Newlon Housing Trust (202216938)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216938

Newlon Housing Trust

26 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and the resulting remedial works required to their home.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of a 1 bedroom, ground floor flat owned by the landlord. The tenancy started on 18 July 2011. The resident lives at the property with his partner and their young child, who has additional needs and health conditions. Both the resident and his partner liaised with the landlord in the events referred to in this report. They will both be referred to as ‘the resident’ throughout.
3. The landlord has informed the Service that it was unaware that the resident’s child was living at the property until the resident made their complaint.
4. On 8 March 2022, the resident contacted the landlord stating a leak from the flat above was affecting their home and that it was getting worse. They said somebody had attended their neighbour’s flat that day to fix it. On 14 March 2022, the resident explained that they had called the out of hours (OOH) service due to their child nearly slipping on the wet floor. The resident informed the landlord that their child has additional needs and physical health conditions. They said they were having to use extra electricity to wash towels and were spending money on takeaways due to their cooker being wet. The following day, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint.
5. On 4 April 2022, the landlord sent a complaint holding response to the resident due to unexpected staffing issues. The resident stated that nobody had contacted them to arrange an inspection of the damage caused by the leak. They said that mould was now present in their kitchen cupboards and mushrooms were growing. The landlord attended to inspect the resident’s flat on 7 April 2022.
6. On 6 May 2022, the landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It stated it had not found failings in its response to the leak itself, which had been resolved within target timescales. However, it noted that its response to the resident’s reports of leak damage had been “inconsistent” and handled with a “lack of urgency”. It said it hoped that repairs required to the resident’s home would be completed soon and that it would make an offer of compensation once it could assess the full delay.
7. The resident initially requested that the landlord escalate their complaint to stage 2 of its complaints procedure on 17 May 2022. However, the following day, the landlord asked the resident to allow it to continue to try and resolve the complaint at stage 1, which they agreed to.
8. On 15 June 2022, works were carried out to the kitchen, including to re-plaster the ceiling. The resident emailed the landlord on the same day and said they had not been told about any plan to re-decorate affected areas or to tackle the mould growth in their cupboards. They explained it was necessary for them to keep throwing food away.
9. On 21 June 2022, the resident confirmed that the kitchen had dried out but that the contractor had not attended as expected. Operatives had left their tools in the kitchen and bricks in the garden. There had been no communication on when they would next visit and the resident was waiting in each day for no reason.
10. The resident contacted the landlord on 4 July 2022 and 7 July 2022 as flying ants had been accessing their home as a result of the works done in their kitchen. They also reported that the mould in the kitchen cupboards kept returning and requested a further inspection. The landlord responded on 14 July 2022 to state that flying ants were not covered by its pest policy and that the resident would need to arrange for pest control to attend. The resident responded on the same day to ask again for their complaint to be escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints procedure.
11. The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 11 August 2022. It apologised for the delay the resident had experienced in its response to the leak and remedial works. It accepted its response had fallen below its service standards and that it had not placed enough urgency on their request for repairs and redecoration works. It acknowledged that its contractors’ communication with the resident had not been as frequent as it should have been. The landlord offered the resident £285 compensation to recognise 19 weeks’ delay. It committed to reviewing this amount once the remedial works and redecoration had been completed, to ensure it adequately reflected the total delay.
12. Following a visit to the resident’s home on 19 August 2022, the landlord agreed to replace their kitchen and fix the back door panel to prevent ant access. On 30 October 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to express their disappointment at having heard nothing further since.
13. The landlord completed the resident’s kitchen replacement on 16 December 2022. The resident followed up with the landlord on 19 December 2022 regarding the new extractor fan being fitted, as this had not been done. After 2 further attempts at contact, the landlord responded to the resident on 19 February 2023 to confirm it had referred their request to its contractor.
14. The resident referred their complaint to the Ombudsman to investigate. They would like the compensation offer to be reviewed and for the landlord to carry out its promises and treat them with respect in future.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

15. The landlord has provided evidence of a complaint made by the resident in 2017 concerning a different leak affecting his bathroom, and damp and mould in his kitchen. The Service will consider any additional context these matters lend to the more recent events as just described. However, given the length of time since that complaint was resolved, it does not fall within the remit of this investigation.
16. During this investigation, the landlord provided additional evidence of actions it has taken since August 2023 to carry out a wide range of repairs to the resident’s home. Some of these repairs appear to be unconnected to this complaint, such as works to the resident’s bathroom and wider concerns around rising damp affecting the property. The Ombudsman has noted the additional context provided by this evidence. However, the remit of this investigation is to assess the landlord’s initial handling of the resident’s concerns regarding leak damage, including at stage 1 and stage 2 of its complaints process.
17. The landlord has provided its transfers policy, which sets out its approach to moving its residents to another more suitable property within its housing stock. The Service has seen a limited amount of evidence that suggests the resident may have been pursuing a transfer application due to their home having 1 bedroom fewer than their household would normally be entitled to. As the matter of the landlord’s handling of any transfer application was not raised as part of the resident’s complaint, the Service has not considered it to be within the remit of this investigation. If the resident has, or has had, cause to formally complain to the landlord about this matter, they could refer this matter to the Ombudsman if they were to remain dissatisfied following the landlord’s final response.

Policies and Procedures

18. The resident’s assured tenancy agreement sets out the landlord’s obligations, which include “to keep in good repair” the structure, exterior, and installations of the resident’s home. While the leak itself originated from a different property, the landlord’s responsibility for repairing the leak itself has not been disputed.
19. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out the landlord’s approach to meeting its repairs obligations. It states that it aims to complete all emergency repairs within 24 hours and 95% of non emergency repairs within 20 days. It also aims to keep 99% of appointments, with 93% of repairs completed first time. The policy also sets out a clear procedure for following up on repairs reported to the OOH service.
20. The repairs policy states that where the landlord’s system indicates there is a vulnerability in the household, an enhanced repairs service should be provided. The landlord also has a vulnerability policy, which sets out a procedure for the landlord’s staff to follow where new information is received about an existing resident. An assessment form should be sent out (in cases where the landlord’s understanding is that the resident will be able to fill it out) and the landlord will follow this up within 10 days if the form has not been returned. A final letter will be sent and if there is no response, the case will be closed.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and the resulting remedial works required to their home.

21. The landlord stated that it was first aware that the resident’s flat was being affected by a leak from the flat above on 7 March 2022, although the resident stated on 8 March 2022 that it had been ongoing for a week. While the resident’s comments are noted, and not disputed, there is no other evidence to confirm when the leak was first identified, or brought to the landlord’s attention. Furthermore, it is unclear from the landlord’s records who first reported the leak, or when it was fixed, but the resident confirmed on 18 March 2022 that it had been stopped. The evidence suggests the landlord categorised the leak as an urgent repair, although there were delays in fixing it due to contractor sickness and issues with accessing the flat above. Access issues would be considered to be outside of the landlord’s control. However, it should take steps to minimise the impact of operatives going on sick leave on its ability to respond to active leaks.
22. The resident contacted the landlord’s OOH service on 14 March 2022, due to their child slipping on a wet floor in their home as a result of the leak. The evidence suggests that the landlord’s contractor attended as requested. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out the OOH procedure following a call out, including notifying the service centre of any required follow up so that works can be ordered. The evidence demonstrates that the landlord failed to take decisive action the following day or in the days thereafter.
23. The resident had to contact the landlord on multiple occasions throughout March 2022 and April 2022 to explain the impact of the leak damage on their household, and to request assistance. The evidence demonstrates that the landlord identified at an early stage in March 2022 that the leak was likely to be presenting a health and safety risk that needed an urgent response. However, this did not translate into appropriate action and it was necessary for the resident to make repeated attempts at contact. This was inappropriate. It should only be necessary for the resident to make a single report of damage to their flat in order to for the landlord to co-ordinate a reasonable response.
24. An internal request for a decant (temporary move) to be considered for the resident and his family was sent on 17 March 2022. This was appropriate, however the landlord has not provided any evidence of the outcome of any such assessment. The landlord should ensure it is able to demonstrate the outcome of these considerations, with the reasons for any decision clearly recorded. In the circumstances, it would be reasonable for it to maintain an audit trail.
25. On 21 March 2022, a member of staff confirmed their availability to inspect the resident’s home on 24 March 2022. However, 4 days later this had not been followed up and the slot had been missed. The landlord discussed internally about attending the following week instead, however the visit did not happen until 7 April 2022. It told the resident it would update them on the outcome of the inspection. However, 3 days later, it was necessary for the resident to again contact the landlord to request a follow up. The resident stated they had been told there would be a second visit the following day. However, nobody had attended and the resident had not been contacted. This was bad practice and caused the resident inconvenience and frustration. This was further compounded by a lack of response from the landlord until 26 April 2022, in which it showed confusion about the status of the leak. It should not have been necessary for the resident to confirm again that the leak was resolved and they wanted the damage to be fixed. This should have been apparent from the landlord’s own records. That it was not suggests the landlord’s monitoring of the repair was poor.
26. An email from the landlord on 26 April 2022 indicated that damp specialists were meant to attend on 11 April 2022 but they had not done so. They were able to attend on 27 April 2022. However, this did not happen because the landlord could not see that it had been arranged with the resident. The landlord’s response to a straightforward request for assistance following a leak causing damage was disorganised and chaotic. There is evidence of a lack of joined up working between the landlord’s departments and with its contractor(s) and a failure to follow a clear procedure, which had a clear impact on the resident.
27. The landlord’s stage 1 response dated 6 May 2022 reasonably explained that  there had been no identified failure in its fixing of the leak itself. However, it accepted that its response to the damage caused by it had been “inconsistent” and that there was a “lack of urgency” present. This was a reasonable assessment of the situation. The landlord did not make an offer of compensation to remedy the resident’s time and trouble or inconvenience caused by missed appointments. It stated it would wait until the repairs were completed and make an offer based on the total length of the delay. While the landlord had correctly identified that a financial remedy would be appropriate in the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for it to have made, and paid, an offer at stage 1. It had sufficient information about the impact on the resident for the past 2 months to authorise immediate redress without further unnecessary delay.
28. The landlord dissuaded the resident from escalating their complaint on 17 May 2022. It asked the resident to allow it to resolve the issues at stage 1. While the Service accepts the resident agreed to this, it was inappropriate for the landlord to request this as it had already issued its stage 1 response. It agreed to escalate the resident’s complaint almost 2 months later. This was not in accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy or the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). This delayed the resident’s ability to refer their complaint to the Ombudsman for investigation. The landlord should ensure it actions reasonable requests to escalate complaints if it has already issued a response at stage 1. Its complaint policy sets out a list of exceptions whereby a complaint may not be accepted or escalated. None of these exceptions applied to the resident’s complaint. The resident had indicated that they remained unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the issues, and it would have been reasonable for the landlord to escalate their complaint so their concerns could be further considered.
29. There was additional confusion early in June 2022 around which jobs were for the resident’s property, which was similar to previous confusion evident on 6 April 2022. It is unclear why the landlord and contractor kept mixing up various properties. The resident was given a date in September 2022 for initial remedial works, then this was corrected and they were given 2 days’ notice of an appointment instead. The resident was accommodating of each plan of action, though their reference to experiencing inconvenience has been noted.
30. Some remedial works were carried out in 15 June 2022. Communication about additional follow up was poor. The resident contacted the landlord on 21 June 2022 to state that the contractor had left its tools in their kitchen and said “see you in the morning” and then failed to turn up. They said they had taken time off work to facilitate access. This was poor practice from the contractor. Inconvenience caused to the resident could have been avoided with the minimum standard of courteous communication. There is no evidence the landlord addressed this with the contractor. The landlord must ensure it has sufficient oversight of its contractors’ performance and that it holds them accountable for poor practice.
31. On 4 July 2022 and 7 July 2022, the resident informed the landlord that they were now experiencing flying ants in their home. They explained that the ants’ ability to access their home was as a result of the works the landlord had recently carried out. The landlord’s response on 14 July 2022 was that this did not fall within its area of responsibility and therefore the resident would need to seek help elsewhere. This was an inappropriate response. The resident had indicated that the infestation had been enabled by the recent works carried out by the landlord. Therefore, a reasonable response from it would have been to arrange to investigate. If this was found to be the case, the landlord would reasonably be expected to resolve the issue, regardless of what its pest policy said. On 28 August 2022, following a surveyor’s visit, the landlord confirmed the back door panel had been damaged through the work it had carried out and that this had contributed to the infestation. It agreed to take responsibility to resolve it. This was appropriate, however it will be necessary for the landlord to apologise to the resident for the additional distress and inconvenience caused by its initial response. A recommendation will also be made that the landlord reminds relevant staff about its obligations, where infestations are concerned, to mitigate the risk of residents being provided with incorrect advice in the future.
32. In its stage 2 complaint response dated 11 August 2022, the landlord identified that its “co-ordination” had not been as strong as it should have been in identifying and resolving the works required to the resident’s home. The landlord’s conclusion is supported by the evidence. What should have been a straightforward process was instead characterised by disorder. Of concern is that it had been necessary for the complaint handler(s) to become highly involved in chasing the repairs and ensuring appropriate communication with the resident. It should not be necessary for the resident to make a formal complaint to the landlord to increase the likelihood of their repair request being handled appropriately.
33. The landlord completed the replacement of the resident’s kitchen and the outstanding repairs on 16 December 2022. The time period taken to complete this was not unreasonably long in itself, as kitchen replacements are significant works and policy timescales for responsive repairs would not apply here. However, such works should not be unreasonably delayed. It had been necessary for the resident to chase the landlord on 30 October 2022 after 10 weeks without further communication. This was poor service and suggested the landlord had not implemented learning from the resident’s complaint. It will be necessary for the landlord to pay compensation to reflect the impact of this poor communication.
34. Following the resident’s kitchen replacement being completed on 16 December 2022, they contacted the landlord on 3 occasions to follow up with the new extractor fan being fitted. They did not receive a response until 19 February 2023, which was 2 months after their first email. The landlord once again explained the delay as being the result of annual leave, taken over the festive period. The member of staff went on to say that they had only returned to work mid way through January 2023, which was a month prior. There was no explanation for why the reply had taken a further month. That the landlord believed this was an acceptable justification for an email response to be sent 2 months after the original contact is concerning. It further demonstrated that the landlord had failed to implement any learning from the resident’s complaint or was taking steps to improve its service to them. The landlord was failing to restore the resident’s trust and instead it was repeating previous failures.
35. A recurring theme in the landlord’s communication is its members of staff or contractors citing sick or annual leave as explanations for significant delays to repairs or responses. This was evident from the outset and throughout. It is understandable that there will sometimes be unexpected staff shortages due to sick leave, and that staff will also take annual leave. However, the landlord still has a duty to meet its obligations to the resident and provide a good service regardless. It is important that the landlord appropriately manages its staffing resources to that end. The evidence suggests that the landlord does not have mechanisms in place for ensuring its repair services have appropriate cover at all times. There is no evidence that the landlord’s staff carried out handovers prior to going on leave to ensure that time sensitive work was not put on hold. There is no evidence that the landlord’s management ensured that the workload of staff who were on sick leave was re-allocated where this was necessary. It is inappropriate for the landlord to repeatedly refer to staff leave as a justification for poor service.
36. In his initial reports about the leak and associated damage, the resident informed the landlord that their child has various health concerns, including physical health conditions and other additional needs. 9 days later, the landlord emailed internally and said there was a concern “that there is a health and safety risk here”. The landlord’s repairs policy states that where there is a vulnerability recorded on its system, an “enhanced repairs service should be provided”. The landlord failed to provide an appropriate service, or an enhanced one.
37. The landlord stated to the Service that it was unaware there was a child with health conditions living in the resident’s home until they reported the leak in March 2022. However, it was not until the stage 2 response 5 months later, that the landlord provided the appropriate form for the resident to complete and return with relevant medical evidence. Despite being aware from March 2022 that it was necessary to trigger this process, it had failed to do so, which was not in accordance with its vulnerability policy.
38. The landlord also failed to respond to the resident’s request of 16 August 2022 for more information about the form. There is no evidence that the landlord followed up on the return of the form in line with its procedure or that any “enhanced” process was triggered for the resident’s household in the months that followed. On the contrary, the landlord failed to take any significant action or communicate with the resident (except about rent arrears) for 11 weeks after 23 August 2022. This was maladministration. The landlord had received information about the vulnerabilities of a child and the resident had explained the impact of its delays. Yet there is no evidence it took this into consideration or that it has taken sufficient action to reduce the likelihood of such oversight occurring again. The resident stated that they felt the landlord treated their family “like we don’t exist” and expected them to live in poor conditions. Given the evidence that is available, the resident’s feelings are understood. The landlord will be ordered to review the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report – ‘attitudes, respect and rights – a relationship of equals’, published online in January 2024.
39. The landlord calculated its offer of compensation at stage 2 by multiplying a 19 week delay at a rate of £15 per week. Its compensation policy suggests that where there have been delays to repairs, the landlord will offer between £10 to £25 for each week the delay lasted. How it decides the weekly rate will depend on the severity of the impact of the delay. The compensation policy also sets out that the landlord will consider “aggravating factors”, such as where service failure has impacted on those with young children or with health conditions. The landlord did not provide an explanation for its decision to award £15 a week and whether this included a consideration of aggravating factors. It also failed to offer any remedy for the missed appointments it had on record, for which the compensation policy provides £25 per missed appointment. It did not address the resident’s financial loss in extra laundry costs and the cost of takeaways that had been necessary in order for them to meet their child’s needs when their oven was wet. While the landlord’s offer of compensation went some way to address its failings as experienced by the resident prior to 11 August 2022, it was not an adequate remedy. The Ombudsman is not bound by the landlord’s compensation policy and will order an appropriate remedy taking into account the full circumstances of this case.
40. The landlord refused to pay the compensation offer made at stage 2 as it again stated that it wished to review the offer once all repairs had been completed. It is unclear why the landlord considered a further indefinite delay to the initial remedy being paid to be justified. That the landlord then failed to communicate with the resident for a significant period of time over the course of September and October 2022 further demonstrates the inappropriateness of its approach. By not processing the payment at the time, the landlord continued to fail to put things right for the resident. It had acknowledged the failings in it service and the impact on the resident and his family. However, despite this, it continued to delay in taking necessary action to put things right.
41. The resident indicated to the Service that despite the landlord’s repeated promises to review its stage 2 compensation offer once all works had been completed within 8 weeks, it had failed to do so. An email from the resident to the Ombudsman on 30 May 2023 stated that the landlord had not yet made any payment. They have since confirmed that the landlord eventually made an increased payment of £485. It is unclear how the landlord calculated this amount. In the absence of a breakdown, it is not possible for the resident or the Service to consider whether the offer is fair and proportionate.
42. The Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies (published online) sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to putting things right for the resident where they have gone wrong. The guidance suggests that awards of £500 may adequately remedy time and trouble caused by a repeated failure by the landlord to adhere to policy or to communicate appropriately with the resident. It will also be appropriate for the landlord to pay compensation to recognise its failure to adhere to its vulnerability policy. A remedy will also be ordered for inconvenience caused by missed appointments and poor contractor practice.

Determination

43. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and the resulting remedial works required to their home.

Orders

44. Within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for each of the failures identified in this report. The apology must come from a senior figure in the organisation.
    2. Pay the resident an additional £850 in financial compensation, comprised of:

i.        £500 to recognise the resident’s time and trouble.

ii.      £250 to recognise the impact of its failure to act in accordance with its vulnerability policy.

iii.    £100 to recognise the inconvenience caused by missed appointments and poor communication around contractor attendance.

3. The compensation payment must be paid directly to the resident. It must not be used to offset any rent arrears the resident may have, without their prior agreement.

45. The landlord must conduct a review of this case. The review must be carried out by a senior figure at the organisation. The review must include assessments of the following issues, in light of the failings identified in this report:
    1. Why the vulnerability policy and procedure was not followed.
    2. Why it took more than 3 months to arrange for initial remedial works to be carried out at the resident’s home following a leak.
    3. Why the landlord refused to pay compensation at stage 1 and 2 of the complaints procedure.
    4. Cover arrangements and workload reassignment during annual and sick leave.
    5. Oversight of repairs contractor performance and practices.
    6. Why the resident’s complaint did not lead to learning being implemented for at least 12 months after the stage 2 response was issued.
46. The review must refer to the Ombudsman’s Code and the Spotlight Report on attitudes, respect and rights, published online in January 2024. Where areas for improvement are identified, the landlord should come up with an action plan to implement learning and improve its performance, and the performance of its contractors. The review and action plan must be provided to the Ombudsman and the resident within 12 weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

47. The landlord should remind staff, where appropriate, about its obligations where infestations are concerned, to mitigate the risk of residents being incorrectly advised in future. The landlord should ensure its staff consider all relevant information and circumstances when responding to reports of an infestation.