Orbit Group Limited (202212706)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212706

Orbit Group Limited

25 April 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:
1. The refurbishment of the kitchen and bathroom.
2. The resident’s reports of various repairs, including the rear garden fencing, decking and a roof leak.
3. The resident’s concerns about the conduct of the landlord’s contractors.
4. The associated complaints.

Background

The property is a 4-bedroom, end-of-terrace house. The resident has an assured tenancy, which began on 3 March 2017 following a mutual exchange.
The landlord’s records state that the resident’s son has mental health vulnerabilities.

Summary of events

The landlord logged a stage one complaint from the resident on 7 April 2021 regarding outstanding repairs, including a possible leak from the roof and mould in the bathroom.
An internal email dated 3 June 2021 from the landlord stated that the resident was expecting her back door and bathroom to be replaced but this work had not been carried out. The resident had reported that there was a leak in the loft area. The landlord stated that some of the issues had been outstanding for 18 months. A further internal email dated 9 June 2021 from the landlord stated that an order had been raised to carry out repairs to the back door in 2020 and the resident had confirmed that the repairs had been completed to her satisfaction.
The landlord’s records show that its Inspector attended the property on 10 June 2021 and his report identified the following issues that needed to be addressed at the property:
1. The Inspector stated that the bathroom was old and in need of renewal. He identified a patch of mould on the bathroom ceiling that had been caused by displaced loft insulation. The Inspector rectified this while on site.
2. Although the kitchen was not old, the Inspector observed that it had been misused by the previous occupants and needed renewal.
3. The kitchen extractor fan was badly fitting and was not sealed where it entered the wall. The Inspector stated that he had raised an order to renew the extractor fan.
4. The boiler pipework in the kitchen was creating condensation as it should have been enclosed when the boiler was fitted. The Inspector had therefore raised an order to carry out this work.
5. The fencing required repairs. Therefore, the Inspector raised an order to repair 2 sections of fencing that bordered onto public access areas. The Inspector said he had advised the resident that fencing dividing neighbouring properties were the responsibility of residents.
6. The back door to the property was not closing and sealing correctly and this was making the living room cold and draughty. The Inspector had therefore raised an order for a contractor to supply a quotation for a replacement door.
7. The Inspector noted there was a lot of moisture in the loft area but could not see a leak. He advised that a roofing contractor should carry out an inspection.
The landlord issued orders on 15 June 2021 to refurbish the bathroom and kitchen to “planned works standard”.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 15 June 2021 and agreed that the resident would send a quotation for the fencing and the landlord would look to cover the cost as a goodwill gesture. The landlord then wrote to the resident on 15 June 2021 and confirmed that it would require an itemised quotation of the works. The resident sent the quotation to the landlord on 18 June 2021.
On 25 June 2021, the resident phoned the landlord to report problems with the fence. She stated that some work to the fence had been started but it looked as though the fence would fall down. She also reported that there were large screws protruding from the fence.
On 29 June 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord and reported that the contractor had not attended an appointment on that day to carry out various works, even though she had taken a day off work.
The landlord’s records show that it spoke to the resident on 30 June 2021 and she advised that the bathroom sink and walls had been damaged and the following repairs were outstanding:
1. The back fence was only half done.
2. The front fence had not been replaced.
3. The extractor fan still needed repairs.
4. The loft insulation and vents had not been finished.
5. The loft hatch had not been replaced.
6. The kitchen had not been replaced.
The landlord’s maintenance records show that on 1 July 2021 its roofing contractor renewed the loft insulation and installed tile vents into the roof.
On 8 July 2021, the landlord visited the property and confirmed that the loft vents had been repaired. Following the visit, the landlord raised a recall order for the contractor to return to the property to carry out the fencing work that had been specified by the Inspector. The notes stated that the contractor had only replaced a 3-metre section of fencing. However, the contractor replied on 12 July 2021 and stated that 6 metres of fencing had been replaced and therefore it had cancelled the recall order.
The landlord’s records show that the contractor attended on 21 July 2021 and carried out work to the fence and gate.
On 23 July 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to report problems with the new loft hatch. The landlord agreed that it would arrange for the hatch to be inspected.
The landlord sent its stage one reply on 20 August 2021 in which it stated the following:
1. There had been a delay in responding to the complaint because the previous complaint handler had left the organisation.
2. The resident had raised numerous repairs in 2019 and although several visits had taken place, all of the work had not been completed.
3. On 15 June 2021, the landlord had arranged for a site visit to take place to agree and arrange the necessary works.
4. The landlord had identified that the following works were required:
  1. Bathroom renewal;
  2. kitchen renewal;
  3. rear fencing;
  4. kitchen extractor and pipework;
  5. downstairs toilet work to sink and taps;
  6. front fencing;
  7. back door not closing;
  8. loft/roof leak.
5. The landlord agreed to cover the cost of £1,558.45 for the front fencing, which the resident would arrange to be repaired.
6. All but the kitchen and bathroom renewal had been completed and the outstanding works had been scheduled as:

Survey date – 2 September 2021.
Asbestos survey date – date to be confirmed.
Start date for the bathroom – 11 October 2021 and the works would take an estimated 10 working days.
Start date for the kitchen – 1 November 2021 and the works would take an estimated 15 working days.
1. The delay in scheduling the works had been due to a delay in materials.
2. The landlord acknowledged that the works had taken too long and stated that the resident had received a poor service. Therefore, the landlord offered total compensation of £3438.45 as follows:
  1. £1558.45 for the front fence work (the landlord’s records show that the fence was located within the property boundary and was therefore the resident’s responsibility).
  2. £35 for the downstairs toilet redecoration.
  3. £35 for the hall redecoration.
  4. £790 for the delay in completing the repairs (this was paid at £1 per day from 2019 when the resident reported the issues until 29 November 2021 when all works were anticipated to be completed).
  5. £350 for poor complaint handling.
  6. £400 distress and Inconvenience.
  7. £70 for the recognition of the service failings.
  8. £200 for failed and missed appointments.
3. The landlord stated that as per its policy, £566.24 of the compensation would have to be paid into the resident’s rent account to offset rent arrears.

The contractor attended on 27 August 2021 and carried out further work to the rear garden fence and garden gate.
The landlord’s records show that during September 2021, the resident phoned on various occasions to report that the pipes in the bathroom needed to be boxed in and to enquire about a survey that should have been done to check the bathroom ceiling for asbestos.
The landlord’s records show that the bathroom refurbishment was completed on 18 October 2021 and the kitchen refurbishment was completed on 17 November 2021. Other works were also carried out, including renewing the kitchen extractor fan and repairs to the Artex ceiling in the bathroom.
On 22 February 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to make a stage one complaint. She stated that the contractor had damaged her property when installing the new fencing. She also stated that she was unhappy with the standard of the work carried out in her kitchen and bathroom.
On 2 March 2022, the landlord phoned and wrote to the resident to acknowledge her complaint. The resident reported that the standard of the work in the kitchen and bathroom had been poor. She mentioned that the decking was damaged when the contractor installed the fencing. The resident added that an electric power-shower had been fitted when the bathroom was renewed and she was finding this expensive to run.
The resident spoke to the landlord on 18 March 2022 and sent photos of the decking at her property. The landlord confirmed to the resident that it could see the damaged decking from the photos and advised her to obtain quotes for the remedial work.
The resident phoned the landlord on 9 May 2022 to advise that she had taken time off work and the contractor had not attended to repair the fencing. The landlord advised her that the contractor would now be attending on 17 May 2022. The landlord’s records show that the contractor attended on 26 May 2022 and carried out repairs to the garden gate.
The landlord sent a further stage one complaint response on 10 June 2022 in which it stated the following:
1. The landlord apologised for the “prolonged period” it had taken to resolve the issues.
2. The landlord had arranged for one of its Inspectors to attend the property on 10 June 2022 to identify the outstanding works and then arrange for these to be addressed.
3. The resident had reported that one of the landlord’s contractors had caused damage to her property while carrying out repairs.
4. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint and offered compensation of £275 as follows:
  1. £30 for failed or missed appointments.
  2. £70 for service failures.
  3. £100 for distress and inconvenience.
  4. £75 for the delay in responding to the complaint.
The resident phoned the landlord on 21 June 2022 and advised that the contractor had not attended an appointment on the previous day to repair the fencing. The resident stated that she had taken the day off work. The landlord’s records show that the contractor attended on 21 June 2022 and carried out repairs to the garden gate.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 24 June 2022 to advise her of the following:
1. As agreed in a phone call with the resident, the landlord had spoken to its contractor about the resident’s reports of missed appointments. The landlord had checked the contractor’s notes made on its system and had received time-stamped photos showing that the operatives had attended. Therefore, the landlord did not agree that appointments had been missed.
2. The resident had asked whether the landlord was still prepared to refund her for the costs of replacing the decking at her property. The landlord stated that the resident had mentioned to its Inspector that she had been advised in 2017 that the decking would be replaced. The landlord stated that it could not investigate this as the conversation had occurred over 6 months ago. Also, the Inspector who had visited the property had not identified the decking as being in need of replacement. The landlord apologised that one of its staff had provided the resident with incorrect information regarding this matter.
The landlord’s records show that its contractor attended the property on 29 June 2022 and refixed the new waste trap and pipe to the bathroom wash basin, which was leaking.
On 7 September 2022, the resident phoned the landlord to report that there were outstanding repairs to the rear fence.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 21 September 2022 and requested the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 for the following reasons:
1. The resident stated that she was unhappy with the standard of work in the kitchen and bathroom (the resident felt the work had been rushed and felt that the kitchen and bathroom would need to be replaced due to the standard of work).
2. The resident advised there had been a lack of communication from the landlord and was unhappy with the communication skills of some of its staff.
3. The resident said she had experienced loss of earnings due to having to be at home for the contractor.
4. The resident said she had experienced stress due to the problems and this had affected her mental health and caused depression.
5. The resident stated that some of the contractor’s staff had referred to the landlord in an unprofessional way.
6. The resident stated that she had experienced discrimination because she had previously been advised that she could be provided with a new bathroom sooner due to her son’s disability.
7. The bathroom and kitchen needed to be refurbished to a high standard.
8. The resident stated she had been advised that the shower was not fit for purpose.
9. The resident stated that she had received a lack of support and checking from the landlord.
10. The resident had been worried about deductions from her Universal Credit payments as she had advised the landlord she would be withholding rent payments until the repairs had been resolved.
11. The resident requested the landlord to replace all of the fencing as it had previously agreed rather than repairing it.
12. The resident requested compensation for the decking.
The landlord’s records show that work was carried out on 27 September 2022 to refix a plinth in the kitchen.
The landlord raised an order on 11 October 2022 following an inspection of the property. The order included applying silicone around various gaps in the bathroom, refitting the bottom rail of the fence, which was found to be uneven and replacing the garden gate.
An email dated 12 October 2022 from the main contractor to the landlord explained that it had chosen to attend the property to carry out any snagging work rather than recalling the original sub-contractor as this sub-contractor was no longer working with the organisation.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 13 October 2022 and advised that she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her stage 2 complaint as she had been expecting a call from the landlord since 30 September 2022.
The landlord replied to the resident on 14 October 2022 and stated that it had tried to contact the resident but had been unsuccessful. It advised the resident that its contractor would attend the property to carry out any remedial works. The resident replied on the same day and questioned the involvement of one of the contractor’s supervisors, who she said had previously overseen the works.
On 17 October 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident to advise that it had to extend the timescale for responding to the resident’s complaint to 31 October 2022.
On 31 October 2022, the landlord advised the resident that it needed a further extension of time for the stage 2 reply. It stated that a response would be sent by 14 November 2022.
The landlord’s records show that various works were carried out at the property on 1 November 2022, including works to the kitchen, bathroom and the garden gate.
The landlord sent its stage 2 reply to the resident on 14 November 2022 in which it stated the following:
1. An Area Inspector had attended the property on 10 June 2022, however, due to “internal delays” the required works were not raised until 11 October 2022 and were completed on 1 November 2022.
2. The landlord apologised and acknowledged there had been “a clear failure” on its part.
3. The landlord had now arranged for an Inspector to attend the property on 16 November 2022 to carry out a post-inspection.
4. With regards to the resident’s allegations of unprofessional conduct from one of its contractors’ operatives, it had arranged for the contractor to address this during their regular briefings.
5. The landlord upheld the complaint and accepted there had been extensive delays in repairs being raised and completed. The landlord therefore awarded additional compensation of £366 as follows:
  1. £116 for delays with repairs from 10 June to 1 November 2022.
  2. £70 for service failures since the stage one response.
  3. £30 for failed appointments.
  4. £100 for poor complaint handling.
  5. £50 for communication issues.
6. The landlord said it would be prepared to review its offer of compensation should any additional works be established during the planned inspection on 16 November 2022.

Events after the landlord’s final response letter

Following further contact from the resident, the landlord raised an order on 22 December 2022 to ease and adjust the gate and to carry out work to stop the fence from rattling in the wind. The landlord also agreed with the resident on 24 December 2022 that there were some snagging issues to resolve in the kitchen and would chase its contractor to complete this work.
On 6 January 2023, the contractor attended a recall job to complete snagging work in the kitchen consisting of sticking the tile trim above the wall tiles.
On 19 January 2023, the landlord carried out additional repairs to the fencing and the gate.
On 15 February 2023, the resident phoned the landlord regarding her front door. She stated that she had previously been advised by contractors that it was no longer serviceable and that it did not meet the fire regulations.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 20 March 2023 regarding outstanding issues, including the front door, which was due to be replaced, the fencing and a shed door.
In May 2023, the contractor fitted a new front door.
On 23 and 24 May 2023, the landlord’s contractor renewed various fencing panels at the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

In her stage 2 complaint dated 21 September 2022, the resident stated that she had experienced stress due to the issues covered in her complaint and this had affected her mental health and caused depression. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding her health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be better dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. The resident may wish to consider taking independent legal advice if she wishes to pursue this option.
The resident also stated that, in her view, she had suffered discrimination because she had previously been advised that she should be provided with a new bathroom sooner due to her son’s disability. This Service cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place, as this is a legal matter which is better suited to the courts to decide. Nonetheless, the Ombudsman can consider whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s concerns and requests.
The resident requested compensation for loss of earnings due to missed appointments. It is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to determine negligence or liability in the same way as the courts, or to order damages in relation to loss of earnings. Only a court can offer a definitive and legally binding decision in relation to damages.
The resident was concerned that the landlord may have breached data protection rules by addressing a letter to the previous tenant in August 2021. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) considers complaints about data handling, confidentiality, compliance with the Data Protection Act and the General Data Protection Regulation. Therefore, this Service cannot investigate such matters. The resident should contact the ICO if she wishes to pursue this part of her complaint.
The resident’s correspondence refers to some events that occurred prior to 2021. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Therefore, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, it is considered fair and reasonable for this assessment to focus on the landlord’s handling of matters from 2021. Reference to the events that occurred prior to 2021 is made in this report to provide context.
The Ombudsman is aware that various events occurred after the landlord’s stage 2 reply, particularly in relation to problems that the resident reported with the front door. A key part of the Ombudsman’s role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all of the information being investigated by the Ombudsman as part of its complaint response. Therefore, some of the events that occurred after the landlord’s final response letter of 14 November 2022 have not been investigated because the Ombudsman has not considered it fair and reasonable to do so.

The landlord’s handling of the refurbishment of the kitchen and bathroom

The landlord logged a complaint from the resident on 7 April 2021 regarding various repairs, including mould in the bathroom. The landlord’s records indicated that it was aware the resident had requested the renewal of her bathroom. The landlord therefore carried out an inspection of the property on 10 June 2021.
As the resident had reported a number of repairs, including a request for a new bathroom, it was appropriate for the landlord to inspect the property in order to assess the condition of the bathroom and to identify the precise works required. However, it is unclear why the landlord took over 2 months to inspect the property after logging the resident’s complaint. The delay was therefore unreasonable as it added to the overall timescale for the landlord to address any defects. It was also unreasonable because without carrying out the inspection, the landlord could not assess the seriousness of the defects.
The landlord’s Inspector assessed the condition of the kitchen and bathroom on 10 June 2021 and confirmed that both needed renewal. The landlord therefore issued orders on 15 June 2021 to refurbish the bathroom and kitchen to “planned works standards”. It was appropriate that the landlord had raised orders to refurbish the kitchen and bathroom as its Inspector had confirmed that both were in poor condition.
The landlord confirmed in its stage one letter dated 20 August 2021 that the renewal of the kitchen and bathroom had been scheduled for 4 October 2021, however, there would be a delay due to problems with materials. The landlord advised that the bathroom work would begin on 11 October 2021 and take 10 working days and the kitchen works would start on 1 November 2021 and take 15 working days. The works to the bathroom and kitchen were completed on 18 October 2021 and 17 November 2021 respectively. The landlord had therefore kept to the schedule that it had included in its stage one reply.
In terms of the time taken to refurbish the bathroom and kitchen, the landlord had taken 4-5 months from the inspection on 10 June 2021 to complete the works. Given that the landlord carried out the work to planned maintenance standards, it was to be expected that it would take longer than the 28-day timescale for routine repairs, particularly as the landlord had stated there had been delays with materials. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord took longer than should have been the case, particularly given that the resident’s son had a disability. The time taken to carry out the refurbishment of the bathroom and kitchen was therefore unreasonable. It meant that the resident had to continue using the bathroom and kitchen, which the landlord had deemed to be in poor condition, for longer than was necessary.
On 22 February 2022, the resident made a further stage one complaint about the standard of workmanship in relation to the bathroom and kitchen refurbishments. The landlord arranged for one of its staff to inspect the property on 10 June 2022 to identify any outstanding works. Given that the resident had reported issues with the quality of the bathroom and kitchen refurbishment, it was appropriate that the landlord inspected the property. However, again there was an unexplained delay of over 3 months between the resident’s complaint on 22 February 2022 about the quality of the works and the landlord inspecting the property. This was unreasonable as the resident had clearly raised issues about the quality of the work and therefore it was important for the contractor to attend the property as soon as possible to assess whether the original contractor’s work had met the expected standards.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 21 September 2022 and stated that she was still unhappy with the quality of the work that had been carried out to the kitchen and bathroom. The landlord accepted in its stage 2 reply on 14 November 2022 that although an Inspector had attended the property on 10 June 2022, due to “internal delays” the required works had not been raised until 11 October 2022 and were completed on 1 November 2022. The landlord apologised and acknowledged there had a been a failure on its part.
The Ombudsman’s view is that overall there were unreasonable delays in carrying out the refurbishment and follow-on snagging works in the kitchen and bathroom. These delays had greater significance because of the vulnerabilities of the resident’s son. The landlord’s failings included:
1. It took 2 months to inspect the property after it logged the resident’s complaint on 7 April 2021.
2. The landlord took 4-5 months to refurbish the bathroom and kitchen after the inspection on 10 June 2021.
3. It took over 3 months for the landlord to inspect the property on 10 June 2022 following the resident’s complaint on 22 February 2022 about the quality of the refurbishment works.
4. The landlord did not raise the orders for the snagging works in the kitchen and bathroom until 4 months after the inspection on 10 June 2022.
The landlord acknowledged and apologised for these failings in its complaint responses dated 20 August 2021, 10 June 2022 and 14 November 2022.
When a landlord is at fault, it needs to put things right by acknowledging its mistakes and apologising for them, explaining why things went wrong and what the landlord will do to prevent the same mistake happening again. In order to put things right, the landlord offered compensation at each stage of the complaints process. Although the amounts offered incorporate other repair failings, the sums that could be attributed mainly to the kitchen and bathroom failings were:
1. £790 offered on 20 August 2021 for the delay in completing the repairs.
2. £400 offered on 20 August 2021 for distress and inconvenience.
3. £70 offered on 20 August 2021 for service failings.
4. £70 offered on 10 June 2022 for service failings.
5. £100 offered on 10 June 2022 for distress and inconvenience.
6. £116 offered on 14 November 2022 for delays.
7. £70 offered on 14 November 2022 for service failings.
These sums total £1,616.
Although this Service has not investigated the delays that occurred from 2019 to 2021, the landlord accepted that there had been delays dating back this far in its letter dated 20 August 2021. Therefore, as the resident had reported the issues in 2019 and the refurbishments took place in October-November 2021, followed by snagging works on 1 November 2022, the resident had clearly lived with the bathroom and kitchen defects for a considerable period. Based on the content of the resident’s correspondence with the landlord, the defects, particularly given her son’s vulnerabilities, had a significant impact on the family.
The Ombudsman agrees with the landlord’s assessment that the length of time it took the landlord to resolve the issues warranted financial compensation to put things right. The Ombudsman has considered whether the compensation offered was sufficient redress for the stress and inconvenience caused. The sum of £1,616 offered by the landlord was within the range of financial redress stipulated in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which was in operation at the time, for situations where the Ombudsman has found failings that have had a severe long-term impact on the resident, including, physical or emotional impact, or both. The Ombudsman’s view is therefore that the amount of compensation offered by the landlord was sufficient redress for the stress and inconvenience caused to the resident and her son due to the condition of the bathroom and kitchen..

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of various repairs, including the rear garden fencing, decking and a roof leak

The landlord’s repairs policy states the following:
1. The landlord is responsible for boundary fences that are next to a public right of way and residents are responsible for dividing fences between homes (except for one privacy panel) and gates.
2. The landlord has 3 repair timescales:
  1. Emergency repairs, which the landlord aims to attend within 4 hours and make safe within 24 hours.
  2. Essential repairs, which the landlord aims to make safe within 24 hours.
  3. Routine repairs, which the landlord aims to complete within 28 calendar days.
3. The policy states that non-responsive repairs (major repairs) are grouped together and included within stock investment programmes.
4. The policy states that where a contractor is unable to attend an appointment, they will contact the resident at least 2 hours in advance of the prearranged appointment to reschedule.
5. The policy states: “We have a Repairs Pledge agreement with our contractors which outlines expected behaviour from their operatives and office staff”.
The Regulator of Social Housing’s Home Standard stipulates that landlords should provide a repairs and maintenance service that “has the objective of completing repairs and improvements right first time”.
The landlord logged a stage one complaint on 7 April 2021 regarding various repairs that the resident had reported. These included a possible leak from the roof. The landlord attended on 10 June 2021 to inspect the property. The Inspector observed that there was a lot of moisture in the loft area but could not see a leak. He advised that a roofing contractor should carry out an inspection. This was reasonable as the Inspector had found no signs of a roof leak but had found a lot of moisture in the loft area. It was therefore correct that a roofing contractor should carry out a more detailed inspection of the roof and loft area.
The landlord’s roofing contractor attended on 1 July 2021 and renewed the loft insulation and installed tile vents into the roof. The contractor had therefore attended within 3 weeks of the inspection on 10 June 2021, which was an appropriate response time given that routine repairs should be completed within 28 calendar days.
During the landlord’s inspection of the property on 10 June 2021, its Inspector identified that repairs were needed to the rear fencing that bordered onto public access areas. The Inspector therefore raised an order to repair this fencing. He had advised the resident during the inspection that she was responsible for all other fencing, such as fences that divided neighbouring properties. This advice was appropriate as it reflected the wording in the landlord’s repairs policy.
The resident contacted the landlord on 25 June 2021 to report that the work to the rear fencing had started but looked unstable. She also mentioned there were large screws protruding from the fencing. The landlord attended the property on 8 July 2021 and recalled the contractor to attend to the rear fencing as it had not carried out the fencing work to the landlord’s specifications. It was appropriate for the landlord to recall the contractor to carry out further work to the rear fencing as it had not met the required specifications. However, this resulted in additional inconvenience for the resident who had to provide access.
The contractor carried out further work to the rear fencing and to the gate on 21 July 2021. The landlord confirmed in its stage one reply of 20 August 2021 that the work to the fencing had been completed. However, the landlord’s records show that its contractor carried out further repairs to the rear fencing and/or the garden gate on 27 August 2021, 26 May 2022, 21 June 2022, 1 November 2022 and19 January 2023. On23 and 24 May 2023, the landlord replaced various fence panels at the rear of the property.
The Ombudsman accepts that repeat visits by a contractor do not in themselves indicate service failure. Fixtures such as fencing may be repaired and then be subsequently damaged by strong winds or other factors. However, in this case the landlord initially accepted that the fencing had not been done to its specifications. Furthermore, on 25 June 2021 the resident reported that the fence looked unstable and there were protruding screws from the fencing. There were also examples of missed appointments when the contractor had been due to carry out repairs to the fencing, for example on 9 May 2022 and 20 June 2022 (although the landlord disputed that some of the appointments had been missed).
Having carefully considered the evidence, the Ombudsman’s conclusions are that the landlord’s fence and gate repairs did not meet the Regulator of Social Housing’s requirement of carrying out repairs right first time. The time taken to resolve the fencing/gate issues and the number of visits carried out were therefore unreasonable.
The landlord acknowledged in its stage one letter of 20 August 2021 that works had taken too long and the resident had received a poor service. It made a similar point in its letter dated 10 June 2022 when it apologised for the “prolonged period” it had taken to resolve issues and on 14 November 2022 in its stage 2 letter when it apologised for what it called “a clear failure” on its part.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman considers whether the issue has been resolved, whether the landlord has acknowledged its failings and whether it has offered appropriate redress to put things right. In this case, the landlord apologised for its failings and renewed the fence panels at the rear of the property. It also offered the following redress:
1. £200 was offered on 20 August 2021 for broken and missed appointments.
2. £30 was offered on 10 June 2022 for failed or missed appointments.
3. £30 was offered on 14 November 2022 for failed or missed appointments.
In addition to the above, the Ombudsman has also taken into account that the landlord reimbursed the resident the cost of renewing the fencing at the front of the property, which was her responsibility to maintain under the tenancy agreement. This amounted to £1558.45. The landlord’s offer was a goodwill gesture as confirmed during its conversation with the resident on 15 June 2021. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance showed that the £260 offered was in the range of financial redress stipulated where there had been “failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs…”. Therefore, the view of this Service is that the landlord offered reasonable redress to the resident for its failings in relation to the fencing/gate by apologising, offering £260 for missed appointments and reimbursing the resident the cost of renewing the front fencing.
The resident reported on 2 March 2022 that the decking in the garden had been damaged by the contractor when carrying out the fence repairs. The landlord reviewed photos of the damaged decking and on 18 March 2022 asked the resident to obtain a quotation for renewing the decking. However, on 24 June 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident and apologised that its staff member had previously given her incorrect advice about the decking. It stated that it was not prepared to renew the decking. The landlord stated that it was not feasible for it to investigate a conversation in 2017 during which the landlord was said to have agreed to replace the decking. The landlord also pointed out that its Inspector had not identified the need to replace the decking during his inspection on 10 June 2022.
The Ombudsman has reviewed the landlord’s repairs policy and the tenancy agreement and can confirm they are both silent on the responsibility for maintaining garden decking. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. However, gardens and fixtures such as garden paving and decking are excluded from the obligations placed on landlords by Section 11. Therefore, having carefully considered the matter, the view of this Service is that it was reasonable for the landlord to refuse to renew the decking for the following reasons:
1. The landlord is not responsible for maintaining the decking under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act or under the landlord’s policies.
2. The landlord apologised that its staff member had previously given the resident incorrect information by asking her to obtain a quotation for renewing the decking.
3. The Ombudsman agrees with the landlord that it was not feasible to investigate a conversation that had taken place in 2017 due to the passage of time.
It was, however, a shortcoming on the part of the landlord that it had not, for example, advised the resident that she could submit a claim to its insurers if she believed the contractor had damaged the decking while carrying out repairs to the fencing.
Overall, the landlord acknowledged there were delays in repairs being raised and completed. There were also problems due to multiple visits by contractors and a lack of communication with the resident, particularly in relation to the fence repairs. These failings caused the resident stress and inconvenience, particularly as she had to take time off work to be available for the repair appointments. However, the landlord carried out the repairs, acknowledged its failings and offered the resident appropriate redress.

The resident’s concerns about the conduct of the landlord’s contractors

In her email to the landlord on 21 September 2022, the resident reported that she was unhappy with the way the contractor’s operatives and supervisors had spoken about the landlord and contractor in her presence. She stated that the contractors had made derogatory remarks about both. In response, the landlord advised in its letter dated 14 November 2022 that it took the attitude and behaviour of its contractors very seriously and therefore it had requested the contractor to address this during its regular briefings.
The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the landlord took steps to obtain further details from the resident about the remarks that had been made by the contractor’s operatives and supervisors. This would have helped the landlord to determine the seriousness of the remarks. It was therefore a shortcoming on the part of the landlord that it did not obtain further details from the resident. The Ombudsman has, however, noted that the landlord wrote to the resident on 14 October 2022 to say that it had attempted to contact the resident about her complaint but had been unsuccessful.
The action taken by the landlord was to speak to its contractor and request that the contractor remind operatives at its regular briefings about the importance of behaving professionally. Given that the resident had not suggested that the operatives/supervisors had used offensive language, such as making discriminatory remarks, the view of this Service is that the landlord’s action was a proportionate response. It was reasonable for the landlord to request the contractor to deal with the matter internally by reminding its staff about their conduct and the need to behave in line with its Repairs Pledge.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. It will respond to stage one complaints within 10 working days of the acknowledgement of the complaint and stage 2 complaints within20 working days.
The policy states that if the landlord is unable to respond to a stage one complaint within 10 working days, it may extend the timescale initially by a further 10 working days. If more time is needed beyond this, the landlord will contact the resident to discuss this and explain the reasons why.
The policy also states that if the landlord is unable to respond to the stage 2 complaint within 20 working days, it will contact the resident to advise when it expects to be able to respond to the request for a review.
The landlord logged a stage one complaint for the resident on 7 April 2021, however, it did not send a formal response to the complaint until 20 August 2021. The landlord had therefore taken over 4 months to reply, which was inappropriate as it was significantly longer than its advertised target of 10 working days.
The Ombudsman has noted that the landlord was in contact with the resident during the intervening period, for example, it spoke to the resident on 15, 25 and 30 June 2021 and visited the property on 10 June and 8 July 2021. Nevertheless, the time taken by the landlord to respond to the complaint was unreasonable as the resident was entitled to expect the landlord to reply on time or contact her to explain the reasons it could not respond and agree a new deadline with her.
The landlord explained in its stage one reply that the delay had occurred because the previous complaint handler had left the organisation. Although it was right that the landlord had given an explanation to the resident for the delay and apologised, the Ombudsman expects landlords to have systems in place to ensure there is continuity when a member of staff leaves the organisation.
The landlord offered the resident £350 for poor complaint handling. The landlord’s compensation policy matrix states that it will offer up to £150 for poor complaint handling and therefore the landlord had used its discretion to exceed the usual amount offered. The Ombudsman’s view is that the amount offered by the landlord was reasonable redress to put things right in terms of the excessive delay in responding to the resident’s complaint.
The resident submitted a further stage one complaint on 22 February 2022, which the landlord acknowledged verbally and in writing on 2 March 2022. The landlord sent its stage one reply on 10 June 2022, which was 74 working days after receiving the complaint. The landlord again apologised for the lengthy delay in resolving the issues and offered the resident compensation of £75 for the delay in replying to the complaint. The amount offered was again within the range stipulated in the landlord’s compensation policy matrix.
Although the landlord apologised for the delay, it did not offer an explanation for the delay, nor identify any learning to avoid future delays in complaint handling. These were therefore shortcomings in relation to the landlord’s response. However, given that the landlord was again in contact with the resident during the intervening period, the view of this Service is that the landlord’s apology and offer of £75 provided reasonable redress to the resident to put things right in relation to the complaint handling failures.
The resident requested the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 21 September 2022. The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 14 November 2022, which was 38 working days after the resident’s request for her complaint to be escalated. The time taken was therefore longer than the landlord’s advertised timescale of 20 working days for replying to stage 2 complaints. However, the landlord’s records show that it had unsuccessfully tried to contact the resident on 14 October 2022 and it wrote to her on 17 October 2022 to advise her that it would need to extend the deadline for replying to her complaint. The landlord also wrote to the resident on 31 October 2022 to advise her that it again needed to extend the deadline for the response.
The landlord’s email dated 17 October 2022 advising the resident of the extended deadline was sent 18 days after the landlord received the resident’s stage 2 complaint. The landlord had therefore followed its policy by writing to the resident to advise her that it needed an extension of time. However, it was inappropriate that the landlord had then subsequently extended the deadline again.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code dated March 2022 stated: “If an extension beyond 10 working days is required to enable the landlord to respond to the complaint fully, this should be agreed by both parties”. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the resident agreed to the extension of the deadline. It was therefore unreasonable that the landlord had agreed to extend the deadline on the second occasion without agreeing the new timescale with the resident.
The landlord apologised for the lack of communication regarding the resident’s complaint and offered her £100 for “poor complaint handling”. Given that the landlord had at least written to the resident to advise her of the extensions of time, the Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord’s offer of redress was reasonable.
Overall, although there were unreasonable delays in progressing the resident’s complaints, the landlord acknowledged these failings, apologised and offered reasonable redress to put things right in terms of its complaint handling failures.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in relation to its handling of the refurbishment of the kitchen and bathroom.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of various repairs, including the rear garden fencing, decking and a roof leak.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the conduct of the landlord’s contractors.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in relation to its handling of the associated complaints.

Reasons

The landlord took a considerable period to carry out the refurbishment of the bathroom and kitchen and to complete the subsequent snagging works. These delays had a significant impact on the resident. However, the landlord offered reasonable financial redress to put things right.
There were delays in repairs being raised and completed. There were also problems due to multiple visits by contractors and a lack of communication with the resident, particularly in relation to the fence repairs. However, the landlord carried out the repairs, acknowledged its failings and offered the resident appropriate redress.
The landlord spoke to the contractor about the conduct of the operatives and requested it to remind the operatives about behaving in an appropriate way.
Although there were unreasonable delays in progressing the resident’s complaints, the landlord acknowledged these failings, apologised and offered reasonable redress to put things right.