Sanctuary Housing Association (202332046)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202332046

Sanctuary Housing Association

28 June 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about insulation, windows, door and the bathroom.
The Ombudsman will consider the landlord’s complaint handling.
The Ombudsman will consider the landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

The resident occupied a three bedroomed property under an assured tenancy which began in 2011 with her husband and daughter. The landlord did not have vulnerabilities or welfare issues recorded for the resident, but within the complaint the resident advised that her husband was a cardiac patient (susceptible to infection), her daughter was diabetic and that the resident herself has heart issues and asthma.

Legal and policy framework

Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord had an obligation to keep in good repair the structure including windows, its frames (excluding glazing), doors and door frames. Under S 9a of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord had an obligation to keep the property habitable in relation to excess cold and damp. The landlord was obliged to carry out works within a reasonable period. What is reasonable will depend on the nature of the works and degree or urgency so that, for example, loss of heating and hot water may require swifter action than window repairs.
Under the repairs policy, routine repairs (as opposed to emergency repair and major works) were to be carried out within 28 days.
Under the Energy Performance of Buildings (Certificates and Inspections) (England and Wales) Regulations 2007 and further regulations, landlords have an obligation to make available free of charge a valid energy performance certificate (EPC) to tenants. EPCs last 10 years.

Chronology

The landlord provided for this investigation three Energy Performance Certificates as follows:
1. EPC expired 30 August 2021 set out as follows:
  1. Cavity wall, as built, insulated (assumed): good.
  2. Roof Pitched, 100 mm loft insulation: average.
  3. Window fully double-glazed: average.
  4. Main heating Electric storage heaters: average 2021.
  5. The recommendation to increase energy efficiency included to Increase loft insulation to 270mm.
2. EPC 15 November 2023 expiring after 10 years, set out as follows:.
  1. Cavity wall, as built, insulated (assumed): good.
  2. Roof Pitched: 150 mm loft insulation: good.
  3. Window: Fully double-glazed: average.
  4. The recommendation to increase energy efficiency included: Floor insulation (suspended floor)
3. EPC 2 April 2024 expiring after 10 years, set out as follows:
  1. Wall Solid brick, as built, no insulation (assumed): poor.
  2. Roof Pitched, 100 mm loft insulation: average.
  3. Window fully double-glazed: average
  4. The recommendation to increase energy efficiency included: Increase loft insulation to 270 mm, internal or external wall insulation and floor insulation (solid floor)
On 20 April 2023, the resident reported that the windows were “rotten and draughty” and the front and back door needed adjusting as they were letting in a lot of cold air in. The landlord raised a job to inspect the doors and windows on the following day.
The landlord has informed this Service that it replaced storage heaters in the property in May 2023.
On 22 May 2023, the resident contacted the landlord asking for an inspection of the loft insulation. She had been advised it should be 275 mm. She had contacted the landlord previously but it could not identify any previous calls. The following day, the landlord noted that the property was not on the insulation work programme but had now added it for consideration of the loft space. There was a delay due to demand.
According to the resident, an inspection was carried out on or around 20 June 2023. This Service requested a copy of the report. On 11 June 2024 the landlord provided us with an email dated 11 June 2024 from the specialist contractor with the outcome from the “original survey” which, it is reasonable to conclude, was that carried out in June 2023. It set out the following recommendations:
1. Replacement of Extraction Fans: Install specified fans in the Kitchen, Bathroom & W/C.
2. Door Undercuts: As per building regulations (10mm door undercut required), to complete in Bedroom 1, Bedroom 2, Bedroom 3, Lounge, Bathroom & W/C.
3. Top-up required of the Loft Insulation: (existing at 70mm). The resident had agreed to clear the loft. Boarding was to go back up to ensure no belongings were stored on top of the new insulation.
4. Cavity Wall Insulation: This is already a partial fill property however has a 60mm cavity gap. Recommend filling the remaining cavity
On 11 July 2023, following a visit to the property on 5 July 2023, the operative submitted internally a request for replacement windows and doors. It was classed as non-urgent. The landlord noted that no costing or reason for the works was provided within the request.
The report, dated 25 July 2023 of the visit on 5 July 2023 stated that there was “nothing majorly wrong with the windows or doors except for the fact that next door had a new rear patio door and replacement kitchen window. It may look to visit in the future with a view to replacement. If they have greatly deteriorated, this would be under major works”.
On 27 July 2023, the resident chased the landlord and the landlord provided the resident with the report of 25 July 2023.
On 1 August 2023, the resident emailed that, on 20 June 2023, a company had carried out an EPC inspection and advised the loft insulation was only 70 mm as opposed to “355 mm”. There was no cavity wall insulation. All the windows and doors needed replacing as they were over 30 years old. The windows were “blown” and the windowsills “rotten”. The property was “excessively” cold. She reported her household vulnerabilities.
On 9 August 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to state she was chasing a repair to the window and had raised a complaint. The landlord stated it was unable to trace a complaint. The call was passed to the repairs team.
On 10 August 2023, it was noted internally that the property would have a “whole house energy survey” to look at windows, doors and heating systems but not until 2027-28. The insulation programme should address the loft/walls in the meantime.
On 14 August 2023, the resident made a complaint as follows:
1. Their EPC certificate had expired on 31 August 2021.
2. On 20 June 2023, “a guy” attended and informed the resident that the loft insulation was below the legal requirement. It was 70 mm as opposed to 355ml. There was no cavity wall insulation. She set out her report of 9 August 2023.
3. She understood that there were government grants to bring properties up to “the legal standard”. She had chased updates.
4. On 9 August 2023, a member of the repairs team stated that the team did not take calls from tenants but someone would contact her.
5. Her husband was a vulnerable adult. The winters in the property were “horrendous”.
6. She wanted an update. She felt that the landlord did not keep its properties to the high standards that tenants were entitled to.
7. She wanted the landlord to investigate the windows and doors. The “EPC” inspector of June 2023 had advised they needed replacing as they were over 30 years old. She attached photographs of the windows. An operative of the landlord had agreed with this assessment on 5 July 2023.
8. The repairs team had stated that the windows were not going to be replaced and “looked fine”.
9. She queried why neighbours had had their properties double glazed.
10. She enclosed photos including:
  1. The loft insulation with a tape measurement. It is difficult to assess the measurement from the photograph however the landlord measured the thickness as 70mm.
  2. Exposed, exterior window ledges with peeling paint.
  3. Peeling paint next to an interior (loft) window.
  4. Condensation within double glazing.
On 16 August 2023, the landlord acknowledged the complaint. It would respond within 10 working days. The evidence showed that it then carried out internal investigations. It raised a repair regarding the bathroom skylight and to chase and track insulation works.
On 30 August 2023, the landlord replied with its Stage 1 response as follows.
1. The complaint was about: Windows and doors, cavity wall insulation. loft insulation and government grants. The resolution the resident was seeking was for works to be carried out.
2. An order was raised on 21 April 2023 to check all windows and doors. An operative attended on 5 July 2023 who had recommended installing replacement windows and doors.
3. There were no health and safety concerns and no immediate need to renew. The works would be on a “routine priority”. There were no major faults to the windows and doors and works were not deemed urgent. The landlord would contact the resident prior to these works commencing. If the condition of the windows deteriorated, she could contact the maintenance team. It was unable to discuss another tenant’s property.
4. Its energy team dealt with future programmes to upgrade properties such as windows, heating, and insulation. It confirmed that the property was on the programme for renewal of windows and doors in 2027.
5. At the start of each financial year, the Energy team would assess which properties were next in line to have any required works done. It received government grants to carry out energy works, but this was not an unlimited amount. The funds were for works in the current year.
6. Loft insulation and cavity wall insulation works were due to be carried out in 2027. The resident’s house had been on the list to be completed between April 2023 to April 2025. It would check the position in February / March 2024 and track the insulation works until they were completed. The case had been referred to a dedicated “works co-ordination team, who worked with the Complaints Department, who monitor, track, and track outstanding works through until completion”. It would chase the contractors and update the resident.
7. It “partially” upheld the complaint as there were “further delays” in respect of the insulation works being carried out.
8. It offered £100 in relation to the “future delay” for insulation works to be carried out in April 2024-April 2025.
On 5 September 2023, the resident reported that the bathroom skylight leaked when it rained. Damp and mould were present and there was no ventilation when the window was closed.
On 9 September 2023, an internal email stated that the property was surveyed in June 2023 for the insulation programme. It would schedule the loft and cavity wall works however it did not have a budget for the “additional urgent issues.” The complaints team queried whether the property could be added to any programme for windows, skylight issue and heating programme.
On 12 September 2023, according to the repair records, the resident reported there was no ventilation in the bathroom when the window was closed. An operative had attended but the resident reported that no further action had been taken.
On 2 October 2023, the resident wrote asking to escalate her complaint to Stage 2.
1. She referred to her report of April 2023 regarding the windows and doors and what she referred to as an EPC inspection on 20 June 2023. She also raised that the landlord had drilled “holes in the glass” to let moisture out of the “blown” units. This made the windows effectively single–glazed as the outside air would fill the void of the units, greatly increasing heat loss.
2. There were 3 vulnerable people in their home, a cardiac patient, she was diabetic and suffered with heart issues. The windows were rotten and the lounge window was on a tilt. A pane was damaged. A lounge window hinge was broken. Preventative maintenance i.e. painting, checking of mechanisms and locks was non-existent. Waiting until 2027 for the cavity wall works was not acceptable. She was having to use funds from the family food budget to heat the property.
3. She had been advised not to accept the landlord’s offer. It was inadequate.
The landlord replied on 4 October 2023 that it had escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 2. It would contact her within 20 working days.
The complaints team made further internal enquiries including if there was any “wriggle room” on the cavity/insulation programme, a report on the condition of the bathroom and skylight and bringing the insulation forward. An EPC inspection was raised. The outcomes set out in the landlord’s evidence are as set out in the Stage 2 response.
On 6 October 2023, a supervisor reported that condensation was created when the shower was used. The extractor fan was not sufficiently robust to deal with the vapour. It suggested a location closer to the shower and a more efficient fan being installed. It also suggested building a frame around the ceiling skylight with a pane of glass in to retain the light coming in. This would help stop the condensation gathering on the Velux and then pooling and dripping back down. The resident had advised that this was a conservation area so the window could not be changed. It did not leak when it rained. It was raining when its operative visited and when he opened the window rain “naturally” came in.
On 26 October 2023, the landlord noted internally, that while its energy budget was “exhausted”, it would re-route all priority cases to the damp and mould team.
On 1 November 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident that it was awaiting further information from its internal teams and contractors. It would respond to her complaint by 15 November 2023. An appointment had been arranged for 6 November 2023 for a surveyor to inspect the windows, doors, cavity wall and loft insulation. A contractor would carry out an EPC inspection.
The resident replied on 6 November 2023 that a surveyor had attended that day. She had a copy of the EPC of 20 June 2023. The landlord replied that it did not have a record of the inspection on 20 June 2023. It had only identified the expired certificate dated 30 August 2021. It was making internal enquiries.
The survey inspection of 6 November 2023 stated as follows:
1. The surveyor inspected the roof/loft, windows and external areas (including reviewing action taken with the walls to date).
2. The windows sealed glazed units have had small holes drilled in them to relieve the internal misting that had occurred (the tenants advised that the landlord’s operatives completed this). These holes have negated the insulative value of the double-glazed windows, leaving the rooms quite cold.
3. The timber window cills had suffered quite severe decay in places. While some remedial scarfing in work has been completed, ideally the windows should be replaced.
4. It had noted the resident’s comments about the neighbouring windows.
5. Replacing the windows would alleviate a great deal of the cold issue.
6. The bathroom skylight was causing severe condensation. It had noted surface damage. It recommended a double glazed vented rooflight.
7. The insulative value and efficiency rating of the premises would be greatly improved with the completion of these works.
8. The door was in “quite” good order, and was fitting for the character of the building, however the tenants were keen for this to be replaced to reflect the replacement windows.
9. According to the resident, there was no insulation within the wall cavity. This was borne out by evidence of a previous investigation. This provision would significantly assist with the warmth and efficiency rating of the premises.
10. The loft insulation was 70 mm and not the 270 mm “typically” required.
11. The photos attached to the survey showed some of the exterior window ledges were peeling, the holes in the windows, and were similar to the photos from the resident of 14 August 2023.
On 7 November 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident that a contractor had attended on 23 June 2023 to carry out an initial survey and provided quotation for energy works. It had requested a copy of this information and would update the resident on or before 15 November 2023.
On 10 November 2023, according to an internal email, the surveyor prepared a specification for window/door replacement, roof insulation and cavity wall insulation. It required confirmation of Conservation Area status which would require specialist consultancy services.
On 15 November 2023, an EPC inspection took place.
Also on 15 November 2023, the landlord wrote with its Stage 2 response as follows:
1. It set out the chronology including the resident’s report of 5 September 2023 and outcome set out in the internal email 6 October 2023.
2. Although its energy contractor had attended on 23 April 2023 (sic) due to a “large increase” in demand the insulation programme had reached capacity and all unscheduled works had been referred to 2024 – 2025.
3. It set out the surveyor report of 6 November 2023. The recommended works had been approved that were identified by the surveyor. Further checks, surveys and quotations needed to be obtained, before providing a definite timescale.
4. It needed to seek confirmation from the Local Authority in relation to the conservation status of the property.
5. It would continue to monitor the progress of these works.
6. It apologised that its communication had fallen short of the standard that it would expect, including poor record keeping, the times that the resident had had to chase for updates, the delays to works and for the time that it had taken to get to this point.
7. There had been a “slight” delay to the stage two complaints process.
8. It offered £425 consisting of:
  1. £200 for time, trouble, and inconvenience – delays to works, chasing updates, poor record keeping.
  2. £50 for “slight delay” in receiving response at stage two.
  3. £175 for “future impact offered up to the end of February 2024”.
On 15 November 2023, the resident reported she was not happy with the EPC inspection as the inspector did not bring a ladder. He was “abrupt” and “very unprofessional”. He did not check the cavity wall insulation.
On 17 November 2023, the surveyor noted that, as it was a conservation area, he had had to put the window and door replacement work out to an architect. as a more extensive project (requiring Local Authority permissions). It noted the need for the works, given the time of year. The landlord instructed an architect on 20 November 2023.
On 25 November 2023, the landlord raised interim remedial works to the windows and to increase the loft insulation to 270mm. According to the supervisor’s note 23 November 2023, he had explained to the residents the extent of the works as an interim remedial measure, as the window and door replacement was to be handled by an external consultant.
On 30 November 2023, the resident stated that the specification on the EPC was not correct, the loft insulation was 70 not 150, the windows poor not average. There was no cavity wall insulation. The evidence indicated they made a complaint to the EPC contractors.
Following the conclusion of the internal complaints procedure the following took place:
1. The works for interim repairs to the windows and increase the loft insulation were scheduled for 11 December 2023.
2. The contactors were unable to get in contact with the residents. The works were rearranged.
3. According to emails between the contractors and landlord, and internal emails in November through to February 2024, the resident refused the interim remedial works. After some internal discussion, and on the basis that the condition of the windows was not causing immediate damage to the property, they were cancelled.
4. The replacement works were due to begin in April/May 2024. There were difficulties arranging a pre-inspection. The landlord had noted the resident’s request for one week’s notice but gave 2 days’ notice in early April 2024.
5. On 2 April 2024, the architect confirmed that they had been employed by the landlord to prepare tender documents to be issued to window suppliers for competitive quotations. The brief was to replace all external windows and doors with double glazed UPVC. It would also include the replacement of rainwater goods, fascias, soffits etc, if required and repairs/decorations to any timber porch canopies if present. An appointment was made for 15 April 2024. Internal emails showed further planning, submission to the local authority and checks taking place.
On 20 May 2024, the landlord reported to this Service as follows:
1. In response to our request for documents, it had raised works to assess the heating was working as it should. On 1 May 2024 it replaced the fan and installed a panel heater. It confirmed that the resident had a working downflow heater. It provided the relevant extract of its repair records.
2. It also raised a separate job for the loft insulation to be completed.
3. It had not received any reports of damp and mould from the residents and no evidence was found during the surveyor’s inspection.
4. The property was scheduled to be included in its energy programme by 2030, to retrofit measures to bring the property up to at least an EPC Band C.

Assessment and findings

It was reasonable of the landlord to raise an inspection a day after the resident reported the condition of the doors and windows to the landlord in April 2023. However, there was an unreasonable and unexplained delay before the inspection took place on 5 July 2023.
It was also reasonable that the landlord added the property to its insulation works programme after the resident reported a lack of insulation. However, while it arranged an inspection by a contractor in anticipation of those works, there was no evidence that it explained the nature of the inspection in June 2023 to the resident, or that it proactively informed the resident that the programme would not be going ahead. This left the resident confused about the purpose of the inspection and assuming this was an EPC inspection. Indeed, the landlord itself had difficulty in identifying the inspection that had taken place, albeit the date the resident provided were incorrect by a few days. The difficulties the landlord had in identifying the inspection indicates an issue with the landlord’s record keeping. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not follow up the inspection by writing to the resident to set out the outcome and timescale for the recommended works.
While the inspection on 5 July 2023 was carried out, and a job for replacement windows and door was raised, the later inspection by the surveyor in November 2023 indicated that the initial inspection was inadequate. It is unlikely that the windows would have deteriorated through the summer months. The inspection did not note the holes in the glass panes or the condition of the windowsills and that they impacted negatively on the internal temperature. It did not assess the condition of the windows as disrepair requiring works to be carried out within a reasonable period. This delayed any repairs by a few months. There were 2 issues with the windows. One was the compromised double glazing the other was the peeling paint which would, in time, have led to deterioration of the sills.
It was reasonable that the surveyor raised interim works in November 2023. However, the resident declined to have interim works carried out, as they wanted the doors and windows to be replaced. It was not explained why they refused the loft insulation as well. In the circumstances, fault is not attributed to the landlord for the delay in raising and carrying out works to address the disrepair to the windows and door, and loft insulation at that time. However, there was no evidence that the landlord re-raised the loft insulation works until after our contact by this Service’s request for documents in April 2024 for the purpose of this investigation. This was unreasonable and did not demonstrate it followed through with the works.
The landlord reasonably considered bringing forward the replacement works of the windows and doors and the programmed works. Once the surveyor had attended in November 2023, the landlord progressed the replacement works within a reasonable timeframe, given the checks that were required, the need to involve an architect and make an application to the local authority. It was the resident who pointed out to the landlord initially that the property was situated in a conservation area. The further delays were due to the resident not giving access, although that was partly due to the landlord not giving the resident the 7 days’ notice she had requested.
The landlord responded reasonably to the report of condition of the bathroom on 5 September 2023, by inspecting it a few days later but there was a delay before the recommendations set out in in the report of 6 October 2023 were actioned. There was some discrepancy in the findings with the surveyor finding an issue with the skylight itself as opposed to the fan. The position was not clarified. A new fan was required and fitted, but again not until our request for documents in April 2024.
There was no evidence that the landlord updated the resident regarding the outcome of their inspection following their report of 5 September 2023 and not in relation to the damp and mould they had reported. This was unreasonable. The landlord informed this Service that the resident had not reported damp and mould and the landlord had not identified any. While neither the report of 6 October or 6 November 2023 referred to damp and mould, it did identify condensation which may be a cause of mould. The landlord should have recorded its findings in any event. Relying on a negative (that the reports did not mention damp and mould) when the resident had raised the presence of damp and mould, was not satisfactory. At the very least, the landlord should keep a record of its actions and findings. This did not demonstrate its policy commitment to keeping residents informed or its focus on the resident’s household circumstances.
However, the resident’s complaint itself did not refer to damp and mould. None or very little was identifiable in the photographs provided by both parties to this Service. In the circumstances, it would not be fair to either party to us to investigate a complaint about damp and mould. It is open to the resident to raise this as a fresh complaint, if she wished.
While the Ombudsman understands the constraints on funding which led to the delay to the landlord’s energy programme, it was not transparent as to how it prioritised properties. The landlord acknowledged the delay to the insulation works from 2023 to an indeterminate period. It offered £100 for the year’s delay. It addressed the loft insulation, fans and works to the doors. While the works to the cavity wall referred to in the specification referred to on 10 November 2023, it is not clear when those works will be carried out.
The landlord did not have a duty to renew the EPC after it expired in August 2021, but it did have a duty to provide one on request. It indicates a lack of adequate record-keeping as it was unable to explain the status of the inspection in June 2023 (albeit there was a small discrepancy of dates between the parties) and did not identify that there was no EPC in place. It was unreasonable that it took 6 months to resolve them. The landlord was unable to explain the existence of the updated EPC in April 2024. It is possible the resident obtained this, or it further demonstrated poor lack of record keeping on the part of the landlord.
While the Ombudsman appreciates that the landlord would review its housing stock in planned stages, there is no evidence that the landlord ever considered increasing the insulation proactively or, when the resident complained about the property being cold and reported household vulnerabilities, there was no evidence that it checked the EPC. There was no evidence that it interrogated the EPC itself, in that the November 2023 measurement of the insulation had doubled from the previous EPC and that the wall cavity assessment was assumed, despite that there had been an investigation which had assessed there was none. However, it is noted that the EPC themselves were not reliable for example, the landlord’s contractor measured that the insulation was 70mm, while the EPCs variously noted 100-150mm. None of them noted that the double-glazing was compromised. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord went a step further by seeking a specialist report in June 2023 and the Ombudsman would highlight this as good practice.
There were a number of occasions when the landlord failed to update the resident proactively after inspections, for example after the inspections of 5 July 2023 and 12 September 2023. It did not explain the nature of the inspection of June 2023. The landlord stated that as its energy budget had been used up, it referred all priority works to the damp and mould team. There was no evidence that it did so. This did not demonstrate its “cross functional team”.
The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to take the resident’s household vulnerabilities into account. While also a repair obligation, by raising the works to the windows and insulation pending the major replacement, the landlord demonstrated that it did so. It also exercised its discretion and replaced the doors, while not strictly necessary (though they required “undercuts”) and this also dealt with the recommendation by the energy expert in June 2023.
The Ombudsman does not ascribe fault in relation to the delay to the interim works to the windows, or the initial delay in fitting loft insulation. It was positive the landlord arranged to replace the doors and windows.
However, the Ombudsman considers that an assessment of the windows could have been carried out many months sooner. The main factors impacting on room temperature were the poor roof insulation and the compromised double glazing. While it was positive to offer interim repairs, they may not have resolved the temperature issues, although it is likely they would have been mitigated. The Ombudsman finds service failure not only in relation to the delays, but also in relation to not re-raising the loft insulation, the delay to fitting an extractor fan, and the poor communication overall. The poor communication was principally about the lack of reporting back on inspections, keeping the resident informed of works and providing timescales. This indicates a lack of ownership. Given the household vulnerabilities and taking account of all of the circumstances, the Ombudsman does not find £475 is sufficient compensation. However, given the works carried out and the compensation offered to date, the Ombudsman finds service failure rather than maladministration.

The landlord’s complaint handling

There were benefits to the complaint handling in that the landlord carried out internal investigations and, in September 2023, asked internally whether the property could be added for various works and whether a programme could be brought forward. It proactively offered £30 for the delay to the Stage 2 response. It also calculated an estimate of overall impact of delays. It brought about the November EPC inspection.
However, there were failings in the overall handling of the complaint. While it only caused a brief delay of a few days, it is noted that the call of 9 August 2023 and any previous expression of dissatisfaction should have been treated as a complaint. The Stage 1 response did not address delays including between the job being raised on 21 April 2023 and the inspection of 5 July 2023. It did not provide timescales. Phrases such as “routine priority” are not clear. If anything, considering the repair policy, it indicates an issue of disrepair rather than major works. It also contradicted the landlord’s position that the windows and doors would be classed as major works, rather than routine.
The Stage 1 response promised that the complaints team would monitor works but there was little evidence that it did so and indeed neither the fan or insulation installation was not progressed until our contact in May 2024. It did not explain why it partially upheld the resident’s complaint or specify what it meant by insulation works. It was not clear whether the £375 offered at Stage 2 included the £100 offered at Stage 1 for the delay to the “insulation works”. It is assumed not.

The landlord’s record keeping.

The Ombudsman has made a number of findings in this report where information was missing which, it is likely, contributed to the poor communication and delays, including not following up or identifying the inspection of June 2023. The Ombudsman therefore finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s record keeping.

Final observation

In May 2024, the landlord carried out a review in response to a wider order we made in 2 previous cases. Landlord Review (Wider Order) May 2024 The issues concerned the landlord’s approach to repairs, record keeping and vulnerabilities. This case reflects the findings in that report which set out a number of actions. Therefore, we will not make further recommendations in this report but will make a recommendation that the landlord take this case into account in any review.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about insulation, windows, door and the bathroom.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

The landlord reasonably raised works, however, while the Ombudsman does not attribute blame to the delays to carrying out repair works pending replacing the doors and windows, there was lack of communication and delays including to the delay in installing loft insulation. The position regarding the wall cavity insulation was not clear.
While there were benefits to the landlord’s complaint handling, there was insufficient evidence of monitoring resolution and provision of timescales.
The failures in aspects of the record-keeping impacted the lack of communication and internal monitoring.

Orders

The Ombudsman makes the following orders:
1. Within 2 weeks, the landlord should provide evidence to the Ombudsman it has paid the resident the compensation already offered, amounting to £555. If it has not been paid, that sum, or any outstanding, balance, should be paid to the resident within 4 weeks of this report.
2. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should pay the resident the sum of £450, excluding the £555 already offered, and consisting as follows:
  1. £200 in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about their insulation, windows, door and the bathroom.
  2. £150 in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
  3. £100 in relation to the landlord’s record keeping.
3. Within 4 weeks the landlord should write to the Ombudsman and the resident as to a timescale for installing cavity wall insulation.
4. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord should contact the resident and enquire what vulnerabilities it should record for the household and offer any signposting and/or tenancy support it has available. The Ombudsman should provide a copy of that letter to the Ombudsman.
The landlord should confirm compliance with the above orders to the Housing Ombudsman Service within 4 weeks of this report.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations:
1. The landlord should take this case into account when reviewing its ongoing performance following its “Wider Order” report of May 2024.
The landlord should notify the Ombudsman of its intentions regarding these recommendations within four weeks of this report.