Aster Group Limited (202116470)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202116470

Aster Group Limited

10 November 2023

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. the resident’s request for a management transfer.
3. The residents request for an upgrade to the heating system.
4. The resident’s request for his kitchen and bathroom to be renewed.
5. The resident’s reports of repairs during periods of government lockdown related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
6. The resident’s reports about the condition of his property at the start of his tenancy.
7. The resident’s request for the pipework in his property to be boxed in and for the wall in his kitchen to be re-plastered.

Jurisdiction

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.
After careful consideration, the following aspects of the resident’s complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The resident’s reports about the condition of his property at the start of his tenancy.

Paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme notes as follows:

42. The Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:

c) were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matter arising.

The resident’s complaint concerns the condition of the property at the commencement of his tenancy in 2015. As there were six years between the resident’s tenancy starting and the resident raising this as a formal complaint, this aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction in accordance with paragraph 42c) of the Scheme and cannot be considered as part of this investigation.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant. He occupies a 1 bedroom ground floor flat with his husband. The landlord has recorded that the resident has mental health issues and long-term ill health.
The resident’s tenancy agreement sets out the rights and responsibilities of both the resident and the landlord. It states that the landlord will keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the property including:
1. Windowsills, window catches, sash cords and window frames
2. Internal walls, floors and ceilings, doors, and door frames
3. Major defects in internal plasterwork
The agreement further states that the landlord will keep in good repair and proper working order any installations provided for space heating, water heating and sanitation and for the supply of water, gas, and electricity.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy confirms that emergency repairs (those repairs that would constitute a health and safety risk or impact on the structure of the property) must be attended to within 24 hours to make safe. Urgent repairs are defined as non-emergency repairs but likely to cause further issues if left. The policy states that they should be completed within 5 working days. All other repairs are routine repairs and should be completed within 20 working days.
The landlord’s ASB policy defines ASB as “conduct causing, or likely to cause, a nuisance or annoyance to persons engaged in lawful activities”. The policy states that the landlord will work in partnership with other agencies to resolve ASB and other agencies such as the police or council may be best placed to lead on investigations where the reported behaviour is criminal or a statutory nuisance. The landlord can use interventions such as ASB surveys within the community, action plans, mediation, tenancy support and increasing security in a home by providing window alarms or personal attack alarms, to address ASB.
The landlord’s ASB procedure outlines its response at each stage of the ASB investigation and timescales for doing so. It also provides guidance on when further action should be taken and when a case should be closed.
The landlord’s Management Transfer Procedure states that “The need for a management transfer will be identified by the Neighbourhood Officer or Anti-social Behaviour Officer”. It outlines the procedure the officer would need to take to obtain a decision on an application, which would ultimately be made by the Head of Housing. The Head of Housing has the discretion to offer a management transfer “if the customer has been a victim of a serious crime, serious sexual assault, domestic abuse, severe harassment, or serious nuisance. This will need to be evidenced through a current (ASB) case and supporting information from external partners”.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints procedure. Stage one complaints should be responded to within 10 working days. Stage two complaints should be responded to within 20 working days.

Summary of events

Between 2017 and 2020 the resident contacted the landlord with reports of ASB. In response the landlord opened three ASB cases. Two reports were in relation to the conduct of a visitor to his neighbour who, the resident said, engaged in sexually inappropriate behaviour outside of his home and who intimidated him by staring in at him through his window. The third was in relation to excessive noise from a neighbour who made threats towards him when he approached them to complain. In response, the landlord encouraged the resident to report these incidents to the police as, given the criminal nature of the reports, they would need to lead the investigation. The landlord wrote to the neighbour, visited them to investigate the reports and liaised with the police. The landlord also offered the resident window shock alarms, which the resident declined, and consented to the resident installing CCTV in his property.
The resident reported in September 2018 that there was an issue with his kitchen and bathroom taps. The landlord attended on 26 September 2018 to repair them.
In June 2019 the resident contacted his landlord as he was having problems with his hot water and the landlord arranged for a plumber to attend to low pressure from the cylinder. The resident had enquired whether he was eligible for a new heating installation at that time. He said that a friend had received a letter from the landlord about a boiler upgrade. The resident later applied for assistance from the Government Warm Homes scheme and a new boiler was installed on 24 May 2021.
The landlord undertook an inspection of the resident’s property in 2020 as he had reported that there was damp and mould in his bathroom. It was determined that a new extractor fan and a heated towel rail should be installed. The landlord undertook a second inspection in November 2020 in relation to proposed works to the bathroom. It was decided that the heated towel rail should be fitted once the Warm Homes scheme gas central heating was installed.
Works were raised to repair the resident’s bathroom extractor fan on 29 September 2020 and a new fan was fitted in April 2021.
In May 2021, the resident reported to the landlord that he and his husband had been the target of homophobic harassment from the neighbour and their visitors. He also said that his neighbour’s visitor exhibited sexually inappropriate behaviour when he or his guests entered or left the property. He believed that there was drug activity in his neighbour’s flat.
In response, the landlord opened an ASB case and directed the resident to the police to report any hate crimes, sexual harassment, and any suspected drug use. The landlord’s records show that enquiries were made of relevant agencies as part of its investigation. It asked that the resident obtain police incident numbers so that the landlord could work jointly with the police to address any issues. The landlord also arranged for window shock alarms to be sent to the resident as well as three personal attack alarms. Information was passed to the resident about rehousing and enquiries were made about the resident being included on the landlord’s internal list for rehousing. As there were no further reports from the resident, the ASB case was closed on 5 July 2021.
On 16 August 2021, a surveyor attended the property to undertake an asbestos reinspection and a stock condition survey as the resident had reported that his kitchen and bathroom were in a poor condition. Following the inspection, the surveyor did not alter the existing renewal dates for the kitchen and bathroom.
The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 18 October 2021. He said that there had been ongoing ASB since 2017. The landlord had not offered him a management move. He had been discriminated against because he had to wait for a new boiler and heating upgrade when some of his neighbours were prioritised for this. Further, he had noticed that his neighbours were having repairs completed during lockdown when he was told that he would have to wait. There was exposed pipework throughout the property that had not been boxed in. A surveyor had advised that a new kitchen and bathroom was needed but he has had to wait for this.
On 20 October 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident to acknowledge his complaint. It said that he should receive a response by 3 November 2021.
On the same day, the resident made a report to the landlord about noise in the block which he said had started at 11pm and then continued until after midnight. He requested a management move. The landlord sent the resident a letter that day to confirm that an ASB case had been opened and to ask that he keep it updated with any new incidents.
On 3 November 2021 the landlord contacted the resident to inform him that the complaint response would be delayed, and he should expect it by the 17 November 2021.
The landlord contacted the resident on 10 November 2021, to let him know that his neighbours had been visited that week and it had spoken to them about the complaints received about their behaviour. It confirmed that it would monitor the situation to see if the behaviour complained of had stopped. It told the resident that he did not meet the criteria for a management move but that it would provide a supporting letter for housing with the council and that this would be sent to him that afternoon.
On 16 November 2021 the landlord issued its stage one complaint response in which it stated:
1. There was no service failure in how it responded to the resident’s reports of ASB as they had been managed in line with its ASB policy and procedures.
2. The resident had been given advice about how to apply to be rehoused. There was insufficient evidence that the resident met the threshold for a management move.
3. It had investigated why a neighbour’s heating system was replaced before the resident’s. It said that it could not share information about a neighbour’s property, but it said that there were reasons why a heating system would have to be replaced, for example, if it stopped working or was uneconomical to repair.
4. It would agree to box the resident’s pipework.
5. Kitchens and bathrooms were replaced as part of planned works. The resident’s kitchen was due to be replaced in 2024 and the bathroom in 2040. However, if the kitchen or bathroom had been condemned or was uneconomical to repair, they would be replaced prior to the planned maintenance date.
The resident responded on 29 November 2021 that:
1. He asked for a copy of the landlord’s ASB policy. He asked how residents were selected for attending committee meetings.
2. He did not think that he would be successful in exchanging homes with someone as the block where he lived had a poor reputation and they had had little interest when it was advertised.
3. They now had medical evidence in support of a management move and asked that this be reconsidered.
4. He felt that he and his husband had been treated differently to other residents in the block as they had not received the same level of service delivery in relation to repairs and renewals both during lockdown and after.
5. He would like to accept the landlord’s offer to box in his pipework.
6. He wanted the landlord to confirm when works will be completed.
7. He asked for his complaint to be escalated to stage two of the landlord’s complaints procedure.
On 3 December 2021, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint escalation request and advised that a response should be issued by 6 January 2022.
Between November and December 2021, the landlord contacted the resident to enquire whether there had been further incidents of ASB.
On 3 January 2022 the resident reported to the ASB team that it had been quieter over the Christmas period in the block although he said that he had been disturbed by mopeds being revved and backfiring. The landlord later advised that it would close the ASB case as its interventions had been successful. It stated that it had liaised with the police, spoken to the neighbours, and undertaken a home visit.
On 4 January 2022 the landlord contacted the resident to inform him that the stage two complaint response would be delayed until 20 January 2022.
On 20 January 2022 the landlord issued its stage two complaint response:
1. A copy of the landlord’s ASB policy was provided.
2. The resident was directed to register with the Council’s housing register or for a mutual exchange.
3. The resident’s request for a management transfer was reconsidered but it was determined that his household did not meet the criteria. The landlord offered to review this decision on receipt of the resident’s letter from his psychiatrist. The criteria for a management transfer were included with the response letter.
4. The landlord said that most heating systems are replaced as part of planned maintenance upgrades. A boiler would only be replaced outside of planned maintenance programmes if it could not be repaired.
5. During lockdown the landlord was restricted to prioritising the most essential repairs because of social-distancing requirements. There was also a reduction in staff/contractors dealing with repairs as they may have been self-isolating, testing positive for the virus or be clinically vulnerable. However, the landlord noted that it had undertaken repairs to the resident’s property during the pandemic. It had checked the records and it was satisfied that repairs to other resident’s properties were prioritised as they were assessed as being essential repairs.
6. The landlord would arrange for the pipes to be boxed in and for plastering to be completed in his kitchen and for the repairs team to arrange a convenient appointment with the resident.
The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and referred his complaint to this Service for investigation in February 2022.

Post complaint

The resident’s bathroom taps were replaced in January 2022. On 1 February 2022 the resident contacted the landlord as he had yet heard from the repairs team about the pipework boxing. He also asked when his kitchen would be replaced and for the management move to be reviewed.
The landlord responded on 3 February 2022 to confirm that the pipework boxing would take place on 4 February 2022 and the plastering on 24 February 2022. It would also request a review of the management transfer decision but reiterated that management moves were exceptional and would only proceed when a move was considered appropriate and proportionate and when supported by the police or social services. It explained that planned maintenance work is subject to uncertainties which made it difficult to predict exactly when it would proceed. However, it stated that a stock condition survey would soon ensue, and a revised planned maintenance programme may then follow.
On 14 February 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident to advise that he had reviewed the resident’s supporting evidence regarding a management move however it did not consider that the threshold in their policy had been met.
The resident cancelled the appointment for the plastering works on 24 February 2022 as he was unwell. He informed the landlord that he would contact them to arrange another appointment when he had recovered. The resident has not rearranged the appointment to date.
On 9 March 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to enquire about the boxing of the pipework. He said that although a carpenter had been booked to undertake the works the resident was not satisfied with his proposals of how to do the works. He had contacted his supervisor who had said that it was a job for the gas boiler team. He asked for an update. The landlord has since confirmed that these works were undertaken on the 25 May 2022 and that the resident was happy with the standard of the works.
On 6 April 2022 it was noted that a stock condition survey had not yet been requested to ascertain the condition of the kitchen or bathroom to identify whether the kitchen installation could be brought forward. The last stock condition survey in August 2021 did not amend the planned renewal dates which indicated that they were in acceptable condition to last until planned renewal.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident has complained that the landlord has discriminated against him in its decision not to renew his boiler, his kitchen, and his bathroom. This Service cannot assess discrimination issues in the way that a court can as the Ombudsman does not have the relevant expertise or authority to make such findings. However, it is expected that a landlord will at least respond to any such issues raised through its complaints process.

The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB)

It is evident that this situation has been distressing to the resident. It may help to firstly explain that the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports about ASB reasonably and in line with its policies and procedures.
The resident’s frustration about the landlord opening and later closing an investigation following each report of ASB is understandable. ASB can take many forms, however, and will often involve cases where the reported behaviour is sporadic; in such cases, a landlord can only investigate issues as they arise and must do so in a fair and proportionate way. The reporting party may feel that their reports have not been taken seriously or that the landlord has taken too long to progress the case or has closed the case prematurely. However, it is important to note that the landlord is not responsible for any alleged unacceptable behaviour; instead, its role is to ensure that it responds to any reports it receives in accordance with its policies and procedures and legal obligations. This will involve following its ASB procedure, gathering, and reviewing evidence and then taking actions proportionate to its understanding of such evidence.
In this instance, the landlord responded within its target timescales to the reports of ASB. It contacted the resident and informed him in writing that an ASB case had been opened. It signposted the resident to the police where his reports related to criminal activity. This was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s ASB policy, as the police are required to investigate allegations of criminal conduct. The resident was also provided with window and personal safety alarms. ASB surveys were sent out and the perpetrator was visited. The resident was referred to the internal list for rehousing and given a supporting letter to take to the local authority when applying for housing. The resident was contacted for an update and the investigation was closed when there were no further reported incidents.
While the resident was unhappy that no further action was taken, the landlord must address the reports and consider whether there is sufficient evidence to take enforcement action. The resident has also expressed dissatisfaction with the actions of the police; however, this was outside of the landlord’s control. Where further action is dependent on evidence provided by the police, the landlord is limited in what steps it can take in the absence of such evidence.
The resident has been very distressed by the behaviour he has reported; however, this Service is satisfied that the landlord’s response was reasonable and proportionate and in line with its policies. A finding of no maladministration has been made in relation to this aspect of the complaint.

The resident’s request for a management transfer.

The landlord’s management transfer procedure states that a need for a management transfer will be identified by an officer directly involved with the resident either as a neighbourhood officer or as an ASB officer. Where they believe that the resident would meet the criteria, an application is sent to the management team for comment, but the decision rests with the Head of Housing.
When the resident requested that the landlord consider a management move for him, the landlord took appropriate action following each request by reviewing the evidence provided by the resident and then informing him of the decision that the criteria for a management move had not been met. When the resident provided new evidence, this decision was reviewed again, and the resident informed of the landlord’s decision that he was not eligible for a management move. The landlord considered each request in line with its policy.
A management move is discretionary. It is outside of the landlord’s allocations process and the decision in this case is made by the Head of Housing. In this instance, due consideration was given to the supporting evidence provided by the resident, but the decision was that he did not meet the threshold for a management move. While this Service acknowledges that this must have been disappointing for the resident, it was a decision that the landlord was entitled to reach and in doing so it acted in accordance with its procedures. This Service therefore makes a finding of no maladministration in relation to this aspect of the complaint.
The landlord has said that should the resident provide further evidence that he was at significant risk, this decision would be reviewed. The landlord has also advised the resident about applying for an exchange, requested that the resident be included on the landlord’s internal transfer list and provided a letter in support of his application for rehousing with the Council.

The residents request for an upgrade to the heating system.

The landlord’s obligation under the tenancy agreement is to ensure that the appliances and installations for heating are kept in good repair. There is no obligation on the landlord under the tenancy agreement to provide a certain type of heating system, or a minimum number of heaters or radiators.
The Decent Homes standard was issued by the Department for Communities and Local Government in 2006 to ensure that local authority properties were improved and sustained. The definition of “a decent home” was updated to reflect the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), and it was determined that a property should meet four criteria – 1) that it meets the current statutory minimum standard for housing; 2) it is in a reasonable state of repair; 3) it has reasonably modern facilities and services; 4) it provides a reasonable degree of thermal comfort.”
The Decent Homes standard does not set out what a “reasonable degree of thermal comfort” is with reference to a particular temperature. However, it provides that a dwelling should have both efficient heating and insulation.
According to the landlord’s records there was no record of a request being made for the resident’s heating system to be renewed. However, on one of the landlord’s works orders in June 2019 it is noted that the resident had enquired whether he was eligible for a new heating installation. From the records provided by the landlord, it is not evident that the resident was provided with a response to this query. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have given the resident a response to his enquiry with an estimated date for renewal or review of his heating provision. Its failure to do so caused detriment to the resident as he was put to time and effort in following this up.
In the resident’s complaint, he reported that his property had been very cold, particularly in the bathroom, and that he could only afford to have one heater on during the winter. His boiler had been replaced in May 2021, but not by the landlord. In its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint response, the landlord stated that boiler replacements would happen as part of a planned maintenance/cyclical repair programme unless a boiler had stopped working completely or it would be uneconomical to repair. The resident’s heating is scheduled for renewal in 2037.
Planned works are often major works that are scheduled to take place at defined intervals to maintain, repair, or renew windows, kitchens, doors, bathrooms, and heating systems. Social landlords have limited resources and are expected to manage these resources responsibly, to the benefit of all their residents. It is a better use of resources for landlords to replace items such as heating systems, kitchens, and bathrooms as part of a planned programme of works rather than on an ad-hoc basis. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to take this approach.
The resident had reported problems with his heating to the landlord. The Ombudsman expects landlords to consider interim works where there will be a delay until a planned programme of works. The landlord therefore acted appropriately by arranging for repairs to be undertaken to the resident’s heating on 13 November 2019 and 20 October 2021 and to a water cylinder leak on 9 June 2020. It also sought to address the resident’s complaint about condensation in the bathroom by raising an order to install a new extractor fan in April 2021 and a heated towel rail once the resident’s warm homes gas boiler had been installed in May 2021.
No information had been provided about the heating renewal for the properties of other residents in the block given data protection restrictions. This Service cannot therefore make a finding as to whether the resident had been treated unfairly. The landlord had confirmed that a heating system would only be replaced, outside of the planned maintenance programme, if it had failed and could not be repaired and this Service is satisfied with the landlord’s explanation.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to renew his heating system was reasonable and in line with its policy. However, the landlord did not follow up the resident’s enquiry about this in June 2019, which constitutes a service failure for which compensation is warranted.
The resident’s request for his kitchen and bathroom to be renewed.
The landlord had stated in internal correspondence that there are “no records or correspondence from this customer regarding the replacement of either kitchen or bathroom. I have looked on (our systems) and the bathroom is due in 2040 and the kitchen is due in 2024. These are guides to replacement and not absolute dates. If the customer reports that either the kitchen or bathroom is in poor condition, a stock condition survey can be requested so that the condition of the kitchen or bathroom can be ascertained. A decision would then be taken by the property investment team to bring the installation forward or not”.
As mentioned earlier in this report, where bathrooms and kitchens are scheduled to be renewed as part of a planned programme of works, the landlord has a duty to undertake repairs to ensure that the fittings are in good working order pending their replacement. The landlord did undertake repairs to the resident’s bathroom and kitchen when problems were raised. Inspections were also undertaken when the resident reported damp and mould in the bathroom and works were raised to improve heating and ventilation. Works were undertaken in 2019 to repair the resident’s kitchen taps that were loose. Following the landlord’s stage two complaint, the landlord arranged for the kitchen wall to be re-plastered. This Service considers that the landlord complied with its repairing obligations by arranging for the property to be inspected and raising repairs in line with its target response times. A finding of no maladministration has therefore been made in relation to this aspect of the complaint.
With regards to the resident’s concerns that he and his husband had been discriminated against for reasons related to their age and sexuality, as stated above, the Ombudsman cannot determine whether a landlord has been in breach of their duties under the Equality Act 2010, as this would be a matter for the court. The landlord had undertaken investigations into its repairs service and concluded in its stage two response that no discrimination had taken place. This Service is satisfied that the landlord made appropriate enquiries in relation to the resident’s reports of discrimination and addressed its findings in its complaint response.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs during periods of government lockdown related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The resident was unhappy as he believed that the landlord prioritised repairs to other neighbours’ properties over his own, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic when government lockdowns were imposed.
In March 2020 the Government issued guidance for landlords, tenants and local authorities concerning the COVID 19 pandemic recommending that access to a property was only proposed for serious and urgent repairs.
On 18 May 2020 the then Housing Minister sent a letter to all social housing residents saying that “As we start to ease lockdown measures, landlords should be able to carry out routine as well as essential repairs for most households. There will be a backlog of repairs that they will need to address, so it may take longer than normal to carry out more non-essential work…” As restrictions were reintroduced with further lockdowns during 2020 and early 2021 this impacted further on service delivery in social housing.
The impact of the social distancing restrictions imposed by the government caused a significant backlog of repairs for landlords across the sector.
In the landlord’s stage one and stage two responses it highlighted that it responded to government restrictions by prioritising repairs into essential and non-essential. It acknowledged that it may have been frustrating for the resident to see the repairs operatives attending other properties ahead of his own, but it stated that it would have been attending to essential repairs at those properties. It did highlight that several repairs were also undertaken to the resident’s home over the period of the pandemic.
Data protection restrictions would prevent the landlord sharing details of repairs to neighbouring properties over the period of the pandemic with the resident. However, the Ombudsman is satisfied with the landlord’s explanation in its stage one and two responses that it was prioritising essential repairs. As the landlord was acting in accordance with government guidance in place at the time, this Service makes a finding of no maladministration in relation to this aspect of the complaint.

The resident’s request for the pipework in the property to be boxed in and his kitchen wall to be plastered.

The resident requested this following the installation of his boiler in May 2021. This was offered as part of the landlord’s stage one complaint response in November 2021 but not raised until January 2022 after the landlord’s stage two response with an appointment on 4 February 2022. A further appointment was scheduled for 23 March 2022.
Arrangements were made by the landlord to complete the plastering which was requested by the resident following the landlord’s stage one response. An appointment was arranged in February 2022 but cancelled by the resident due to illness, he advised he would reschedule when he had recovered. The landlord acted reasonably in arranging these works promptly.
The landlord was not obliged to cover the pipework as this did not constitute a repair. However, having agreed to do so as part of its stage one response, the resident would have had an expectation that this would be done within a reasonable time. When the resident was unhappy with the proposed works, this was referred to the heating team to action. The agreed works to box in the pipework were not raised following the resident’s stage one response and the resident was put to time and effort in following this up with the landlord. There was an additional delay between January and May 2022 in these works being completed. A finding of service failure is made in relation to this aspect of the complaint and the landlord is ordered to pay an amount of £75 to the resident in compensation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for a management transfer.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for an upgrade to his heating system.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for his bathroom and kitchen to be renewed.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs during periods of government lockdown related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
In accordance with paragraph 42c of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the condition of his property at the start of his tenancy is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for the pipework in his property to be boxed in and for the wall in his kitchen to be re-plastered.

Reasons

The landlord acted in accordance with its policies and procedures in responding to the resident’s reports of ASB. It considered whether the resident was eligible for a management transfer with reference to its policy and acted reasonably in reviewing its decision when the resident had provided further evidence.
The landlord arranged repairs to the resident’s kitchen and bathroom within its target response timescales. It completed a stock condition survey in August 2021 but concluded that the renewal dates did not need to be brought forward. In doing so, it complied with its obligations.
The resident had enquired about his boiler being replaced in 2019 but the landlord has not provided evidence that it responded to this before the resident raised his complaint. As this had not been addressed in the landlord’s complaint, this Service makes a finding of service failure.
The landlord had acted in accordance with government guidance in how it prioritised repairs during the COVID-19 pandemic.
While the landlord was not obliged to box in the resident’s pipework, it had agreed to do so following the resident’s stage one complaint, but the works were not raised until the resident had made his stage two complaint. The resident was put to time and effort in following this up.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report:
1. the landlord is to pay the resident £150 which comprises of:
  1. £75 in compensation for his distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in arranging for his pipework to be boxed in.
  2. £75 in compensation for his time and effort regarding his request for an upgrade to his heating system.
2. The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance to this Service.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the landlord contact the resident to arrange for the plastering in his kitchen to be completed.