage 2 complaints will be responded to within 20 working days.
  3. The landlord’s code of conduct policy states employees must treat all other employees and customers with courtesy and respect. They must not make remarks or gestures relating to any protected characteristics. Any complaint made on one of these grounds will be taken seriously and will be subject to thorough investigation.

Boiler repairs

  1. The landlord’s repair history confirms that there had not been any repairs logged in early 2022, therefore it was reasonable for the landlord to confirm this to the resident in the stage 1 complaint response. It was appropriate of the landlord to remind the resident of his responsibility for reporting repairs.
  2. It is noted that the resident asked for help from a team outside of repairs. As it could not offer direct assistance, that team acted appropriately by forwarding the email to the team that could help (the repairs department). There are however concerns regarding the landlord’s record keeping as the emails referred to could not be located upon request from the Ombudsman. It is therefore unclear what the resident was referring to in his emails and if the landlord responded appropriately.
  3. An engineer attended the property for low boiler pressure on 25 February 2022. It was reasonable for the landlord to raise the repair on behalf of the resident. However, this was done following an email received from the resident on 4 January 2022, as confirmed in the stage 1 response. This meant the appointment was delayed by several weeks which this Service finds unreasonable.
  4. The engineer was late for the appointment due to being delayed at another property. It is acknowledged that this can happen, however it would have been reasonable for the landlord or contractor to have contacted the resident as soon as the likely delay was identified. The resident should not be expected to chase the attendance of engineers with the landlord or contractor. Although the engineer did attend later on that evening, the findings from the visit have not been provided. It is therefore difficult to conclude if the problem was located, resolved or if additional work was needed.
  5. A further repair was logged on 2 May 2022 due to no heating. The landlord’s internal records confirm a contractor attended the same day. The repair notes state the expansion vessel was recharged and tested and all was ok. The landlord’s actions in this regard were therefore appropriate.
  6. There was a gap of 4 months before the next repair for low pressure was reported in September 2022. The landlord’s records suggest it was raised for a 24-hour appointment which was an appropriate response, but the contractor was unable to contact the resident to gain access. This was due to the resident’s work commitments. The appointment was arranged for 3 October 2022 to allow the resident to be present.
  7. There is evidence of several emails from the resident to the landlord from April to October 2022 asking for updates; however, from May to September 2022, there were no new reports of issues with the boiler. The landlord told the resident repeatedly the matter had been escalated as a priority, however as the resident had raised several issues by this stage, it is not clear what issue had been escalated and if it was in connection with the boiler. The lack of clarity around this has raised concerns with the landlord’s record keeping and communication. This has potentially caused confusion for the parties involved which then led to delays and unclear investigation and communication with the resident. As a result, the resident had to invest unnecessary time and effort in obtaining a response.
  8. The resident informed the landlord that the engineers who attended the property on 2 October 2022 did nothing but order parts and were only at the property for 5 minutes. There is no record of any action taken by the landlord to verify the resident’s comments. Due to the allegations and concerns raised by the resident, it would have been appropriate for this to have been investigated further by the landlord and contractor and for feedback to have been given to the resident.
  9. A further visit was made on 6 October 2022. The evidence provided confirms this was recorded as a no access visit. There is evidence of a series of requests from the resident for the landlord to call him about the ongoing heating problem. While it is acknowledged that the emails from the resident were sent in quick succession, there is no evidence of any call being made to the resident. This raises concern with the communication to the resident which likely contributed to his frustration.
  10. On 24 October 2022, the resident said he was told he would have to wait 5 days for an appointment for no heating or hot water. There is no additional evidence relating to this call, so it is not possible to determine if the landlord responded appropriately, or if it investigated this further. The resident did confirm that an engineer attended to fit parts on 24 October 2022. However, he reported the following day that there was still no hot water whilst the landlord said in its stage 2 complaint response that the hot water had been restored on 25 October 2022. It is inappropriate that there are insufficient records to allow the Ombudsman to establish what repairs were conducted in late October 2022 and whether the landlord was satisfied that this would be a long-lasting repair.
  11. It is noted that after the final complaint response there was a leak from the boiler that travelled through to the kitchen and damaged the ceiling. The resident said he had been told the leak was due to an engineer not tightening the condensate cap. The repair notes indicate the condensate was loose and was dripping. It was secured during the repair. Although the landlord sent these comments to the contractor, there is no evidence of any further investigation to confirm if this was the cause of the leak and if the contractor was liable for the leak. It is of concern that despite the multiple breakdowns that the landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 complaint response, similar issues with the boiler had to be reported until the item was renewed in mid-2023.
  12. The Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the boiler repairs. The landlord’s internal records suggest that apart from the delay in arranging the appointment from January to February 2022, it generally attended to the repairs in a timely manner when put on notice of the problem. There were occasions when appointment dates were delayed. This was reasonable as it was to allow the resident to be at the property, so appointments were made around his work commitments.
  13. The resident sent continuous emails to the landlord from March 2022 to October 2022 asking for updates which related to several separate issues. The landlord had been made aware via the resident’s emails how the lack of response was affecting his health, yet it took from April 2022 to November 2022 to provide its final response. This Service finds this delay unreasonable, and the Ombudsman has made findings related to the landlord’s complaint handling below.
  14. It is expected that the landlord has effective processes in place to record information on repairs so it can monitor them through to completion and address any ongoing issues. There is inconsistent evidence of the outcomes of visits or updates from the landlord contractors. This means the landlord has limited knowledge on repairs which has an impact on the information it can provide to residents. The delayed responses and lack of communication caused the resident to spend time and effort in chasing the landlord and the contractor for updates and missed appointments. To address the service failures identified, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that compensation should be offered to the resident. Further details can be found in the orders section of this report.

Staff conduct

  1. The resident informed the landlord in January 2022 of a historical incident linked to a contractor and said he believed it be race related. In response, the landlord searched the historic complaints but did not find any. It told the resident that as this incident happened some years ago, and due to the landlord no longer working with the contractor, no further action could be taken. The Ombudsman finds the landlord’s response reasonable.
  2. There was a sequence of visits from 2 October 2022 to 6 October 2022 whereby the resident alleged the misconduct of staff was race related. These were reported to the landlord, but there is no evidence to suggest the landlord investigated these with the contractor. The landlord was aware of the impact these problems were having on his mental health. It was also aware that the resident was of the belief he was being ignored, and the treatment he was receiving was race related. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, and in line with the landlord’s code of conduct, these incidents should have been investigated separately and the outcome given to the resident. This would have demonstrated the landlord was listening to him and acting on his allegations.
  3. There is evidence of the landlord investigating the incident from 6 October 2022. The landlord acted appropriately by listening to the resident before sending relevant details to the contractor and asking for the allegations to be investigated. The Ombudsman has seen evidence to confirm the contractor interviewed the engineers separately about the allegation, and the feedback was given to the landlord. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, on this occasion, the landlord acted appropriately to address and respond to the allegations made.
  4. The Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of concerns regarding staff conduct. Although it did evidence appropriate action to respond to one of the incidents reported, there were other incidents whereby there is no evidence of any action taken. This was not in line with the landlord’s code of conduct which states all allegations will be thoroughly investigated. The lack of action likely contributed to the resident feeling he was being ignored. To address the service failure, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that compensation should be offered to the resident. Further details can be found in the orders section of this report.

Associated complaint handling

  1. The landlord has confirmed it is unable to locate the email from 4 January 2022 that it referred to in its stage 1 response letter on 21 January 2022. It also confirmed this was not the first complaint it had received in relation to these issues, but this information has not been provided. It is therefore unclear what this letter was in response to and raises concerns around the landlord’s record keeping and complaint handling. Due to the lack of evidence, the Ombudsman is unable to determine if the landlord has addressed all issues raised by the resident and if it complied with the complaints policy.
  2. The landlord has confirmed that following the receipt of the stage 1 response in January 2022, an email from the resident on 18 February 2022 should have been accepted as a request for a review. It is noted that this email has not been provided as evidence. The landlord has acknowledged new complaints were raised rather than the case being escalated, and this delayed the process. It is expected that the landlord has an effective process for complaint handling, including escalations. The actions and admissions of the landlord supports the concerns regarding poor complaint handling and poor record keeping. The creation of new complaints, rather than escalating active complaints, has complicated and delayed matters further. This caused the resident to contact the landlord on several occasions to obtain updates which caused unnecessary time and effort to him and inevitably led to his frustrations.
  3. There is no evidence of the resident receiving a response to the numerous update requests subsequently sent, other than to be told they were being dealt with as a priority. There is evidence of poor communication, a lack of urgency and ineffective management of this case which impacted on the landlord’s ability to provide a timely response to the resident.
  4. It is unclear what communication the landlord accepted as a complaint review request. There is evidence from the landlord to suggest the resident asked for a review on 11 April 2022 via his councillor, but, as above, it has stated it should have used an email from 18 February 2022 as the review request. Neither of the emails have been provided as evidence so we are unable to determine if the final response covered all of the issues raised. This demonstrates further the concerns around the landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping and contributed to delays and further time and effort spent by the resident seeking an update.
  5. The stage 2 complaint response was sent to the councillor on 4 November 2022. From 11 April 2022, it took 144 working days for the landlord to provide its final response letter. This is significantly outside of the timescales outlined in the complaint policy and the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code. The landlord failed to identify all of its failures in relation to the handling of the complaint and did not offer any redress in acknowledgement of these. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was unreasonable and demonstrates a lack of recognition of the service failures and how it can improve these in future cases.
  6. The Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. There is confusion around what was accepted as the initial complaint, and further uncertainty about what correspondence it should have treated as an escalation request. The landlord failed to comply with its own complaint policy and the Code. The landlord failed to identify its own service failures with the complaint handling, the lack of communication and the delays incurred. It is expected that an effective complaint process should draw out these failures and, where appropriate, offer redress. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord should offer compensation for its failures in the handling of the complaint. Further details are included in the orders section of this report.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of repairs to the boiler.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to concerns about the conduct of operatives.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

  1. There was an unreasonable delay in booking the repair appointment from early January 2022 to late February 2022. Subsequently, the landlord generally responded to the repairs in a timely manner and in line with the repair policy. However, there were occasions when appointments were attended earlier or later than the appointment time without the resident being notified. If appointments are changed or delayed for any other reason, this should be communicated to the resident at the earliest opportunity. This will reduce the inconvenience of the resident, while also setting expectations. There was poor record keeping in relation to the emails from the resident and the outcome of repair visits. There was also a lack of urgency in responding to the resident’s concerns, and the landlord did not conduct a long-lasting repair until well beyond the final complaint response.
  2. It is evident that there was a lack of consistency in the landlord’s approach to investigating the incidents raised by the resident. Due to the nature of the allegations made, the landlord should have demonstrated a thorough investigation process for each incident reported which then should have been fed back to the resident.
  3. There was evidence of poor record keeping, poor complaint handling and a lack of communication with the resident. This led to unnecessary delays in responses and contributed to the additional time and effort spent by the resident in trying to obtain these from the landlord.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
    1. Write to the resident to offer a sincere apology for the identified failures.
    2. Pay the resident £450 compensation, which is made up of the following:
      1. £100 for the service failures identified with the boiler repairs.
      2. £100 for the inconsistent approach to dealing with allegations of racial discrimination by staff.
      3. £250 in relation to the complaint handling failures identified.
  2. The above payments should be paid direct to the landlord’s named tenant and should not be offset against any rent arrears that may be outstanding.