Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202108846)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202108846

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs in the property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 24 November 2008. The property is a 3-bedroom terraced house, and the resident lives there with her children.
In 2018/19, the resident had works completed on her property by the landlord, as it had been in a “very poor condition”. The resident had also built a lean-to on the side of her house that was being used as the utility room which the landlord had completed works on to bring it up to standard. Evidence suggests that those works had been signed off as completed by the landlord’s surveyor in 2019.
The resident reported issues in her home on 27 October 2020, when she advised the landlord a leak from the main roof had caused damp in the property, there was a damp patch in the porch and a leak in the utility room from the roof. She was also aware an electric and gas safety check was due but had been advised by people she knew not to allow contractors into her property unless they were genuine, due to recent incidents in the area. On 28 October 2020, internal communications showed that the landlord was aware it needed a surveyor to look at the resident’s property to assess all the issues raised by the resident.
It is evidenced that the landlord issued a Notice of Seeking Possession (NOSP) to the resident, although the Ombudsman has not seen the details of this, therefore the date of its issue and the reasons behind it are unknown. The resident contacted the landlord, on 19 November 2020, advising that the NOSP she had been issued with was unnecessary as she was happy to let professionals into her home to carry out the required safety checks. She wanted an independent professional to be present at the same time to verify the results. She further said that certain operatives that had attended her property had sexually harassed her. This matter did form part of this complaint to the landlord so is noted for context alone.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 23 February 2021, to ask for an update on the repairs to her porch. She advised the utility room roof was still leaking which was causing damp. On 2 March, the landlord told the resident that any unresolved repair issues were being investigated. The resident chased the landlord again on 14 March 2021, asking what progress had been made about the outstanding repairs. She said she had sent numerous emails detailing the “significant urgency” of the repairs and she was trying to be calm and patient, but the utility room damp was “wreaking havoc.”
On 15 March 2021, the resident advised she believed a 5 year electrical safety check had been done following her refurbishment; she was trying to locate the document. The electrical safety certificate that the resident thought was in place, was in fact for the works completed previously and not a full certificate.
A contractor attended the resident’s property on 30 April 2021 to conduct the electrical safety check. However, on 19 May 2021, the landlord confirmed that further works were required as the electric safety check had been unsatisfactory. Contractors did attend on the 2 June 2021; however, the landlord had not been able to confirm the appointment with the resident and so she unaware they would be attending. She raised a complaint about this. The landlord then sought to arrange convenient dates but was unable to confirm the appointments offered with the resident. On 22 June 2021, internal emails show the landlord was considering legal action as it felt the resident was breaching her tenancy; it informed the resident of this.
In the stage 1 response, with regards to the visit from the contractor on 2 June 2021, the landlord acknowledged that it had arranged the appointment with its contractor but as the resident had not confirmed this, it did not confirm it with the contractor. However, the contractor mistakenly attended. It confirmed that all future appointments would be agreed with the housing officer, and it had written to its contractor confirming this. It asked the resident to provide her availability as the outstanding work needed “resolving urgently.”
On 28 June 2021, the resident contacted the landlord stating that she had reported leaks and severe damp in the utility room since December 2020. She advised that the landlord had inspected this on the 17 December 2020 and 30 April 2021; The Ombudsman has seen no evidence in relation to those inspections. The landlord attended with a leak and damp specialist and to complete the safety check on 5 July 2021.
On 14 July 2021, the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord, via this Service. She said:
1. The main roof had been leaking into the property since 2018 and needed replacing.
2. The landlord had sent round a contractor that claimed all work had been completed when it had not.
3. There was a blockage in the bathroom.
4. The flooring in the bedroom and living room needed replacing, following damaged caused through previous works in the property.
5. The utility room roof had a continuous leak and severe damp following its refurbishment.
6. A pipe in the bathroom had been damaged and not replaced.
7. She was unhappy with the general quality of works throughout the property.
In responding at stage 1 on 28 July 2021, the landlord said following a visit to the resident’s property to carry out a joint inspection with its contractor, the surveyor had requested a visit. This would take place week commencing either 2 or 9 August 2021. The surveyor would advise on and arrange for works to be completed immediately. It said:
1. The main roof was not sealed which meant water was running down the wall causing damp and mould.
2. There was no evidence of a leak in the bathroom, but it had found a broken seal which it had fixed.
3. It asked the resident to provide correspondence that would confirm works raised with regards to the flooring; the person who had dealt with that issue had since left. If the resident did not have that information, the landlord would ask its surveyor to advise if additional works were required.
4. It had sent details of the damp and mould to its surveyors so they could advise when works could commence. It said that major works may be required for those issues, hence the need for a further visit with the surveyor.
5. It confirmed it would prioritise works on the resident’s property once a joint visit had taken place.
On 16 August 2021, the landlord advised that the surveyor was available for a joint visit on 25 August 2021 and asked the resident to confirm that was suitable. This visit did not take place as the resident had not responded and the landlord emailed the resident chasing a response on 9 September 2021.
The landlord advised the resident on 14 October 2021, that it wished to discuss her complaint and would issue its stage 2 response by 11 November 2021. No evidence has been provided to suggest the resident requested escalation to stage 2 directly with the landlord, but she did request it via this Service on 13 October 2021. On 16 November 2021, the landlord informed the resident her stage 2 complaint had been sent to an independent reviewer, once that had been completed, it would write a response.
The resident called the landlord on 2 December 2021, as she had received no contact. She said she would not let anyone into her property without assistance from her housing officer. On 13 January 2022, the landlord asked for suitable dates for the damp contractor to attend to complete works. In replying, the resident requested that the landlord propose dates; she would then confirm suitability.
The landlord gave its stage 2 response on 27 January 2022 and offered a total of £800 compensation. It said:
1. Contractors had not attended the resident’s property without prior consent since they had been advised not to in May 2021 and had been advised to make appointments via the residents housing officer.
2. It was their contractor’s responsibility to ensure a property was legally compliant with regards to the electrical and gas safety. If they could not get hold of a resident, they may cold call or serve notice to ensure action. The landlord said it did intervene in this process and attended with a contractor themselves. However, it recognised the stress the situation had caused and offered £100 compensation.
3. The resident had first reported the damp and mould on 27 October 2020, but due to COVID-19 restrictions surveyors were not attending properties. The landlord recognised it should have conducted an inspection prior to June 2021. It accepted there was a service failure in arranging the inspection and the lack of communication regarding the delay was unacceptable; It offered £600 compensation.
4. With regards to the resident claiming that repairs that had been completed when they had not, it asked her to confirm which repairs that related to.
5. It felt that to resolve the repair issues, a surveyor was needed to attend the property and asked the resident to confirm dates she was available within the next 4 weeks.
The landlord discussed the issues raised following the survey conducted in June 2021, which highlighted the following:
1. There was a damp patch in the porch caused by water seeping through the neighbour’s single brick wall causing water damage to the external wall.
2. No damp was found in the living room, although the resident had highlighted a dirty wall, which she had cleaned, following which paint had peeled.
3. There were no leaks found the bathroom, but there was some broken silicone which had since been replaced.
4. The utility room roof was not sealed properly and therefore water was running down the walls causing damp and mould.
The landlord further advised that repair jobs were raised in July and August to fix the issues, but those were unable to go ahead due to access issues. It was aware the resident believed no new survey was needed; However, the landlord believed that a further survey should be completed so a clear action plan could be put in place to deal with the repairs.
On 14 February 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and asked it to arrange dates for the survey, as the damp, leaks and disrepair were “concerning”. She advised she was available from mid-March and requested a list of works to be emailed to her prior to anyone attending. This visit took place on 15 March 2022.
Following the survey, the landlord asked the resident on 7 April 2022 to provide suitable dates to attend with a specialist roofing contractor. On 14 April 2022, the resident asked the landlord to provide dates which she would then confirm. The resident requested the details of who would be attending, prior to confirming her availability, however the landlord was unable to provide the details within the timescales and so offered a further appointment of 9 May 2022. The resident would again not confirm the appointment without receiving details of who would be attending. It is unclear if that appointment went ahead.
On 5 May 2022, the resident involved a solicitor who asked for a copy of the survey completed on 15 March 2022. In responding to the solicitor, on 12 August 2022, the landlord said the following:
1. Without accepting liability, it acknowledged the existence of defects in the property in the past which were attended to, and it could not confirm without a further visit if the defects were still as alleged. If following further inspection, the property still suffered the same defects which the landlord had knowledge of, it would offer a settlement.
2. It did not agree to the instruction of a single joint expert. The landlord’s own surveyor would carry out an inspection and prepare a report.
An inspection of the resident’s property took place on 20 September 2022 and a surveyor attended on 21 October 2022 following which a scope of works was sent to the resident’s solicitor on 30 November 2022. The resident’s solicitor confirmed, on 24 February 2023, that the resident was happy to be contacted for the works to commence. This Service understands that the outstanding works were due to commence in week commencing 24 January 2024.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The landlord has a 2 stage complaint process. It will acknowledge a complaint at stage 1 within 2 working days and respond within 10 working days. A request for a review should be made within 20 working days and the landlord will respond within 20 working days. In exceptional circumstances, timescales may change; that would be agreed with the resident.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that they will attend for emergency repairs within 4 hours and routine repairs will be completed within 20 working days. The resident will be kept informed of progress with repairs through an agreed channel convenient to them. If the repair is an emergency and access cannot be granted via the tenant, then a forced action visit will be considered.
The landlord’s disrepair and poor housing conditions policy states that they are required to ensure that properties meet the decent homes standard.
The landlord’s compensation policy states:
1. Low impact awards up to £50.
2. Medium impact awards up to £125.
3. High impact awards up to £250.

Repairs

The resident raised a repair request on 27 October 2020 for a leak from her main roof that was causing damp and structural damage, damp in her porch and flooding in her bathroom. The landlord, appropriately, replied on the same date saying it would forward her email onto the relevant person. However, there is no evidence provided to suggest that any further action was taken. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to satisfy itself that the leaks were not emergencies and that there was no other interim measures that it could have offered. Not doing so showed a disregard for the impact and distress experienced by the resident and was not in line with its policy.
An internal email shows the landlord acknowledged a survey was required. However, while there was communication with the resident with regards to the electrical safety check, the landlord failed to mention the other outstanding works. The resident chased the repairs on 23 February 2021, almost 3 months after first reporting. This was an unsatisfactory delay. The resident and her children were left living in damp conditions without an expectation as to when the repairs would take place. Further, the landlord’s policy stated it would attend emergency repairs within 4 hours and routine repairs within 20 days. Its response was well outside of its own policy and showed a lack of empathy to the resident.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord said that COVID-19 impacted its service delivery in this case. The Ombudsman considered it reasonable that landlords did not complete internal works on their properties during this time, however a high degree of communication was expected and needed to manage the expectations of residents. In this case, the landlord failed to communicate to the resident the impact and delays COVID-19 had on its service delivery. This would have added to the frustrations of the resident and caused distress.
It is also important to note that COVID-19 would not have been a barrier to external works such as the porch or an inspection of the resident’s main roof. This service has seen no evidence that consideration was given to the external works or that a response was ever sent to the resident to explore or acknowledge the issues she was facing; that was inadequate and would have added to the resident’s distress. The landlords lack of response or investigation was unreasonable and not in line with its policy.
The landlord did not attend to conduct a survey until June 2021. This Service has not been provided with any evidence that an explanation for the delays had been communicated to the resident. Instead, the resident was put to time and trouble in following this up which led her to having to raise a complaint for the matters to be addressed. While, in its stage 2 response, the landlord did appropriately acknowledge and apologise for this delay and offered £600 compensation, it would have been reasonable to acknowledge this at the earliest opportunity in the complaint handling and before stage 2.
The Decent Homes Standard sets out the criteria needed for a dwelling to be considered in a reasonable state of repair. It states that if a roof structure and covering need replacing or require immediate major repair then the dwelling is not in a reasonable state of repair and remedial action would therefore be required. In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged the main roof was not sealed and water was running down the walls causing damp and mould. While it did appropriately acknowledge major works may be required to the roof, there is no evidence to suggest the landlord saw any urgency in completing these repairs; evidence suggests that work on the main roof is still outstanding.
Following the survey undertaken, it was concluded that the utility room roof was not sealed properly, and water was running down the walls. While this utility room was not an integral part of the resident’s living area, it was still a functional area that was used frequently, and it was not appropriate that the landlord failed to consider temporary solutions prior to completing a repair.
This Service’s spotlight report on damp and mould, published in October 2021, states that landlords should take a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould. Landlords need to be proactive in identifying potential problems and clearly communicate with residents about actions. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy stated that non-urgent repairs should be completed within 20 days of the repair being reported. The resident had first reported issues in October 2020 and the landlord attended 8 months later to conduct a survey. It is, therefore, evident that there was no sense of urgency on the part of the landlord to assess or resolve the issue. This is of particular concern to this Service given the existence of a potential category one hazard (HHSRS) in the property and as there were children in occupation.
Also, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord considered interim solutions for the resident. Given by its own admission, there was water running down the walls and the utility room was damp, it could have explored other temporary remedial solutions. At the very least, the landlord should have set out its position with regards to temporary solutions or recorded any considerations it had made. Doing so would have alleviated the concerns of the resident until a permanent repair could be completed.
On several occasions the resident raised the distress the condition of her property was causing both her and her children. The landlord did not evidence that it was sympathetic of the distress shared by the resident. Especially, when in its stage 2 response, the landlord accepted major works were required to the property. In neither of its complaint responses did the landlord acknowledge the significant impact on the resident in waiting for the repairs to be completed.
The resident complained that her floor had been damaged by previous works undertaken by the landlord and that the landlord had previously agreed to complete repair work. In its stage 1 response the landlord said the person who had dealt with the initial works, when the damaged was alleged to have been caused, had since left, and asked the resident to provide evidence of the agreement. While it was reasonable of the landlord to ask the resident for any related documentation, it highlights a lack of sufficient record keeping. Landlords should ensure robust systems are in place to ensure repair requests are logged and monitored regardless of whether staff leave. Not having a robust system led to a delay in the resident knowing the outcome of her request which, regardless of the outcome, was unreasonable.
Landlords are required to ensure their housing stock is safe. The resident was aware, in October 2020, that her property was due for its 5 yearly electrical check but had advised the landlord she wanted a third party person there to verify the check. In being understanding of the resident’s concerns, the landlord agreed to this. The resident then asked the landlord to be present instead. The landlord agreed to this and sought to confirm dates when all parties were available. Agreeing to this request showed empathy from the landlord and helped to alleviate the distress the resident may have felt when allowing contractors into her home.
The electrical safety check was undertaken on 30 April 2021; however, it was unsatisfactory and further works were required. The landlord communicated this to the resident on 20 May 2021. The landlord sought to arrange the appointment but did not receive a response from the resident to confirm availability. However, a contractor attended on 2 June 2021 without prior notification to the resident. This was not in line with the landlord’s repairs policy which states that appointments would be confirmed with a resident prior to it taking place. While the landlord had sort to confirm this appointment, it did not and therefore the visit was not in line with its policy. However, the landlord did apologise for the miscommunication and offered the resident £100 for the stress it had caused. While arriving unannounced was not acceptable, the landlord’s offer in recognition of the distress that caused was an appropriate response to its failure.
However, in its stage 2 response the landlord advised the resident, when discussing the unannounced visit that it was its contractor’s responsibility to ensure properties were legally compliant and therefore, they may cold call to gain entry. While the landlord may put the obligation on its contractors to complete any checks, the responsibility lay with landlord and therefore to make such an assertion was not accurate or appropriate.
The landlord advised the resident on 28 June 2021 they needed to gain access to her property that week for the electrical works and safety check or they would request legal action be taken. The appointment took place on 5 July 2021. The tenancy agreement requires the landlord to give 48 hours’ notice when access is required for repairs, however it also stated that she was obligated to give access to the landlord’s employees or its contractors to complete any necessary works. The landlord had sort to confirm appointment times with the resident to undertake the required safety checks. As it had not been able to confirm appointment times, it was reasonable that the landlord considered legal action. While doing so may have expediated the electrical repairs, in the circumstances, it was reasonable for the landlord not to take course of action. Instead, it endeavoured to find mutually agreeable dates. This was reasonable as it helped maintain the landlord/resident relationship without introducing potentially combative legal action.
The resident was clear with the landlord that she had been the victim of domestic abuse and was therefore wary about who she let into her home. The landlord, appropriately, put in place a reasonable adjustment and agreed that contractors should not attend the property unless the landlord was present. This would have alleviated the resident’s worries and showed an understanding and empathy of her concerns.
The evidence suggests that there were significant delays by the landlord in contacting the resident to confirm availability for the outstanding works. The landlord expressed its intention to attend with a surveyor on either week commencing 1 August or 9 August 2021. However, the landlord did not contact the resident again until 16 August 2021, asking if she was available on 25 August 2021. After not receiving a response, it emailed the resident on 9 September 2021, asking for availability. This happened again following the stage 2 response when the landlord asked the resident to provide dates of when she was available for a damp survey. The next correspondence is from the resident on 14th February 2022, asking for an update. While the landlord did seek to find appropriate dates to complete the repairs, the delays in the contact was not acceptable. The landlord has a duty to complete repairs in line with its repairs policy and should have systems in place to effectively monitor the progress of repairs. The lack of communication or urgency in seeking to find agreeable dates was unreasonable and would have added to the frustrations of the resident.
However, while the onus is on the landlord to complete repairs in a timely manner, as per its policy, we would expect both parties to be working together to find mutually agreeable dates. It is clear in this case that the landlord continued to work towards resolving the issues and communicate with the resident to find dates that would work for both parties but did not always receive a timely response from the resident. While delays were, in part, caused by communication issues, continuing to work towards finding agreeable dates was a reasonable response. It is clear from the evidence that the method of communicating via email was not effective and left both the resident and landlord chasing each other to resolve the issues. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to have recognised the issues in the communication at the earliest opportunity and considered other methods to avoid unnecessary delays. Effective communication is key to managing the expectations of a resident and in maintaining a good relationship.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to have robust systems in place to ensure it can monitor and track the progress of repairs effectively, highlighting where it is awaiting a response from the resident. In this case, it is evident that there had been a lack of monitoring the outstanding repairs issues. Not taking a pro-active approach to resolve the issues was a contributing factor in the delays to complete the repairs. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord has been issued with a wider order under paragraph 54(f) of the Scheme in relation to this and therefore, further orders will not be made with regards to this issue.
It is also important to note that the landlord had conducted an inspection with its damp and mould specialist prior to its stage 1 response. It then advised it needed to carry out a survey. While it is good in the first instance for the landlord to conduct an inspection, the landlord failed to explain the objectives of the inspection and subsequently the objective of then conducting a survey and the difference between the two. This could have enabled the resident to clearly understand the importance of the visits and the outcomes the landlord was seeking by conducting the further survey. This would have supported the landlord resident relationship and shown the landlord was committed to understanding all the issues.
Following the completion of the inspection and survey, there was no evidence provided to suggest a clear schedule of works was produced. This would have given both the resident and landlord a clear timescale of when repairs would take place. This would have helped to manage the expectations of the resident and enabled it to monitor and track the progress of repairs and therefore ensure timely resolution. The lack of clarity in its responses and its failure to communicate effectively was unsatisfactory and would have added to the resident’s distress.
In the landlord’s complaint responses, it set out what the issues were, however it failed to give direction as to what it was going to do to fix the issues. The complaint investigations gave the landlord the opportunity to set out what they had done wrong (or right) and then provide the resident with clear guidance and reassurance that it was going to put things right. While it acknowledged in its stage 1 that it would require a survey of the property, the response was the same in its stage 2; 6 months later. The landlord did acknowledge a delay in conducting the survey, but it did not set out what had gone wrong in between the two responses or highlight why the repairs were still outstanding. Good complaints handling should involve a thorough investigation into all the issues raised. It should identify learning outcomes and feedback to the resident where there were failings in its service delivery. Failing to do so damaged the landlord/resident relationship and was not a suitable response in the circumstances.
Overall, the landlord failed to show any urgency in completing the repairs. It took an unreasonable amount of time to arrange and subsequently conduct an inspection of the resident’s property in the first instance. It then took an unreasonable amount of time to arrange a survey of the property and following that failed to organise the relevant repairs within an appropriate timescale. It did not show regard to the distress the situation was causing the resident or her children and let the resident live with damp and mould in her property for an inappropriately long time. However, it is evident that the landlord had communication issues in this case which in turn meant access to undertake the repairs was not always possible when a contractor was available. The issues the landlord faced in confirming appointments was a mitigating factor when considering the determination in this case. However, these were not the sole factor in the lengthy delays. The landlord failed to have a pro-active approach to track the progress of outstanding works and failed to communicate with the resident to manage her expectations around the work that was due and when it would be completed.
Therefore, considering all the above, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs in the property.
While the Ombudsman looks at all the circumstances of a case, the landlord is best placed to assess its own service failures and order compensation at its discretion, which it did in this case. It is evident from the compensation offered in this case that the landlord recognised its own service failures and ordered compensation commensurate with the failings it had identified. Given the assessment made by the landlord in this case, and considering all the circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman has made an order reflective of the landlord’s compensation. Therefore, an order for compensation of £700 has been made for the issues identified in this report. This is made up of the following:
1. £600 for the delays in this case.
2. £100 for the unannounced contractor visit.

Complaint Handling

Following an email from this Service on 14 July 2021, the landlord logged a stage 1 complaint. It issued its response on 28 July 2021. While this was in line with the Complaint Handling Code (The Code) and the landlord’s policy, the resident had spent a lot of time prior to this chasing the landlord to complete the repairs and expressed concerns around the lack of work being undertaken. The Code sets out that a complaint can be an expression of dissatisfaction and the resident does not have to explicitly say they want to log a complaint. Given the numerous times throughout the first half of 2021 that the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have logged a complaint prior to the resident raising it with this Service. Not doing so delayed the investigation into the resident’s concerns and caused delay, distress, and inconvenience to the resident.
In her initial complaint the resident raised several issues that were then not addressed by the landlord in its response including the general quality of works, works being marked as complete incorrectly and the damp in the utility room. While it did address these in its stage 2 response, the Code sets out clearly that all points should be addressed within the landlord’s response, which it failed to do. This denied the resident the opportunity to understand what the landlord was doing about the issues raised and left her with unanswered questions.
On 14 October 2021, following escalation to stage 2, the landlord advised the resident it would issue a stage 2 response by 11 November 2021: within 20 working days. It then contacted the resident on 16 November 2021 to advise the stage 2 complaint had been sent to an independent reviewer and once it had been reviewed, her stage 2 response would be written. While the landlord informed the resident the response would be delayed, this was not in advance of the due date and did not give an indication of when to expect a response. This was not in line with its policy or the Code.
After not receiving a stage 2 response, this Service wrote to the landlord on 20 January 2022 to chase a response and asked for it to respond by 27 January 2022, which it did. This was 67 days after the response was originally due. This is an unacceptable delay. The resident had to take time to chase a response to her complaint which would have caused unnecessary distress at the time when she was already chasing the landlord to complete her repairs.
In its response the landlord offered £100 compensation for the delay and while it apologised, it gave no explanation for the delay. While the Ombudsman encourages landlords to recognise its failings and make offers to put things right, in these circumstances this was not sufficient to reflect the impact caused to the resident. The landlord should ensure it manages the expectations of residents and put them at the heart of its complaint handling. The landlord failed to fully acknowledge the impact this delay had on the resident.
Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling was unsatisfactory and fell below the standard expected by the Ombudsman. The landlord should have effective systems in place to track complaints and ensure they are responded to in a timely manner. The resident took time in contacting this Service to chase a response, and the landlord only provided its response when prompted by the Ombudsman. While it did offer £100 for the delay in its response, this does not accurately reflect the distress caused to the resident or the time taken in chasing a response.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
In the circumstances, an order for compensation has been made for £200, made up of the following:
1. £100 for the delays in responding.
2. £100 for the time and trouble taken by the resident in pursuing a response.

Review of policies and practice

The Ombudsman has found maladministration (including severe maladministration) following several investigations into complaints raised with the landlord involving repairs, damp and mould, record-keeping, and complaint handling. As a result of these, a wider order was issued to the landlord on 8 December 2023, as part of case 202126742, under paragraph 54(f) of the Scheme. This is for the landlord to review its policy or practice in relation to the service failures identified. Some of the issues identified in this case have similarities to those in the previous cases and therefore learning from this complaint should be incorporated into the wider review. In addition to this, we have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case, which would duplicate those already made to landlord as part of the wider order.

Determination

In accordance with section 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of repairs.
In accordance with section 52 of the scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord must:
1. Pay the resident £900 compensation, made up of:
  1. £700 for the repairs.
  2. £200 for the complaint handling.
  3. The above replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £800.
2. A senior member of staff must write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified within this report.
3. The landlord must write to this Service and confirm that the outstanding works on the property, which were due to commence on 24 January 2024, have been completed. If not completed it must set out a timescale for completion and provide an explanation of the further delays to the resident and a copy to this Service.
The landlord must evidence compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.