Sovereign Network Homes (Former Network Homes) (202123467)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202123467

Network Homes Limited

31 August 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
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports concerning leaks and the consequent damage to their property.
2. The landlord’s communication, complaint handling and its response to the resident’s request for compensation.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident’s niece (the representative) made the complaint on the resident’s behalf.
The resident lives in a one bedroom ground floor flat. The resident is a leaseholder and the lease began on 24 July 1995.
The landlord has not stated it has any recorded vulnerabilities for the resident. The representative has stated the resident has learning difficulties and has asthma.
Section 4.3 of the landlords repairs policy states repairs are classified as emergencies or routine repairs.
Section 4.3.1 of the landlords repairs policy states Emergency repairs will be attended to within four hours if reported during the working day, Emergency repairs are defined as where there is an immediate danger to life or limb, major damage to the property, flooding, major electrical fault, heating or hot water failure in winter, or the property is not secure.
Section 4.3.2 of the landlords repairs policy states routine repairs will be completed at the next available mutually convenient appointment and in all cases within 15 working days.
Section 4.11 of the landlords repairs policy states leaseholders are responsible for insuring their own contents insurance. Leaseholders are responsible for submitting a claim to the landlord for the rectification of any damage to their residential property which is covered by the insurance policy. Any works that the landlord is obliged to carry out as the landlord may be covered by the buildings insurance.
Appendix 1 of the landlords repairs policy states the landlord is responsible for repairing all leaks in a tenants property and is responsible for keeping in repair the structure and exterior of a tenants home and the building in which it is situated.
Appendix 2 of the landlords repairs policy states leaseholders are responsible for all repairs, maintenance and replacements to the inside of their home, this includes inside walls and ceilings, for example the plaster finish and decoration and the floors including the floorboards and floor coverings.
Section 3.3 of the landlord’s complaints policy states the complaint policy does not apply when the complaint is about matters subject to an insurance claim. (However, residents can complain about delays in handling an insurance claim).
Section 3.7 of the landlords complaint policy states it will respond to all stage one complaints within 10 working days and all stage two complaints within 20 working days. Where it is unable to meet those targets the landlord will send a holding letter to the resident explaining the reasons for the delay and a new target response date.
Section 3.9 of the landlords complaint policy states the stage one complaint investigation will be conducted by a member of staff with a suitable level of training and competence. The complaint investigation will be overseen by a Team Manager or senior manager up to and including Director Level. At stage two the complaint investigation will be conducted by the Central Complaints Team in conjunction with the Executive Leadership Team, who will provide final approval and sign off of the decision, compensation and stage two response.

Summary of Events

On 22 December 2019 the representative wrote to the landlord and informed it that due to heavy rain, the balcony of the property above the resident’s property had caused a leak in the resident’s living room. The representative stated this had happened before and it understood that the balcony had been previously sealed but they were now in the same situation. It asked if the landlord would arrange to go to the property.
The landlord responded on 31 December 2019. It informed the representative its contact centre had been instructed to raise a repair for the reported issue. It provided the resident with a document outlining how to make a claim on the landlord’s insurance policy and the insurance policy summary stating that it would cover the ceiling and wall if damaged.
On 28 June 2021 the representative wrote to the landlord and stated that the resident was in a position to have the damaged caused in December 2019 repaired. The representative stated the delay was due to being unsure if the works to the balcony for the property above the resident’s property had been completed. The landlord was asked by the representative to confirm if the works were completed as the resident did not want to arrange repairs if the situation was likely to occur again.
The representative states she called the landlord on 26 July 2021 to report that following a storm on 25 July 2021 there was a bulge in the resident’s living room ceiling where water had gathered through the balcony. The representative states she was told by the landlord that it could not do anything as the resident was a leaseholder and she would be provided with the buildings insurer’s details.
On 26 July 2021 the landlord provided the representative with details of the buildings insurance policy.
The representative states that on 31 July 2021 following further rainfall the ceiling in the resident’s living room collapsed.
An inspection appears to have took place on 2 August 2021 by the insurance provider. It is noted the inspection report is dated 2 August 2021 but that the inspection is dated as taking place on 4 August 2021 in the inspection report.
On 3 August 2021 the representative wrote to the landlord to make a complaint. The representative informed the landlord that:
1. Due to the balcony for the property above the resident’s property being defective the ceiling in the resident’s living room had fallen through due to recent heavy rain.
2. They had reported issues with the balcony about 18 months prior and was told the balcony would be fixed. The representative said she had emailed the landlord recently to ask if the works had been completed to ensure the balcony would not leak again but had not had a reply.
3. After a storm on 25 July 2021 she had contacted the landlord to inform it there was a bulge in the ceiling where water had leaked through from the balcony but was told there was nothing the landlord could do but gave the resident its insurance details.
4. An assessor had visited the property after she had updated the landlord to say the ceiling had fallen through and was told the insurance did not cover defective works.
5. She called the landlord on 31 July 2021 and was told someone would come out and make the residents property safe. Had tried to contact the landlord again later that day and on the following day as they had not heard anything from the landlord. Was told on 1 August 2021 that the landlord would not do anything and to contact the insurance provider.
6. The insurance assessor told her it was not safe for the resident to remain in the property because of mould spores and the possibility of asbestos in the ceiling.
7. She had contacted the landlord and was told the only job logged was to clear guttering in September 2021.
8. The resident was living in an unsafe, unhealthy property and could not live with family members as they had stairs which he was unable to climb.
On 4 August 2021 an asbestos survey took place at the resident’s property by the landlord’s contractor. The report confirmed the presence of asbestos in the property.
On 5 August 2021 the landlord wrote to the representative and acknowledged the complaint. The landlord acknowledged the representative advised there was a power of attorney and had previously sent in the necessary documentation. It had checked its systems and was unable to locate a record of this. It was able to find a previous note which gave the representative authorisation on the account but as some time had passed it was outdated. Its Data Protection Team confirmed it would need to re-verify this. It appreciated it had previously been sent in and was inconvenient but could another copy of the power of attorney be sent so it could be recorded on the resident’s account. It confirmed the relevant teams were investigating the issues reported.
The landlord states the resident was moved to temporary accommodation on 5 August 2021 while repairs were carried out at the property and the property dried out.
A repair request was logged by the landlord on 5 August 2021 with work carried out on 6 August 2021 to clear the balcony, replace broken tiles and cleared the guttering. Follow on works were requested on 6 August 2021 to renew lead flashings and apply new resin to the balcony.
The representative emailed the landlord on 12 August 2021 and stated the asbestos had been removed and the workman had said there was still a lot of water in the ceiling. What remained was damp and rotten including the wooden beams so they may have had to be removed or replaced. The representative said the carpet was still damp and needed to be dried out and there was a damp smell in the room. The landlord was told the resident was fine in the new accommodation, but it was a struggle for the resident and the representative with all the disruption and asked the landlord to assess the situation as soon as possible to be able to move forward to the next stage.
The landlord emailed its insurance provider on 12 August 2021 stating the balcony had been repaired and the ceiling debris which had tested positive for asbestos had been removed. It asked the insurance provider to make contact with the resident and arrange for the loss to be assessed and reinstated.
The landlord chased the insurance provider on 15 August 2021.
The representative wrote to the landlord on 17 August 2021 and stated they had not heard from the insurer’s contractors. The representative said the ceiling was still very damp and the carpet was growing mould because of the damp. The representative said they were told they would be called back but that did not happen. The representative asked the landlord to chase the insurers again as they were told the job was urgent due to the initial delay by the landlord and the resident with their age and health conditions having to live in strange accommodation.
The landlord issued its stage one response on 17 August 2021. In the response the landlord stated:
1. Work to remove the ceiling took place on 12 August 2021 and no asbestos was found to be present.
2. Work to reinstate the ceiling would take place on 10 September 2021 which would involve two tradesmen. One for the ceiling reinstatement and one for the electrics to be reconnected after being disconnected to remove the ceiling.
3. Work to renew the balcony where the repair issues emanated from would take place on 8 September 2021.
4. It acknowledged the representative’s email sent on 28 June 2021 was not responded to and coaching would be given to the customer service advisors to ensure this would not happen in the future.
The insurers contacted the representative on 18 August 2021 and asked for a copy of an asbestos certificate before it could progress the required works.
On 19 August 2021 the representative responded to the landlord’s stage one response. The representative stated:
1. Contrary to the landlord’s response, there was asbestos found to be present in the property which was removed on 12 August 2021 along with the ceiling.
2. They had been told the balcony repairs had already been completed so what works where due to be carried out on 8 September 2021. It was concerning if the repairs had not been carried out as the drying out was due to take place over the coming days before the ceiling was due to be reinstated. It was a week since the ceiling was removed and no other work had been carried out.
3. It was disgusting that the landlord left the property with damp, without a ceiling and with mould growing on the carpet until 10 September 2021 given it happened on 31 July 2021, a period of six weeks. Especially with the resident being elderly, disabled and had asthma.
4. As it was unsafe to live in the property they were living in strange accommodation causing confusion and distress. The representative was having to take time off work to accommodate the situation.
5. If something had been done on 28 June 2021 and on 26 July 2021 when the reports were made, they would not be in the that situation.
6. Requested a guarantee that the balcony would be regularly maintained so the situation did not happen again. They understood the other balconies in the block had similar issues.
7. The landlords staff needed further training to help its customer as was told that the family needed to “rally round as a family”
8. The landlord needed to respond better to leaseholder emergency repairs as all the customer services staff they spoke to said the resident needed to deal with it themselves or contact the insurance company. It didn’t make any difference that the resident told them the issue being reported was due to a tenanted property and there was little point making repairs while the balcony was still leaking.
9. While trying to save furniture from water a part of the ceiling collapsed and nearly hit a family member.
On 20 August 2021 the representative emailed the landlord and informed it an inspection took place the previous day and the landlord’s contractors confirmed that the living room needed to dry out and the carpet removed before any works could take place. The representative asked for someone to go out to the property so it could be dried out over that weekend and the repair works could begin.
The representative wrote to the landlord on 25 August 2021 and stated they had not heard anything for almost a week. Nothing had happened for two weeks since the ceiling was removed on 12 August 2021. The carpet was mouldy and needed replacing which would delay the resident being able to return to the property. The representative requested a date for the drying out to take place, the reinstatement of the ceiling and a new carpet to be fitted.
On 9 September 2021 the representative emailed the landlord and confirmed the drying out was taking place. The representative asked when someone would attend the property to measure up for a new carpet and provide samples. The representative requested help from the landlord with regards to transportation for the resident to and from the temporary accommodation.
The representative contacted the landlord on 10 September 2021 and stated the insurance contractor confirmed the carpet would not be replaced and asked the landlord who will arrange for a new carpet to be fitted. The representative asked if the landlord could find out if the balcony had been fixed as the resident had received conflicting information. The representative noted the landlord was asked the question on 19 August 2021 and did not receive a reply.
The representative emailed the landlord on 15 September 2021 to ask who was replacing the ceiling at the property. The representative understood the insurance contractor was completing the works but had received a call from the landlord’s contractor who said they had been assigned the job and asked for a date to attend the property. The representative told the landlord’s contractor a date could not be provided as the property was still drying out and that another contractor was due to do the work. The representative said it would speak to the landlord and contact the landlord’s contractor if needed. The representative asked the landlord to respond to this and the other queries raised.
The landlord responded to the representative on 16 September 2021. The landlord said:
1. It had hoped the balcony works would have been completed on 8 September 2021 but the appointment did not go ahead. It was also aware the representative had been told the balcony works were waterproofed in August 2021 and it was trying to get confirmation if this was completed.
2. It was checking who was completing the works as it understood the representative believed it to be via insurance but there was also a repair raised for its contractor to reinstate the ceiling.
3. Could the representative explain the inconveniences of the resident being in temporary accommodation so it could better understand the situation.
The representative responded the same day and stated:
1. It had been seven weeks and the ceiling had not been replaced. Despite being told by the landlord and insurance provider the works were urgent.
2. It appeared the landlord did not know what was happening with the balcony or what had and had not been repaired as it was providing conflicting information.
3. Either emails were not responded to or the representative received incorrect information.
4. The dehumidifier provided via the insurers contractors had been removed by the drying company and the works could go ahead for the new ceiling. The insurers contractor was contacted and told the representative a date could not be provided until a report was received from the drying company.
5. Was not sure how the landlords contractor could turn up on an assigned date to reinstate the ceiling if they hadn’t yet assessed the property as additional works needed doing first.
6. Although the resident was in temporary accommodation near a family member, it was difficult due to the resident’s age and disabilities to use public transport if the resident’s representative was unable to get to him.
7. The situation could have been fatal had the resident been in the property at the time of the ceiling collapsing.
8. Wanted assurance that the balcony would be regularly maintained.
The landlord issued its stage two response on 17 September 2021. In the response the landlord stated:
1. It apologised for the misinformation received stating the landlord’s contractors were completing the repairs and there was no asbestos in the property. It accepted there was service failings, and this was due to its customer service team taking on the stage one response and relying on the information on its systems rather than speaking to the relevant teams.
2. It had missed the request for the update requested by the resident in the escalation request dated 19 August 2021.
3. The works did take place on the balcony in August 2021 and it was told by the surveyor it was waterproof. The confirmation was provided over the telephone so it could not confirm if it was true or not and was disappointed to find out it was not waterproof and would not be until 1 October 2021.
4. It was regretful it did not respond to the representative’s email sent on 28 June 2021 but as the email did not state there was currently a leak or the ceiling was bulging at that time it could not agree any preventative works could had been carried out at that time.
5. Although the representative tried to make it aware works were being completed by the insurer, during the complaints investigation it was only later on that was found to be the case.
6. The complaint being about matters subject to an insurance claim, its complaints policy states it did not apply but could complain about delays in the process. It found no fault in delays from its insurers but found delays in it’s contractor assigned to repair the balcony.
7. It accepted communication had been poor and, in some cases, the representative had to chase for replies.
8. It expected all repairs to be completed by 5 October 2021 and for the resident to be able to return to the property.
9. Offered £500 in compensation for time and trouble and the delays to the balcony repairs. Stated this may change and would confirm the full and final settlement once all the works had been completed.
On the 21 September 2021 the landlord’s records show the lead flashing to the balcony was replaced.
The representative emailed the landlord on 12 October 2021 and confirmed the ceiling had been replaced and the decoration completed. The representative asked for the excess cost for the carpet replacement and cost of cleaning the living room curtains be reimbursed.
The landlord stated to this service that the resident would have returned to the property shortly after the repairs were completed but was unable to provide a specific date.
On 19 October 2021 the representative wrote to the landlord in response to the stage two response. The representative stated:
1. After twelve weeks the works were completed.
2. She wanted reassurances that the balcony would be regularly maintained and had the neighbour been contacted or would the landlord be checking on a regular basis
3. She disagreed with the landlord’s findings regarding the preventative works stating someone could have gone to inspect the balcony in response to the email sent on 28 June 2021 to see if there were any issues.
4. When the landlord was contacted again on 26 July 2021 about the bulging ceiling someone from the landlord could have attended to fix the balcony as this could have prevented the ceiling from collapsing during the next rainfall five days later.
5. The offer of compensation did not seem like much and look forward to hearing from the landlord regarding the compensation amount and the issue of regular maintenance to the balcony.
The landlord issued a stage two follow on response on 2 November 2021 and stated:
1. It reiterated that balconies were considered a resident’s responsibility to maintain. It would not look to have a regular programme in place for one balcony as it was not cost effective and, in this case, would not be required. As it looked into the repair again it confirmed the balcony had deteriorated and required works which led to the water escaping below in the resident’s balcony and property.
2. It was not aware of any letter being sent to the neighbour so would ask the neighbourhood team to send a letter to them to remind them of their responsibilities and to regularly clear the balcony of debris.
3. It had not changed its position on its action taken regarding the email sent on 28 June 2021 but did agree action should have been taken when the resident called on 26 July 2021. The £500 compensation offered took into account the contact from July 2021.
4. It calculated eleven weeks of compensation was due and applied the highest amount for distress, delay and time and trouble. As the representative stated it was twelve weeks until completion and the stage two response stated it would confirm the final amount when all works were completed it confirmed an increase in compensation to £550.
On the 9 November 2021 the representative wrote to the landlord and stated the impact of the extent of what had happened and the damaged caused to the property and the residents physical and mental health had not been understood. It was the third leak into the property and the incident could had been avoided. The level of compensation did not seem appropriate. The representative stated the current tenant did not maintain the balcony but the previous tenant did but a leak still occurred so there was an issue with the balcony. The landlord’s email mentioned the balcony had deteriorated so if a regular plan was in place it could have been fixed sooner.
The landlord responded to the representative on 18 November 2021 and stated:
1. It applied the highest “banding” it could award for compensation.
2. It noted the representative’s comments about the ceiling could have possibly collapsed on a family member. It could not offer compensation for an event that did not happen and if it had happen it would have been considered by its insurance provider for personal injury or personal contents damage and not its compensation policy.
3. It was not aware of being informed the resident needed extra physio therapy but if the representative felt the landlord had been negligent in causing health to deteriorate a personal injury claim could be considered to be made to its insurers.
4. The representative needed to contact the insurers for damage to items and fixtures and fittings as these were not covered under complaints and compensation policies.
5. It would not be increasing the offer of compensation but asked the representative provide evidence of costs of extra journeys, carpet and curtain ceiling costs and it would look into if those could be reimbursed.
6. It had advised the representative that it would not be carrying out regular maintenance of any balconies as this was not a service it provided anywhere across its schemes, balconies were tenant’s responsibility but it was responsible for repairing balconies. It informed the representative the balcony had deteriorated to inform her that it was not solely down to not being upkept, and that it believed the current repair would stop future occurrences. Site visits would be for communal and external inspection and its officers do not enter and check properties internally, which would be required to see the balconies. It would only inspect if an issue was raised or bought to its attention by the resident of the home of the balcony in question.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports concerning leaks and the consequent damage to their property.

The representative contacted the landlord on 25 July 2021 and made the landlord aware of an issue regarding the resident’s ceiling and the balcony for the property above the resident’s being a potential cause. The evidence provided shows the landlord informed the resident of the insurer’s details to have the ceiling repaired as the resident was a leaseholder. This was the appropriate action for the landlord to take in relation to the damaged ceiling given the resident was a leaseholder.
The landlord however was also made aware by the representative that the potential cause was a fault with the balcony serving the property above the resident’s property. This property was occupied by a tenant of the landlord. The responsibility was for the landlord to investigate and if required repair the balcony.
There is no evidence provided that the landlord took any steps to investigate the reports of an issue with the balcony when it was made aware on 26 July 2021. On 31 July 2021 the residents ceiling collapsed after more rainfall.
Following the collapse of the resident’s ceiling the landlord provided differing updates to the representative as to the status of the balcony repair. The evidence received shows the landlord informed its insurers the balcony had been repaired on 12 August 2021, informed the resident the balcony was to be repaired on 8 September 2021 then confirmed this was not the case and that the repairs would take place be completed by 22 September 2021.
The landlord’s stage two response stated it relied on a telephone call to confirm if the balcony was waterproofed and that the information provided in that call turned out to be incorrect. This meant the balcony was not waterproofed for a longer period of time and therefore prolonged the repair process. The landlord must ensure when repairs are carried out the repairs are completed and evidenced so it can verify when and how a repair has taken place.
The landlords records show the final repair to the balcony took place on 21 September 2021. The landlord as per section 4.3 of its repairs policy should have completed the balcony repairs within a maximum period of 15 working days. The evidence provided states it took the landlord 41 working days to complete the repair.
The landlord stated the resident moved to temporary accommodation on 5 August 2021. Given the condition of the resident’s property at that time with a collapsed ceiling, damp and the presence of asbestos, this was an appropriate move to alternative temporary accommodation. The resident however was elderly and had learning disabilities. The delay in being able to return to his property would have been distressing and caused inconvenience during the time the repairs took to be completed. The landlord did take this into account in its offer of compensation.
The landlord said in its response to the representative on 18 November 2021 that it does not carry out regular maintenance to balconies across any of its schemes. The landlord must ensure it has policies and processes in place to respond to reports of defects needing repairs. The landlord stated in the response to the representative on 18 November 2021 that in relation to a balcony repair it would only carry out an inspection of an issue that was brought to the attention of the landlord by the resident of the property in question. If the resident of the property which requires a repair is either unaware of an issue affecting a neighbour or is unwilling to make the landlord aware, the landlord must consider if it receives a report from another resident if it needed to take any steps to investigate and establish if it is responsible for any repairs. By stating it will only inspect if an issue was raised by the resident of the home in question leaves any affected neighbour with no obvious option of assistance from the landlord and would risk further damage occurring.
The resident in the complaint stated they would like for the landlord to conduct regular checks of the balcony to ensure further occurrences of leaks do not happen. A recommendation is made in the report for the landlord to consider how it responds to reports of defects from neighbouring properties.
The landlord has acknowledged it was delayed in completing the repairs to the balcony and this affected the repairs being able to be completed to the resident’s ceiling by the insurers. The landlord offered compensation which will be addressed further in this report.

The landlord’s communication, complaint handling and its response to the resident’s request for compensation.

The landlord is expected to conduct a full investigation into the complaint raised by the resident. This would include reviewing the data held on its systems, speaking with relevant departments, external contractors, insurers and the resident.
The landlord stated in its stage one response that the landlord’s contractors would be handling the repairs to the resident’s property and provided job reference numbers and dates for the works to take place. The resident responded to say they had been told the insurance company would be completing the repairs. The landlord failed to show it was aware of what repairs were taking place and who was responsible for those repairs.
The landlord in its stage one response stated there was no asbestos found in the property. This was incorrect information as the landlord’s contractors report issued on 5 August 2021 confirmed the presence of asbestos and the resident informed the landlord of the removal of the asbestos on 12 August 2021. The landlord in its stage two response did confirm the statement about asbestos was incorrect however it failed to provide the correct information in the stage one complaint response.
The stage two response stated the stage one response was issued after relying on the data in its systems and not by speaking to the relevant teams. This led to the wrong information being provided to the representative including the incorrect information about the presence of asbestos in the property. This meant the opportunity to resolve the complaint at the earliest opportunity was lost and incorrect information being communicated to the representative would have adversely affected the resident’s faith in the landlord to conduct a thorough investigation.
The representative stated the landlord had failed to respond or communicate effectively during the repairs process. The landlord agreed the initial email sent by the representative on 28 June 2021 had not been responded to. The representative also stated there had not been a response to the email sent to the landlord on 19 August 2021 which the landlord acknowledged in the stage two response. In the email sent to the landlord on 15 September 2021 the representative stated the landlord’s contractors had contacted to say it wanted to arrange a date to replace the ceiling. The representative understood that the insurer’s contractors was carrying out the work. This was a further example of the representative being provided with conflicting information
The landlord emailed the representative regarding its communication on 16 September 2021. This email confirmed to the resident that works to repair the balcony did not go ahead as planned, it was aware the representative had been told the balcony works were water proofed but the landlord was waiting for confirmation that was the case as follow on works were required. The landlord was checking who was completing the works as the landlord believed the insurers were completing the work but the landlord had a repair for its contractors logged as well.
It is understandable the representative did not feel the communication from the landlord was to an appropriate standard as the landlord was providing conflicting information about the status of the repairs and who was completing the repairs.
The landlord in its stage two response did acknowledge its failings regarding its communication in its stage one response and during the complaints process including the presence of asbestos and the repairs to the balcony. The stage two response provided a full explanation and assessment of the complaint and provided the representative with clarity about what had previously happened and that its communication during the repairs and complaint process had been poor.
The landlord offered £500 compensation in its stage two response. The landlord stated this was for time and trouble in this repair, the distress caused to the resident and the delays to the balcony repairs. This amount was later increased to £550 after a recalculation by the landlord of the time of the delay in the balcony repairs.
This amount of compensation is considered to be reasonable redress by the landlord for its handling of the resident’s reports concerning leaks and the consequent damage to their property as it has acknowledged its failings in the repairs process and offered the resident an appropriate level of compensation which is in line with its compensation policy and falls within the Ombudsman’s recommended compensation levels.
The evidence provided shows that the landlord’s stage two response did acknowledge the landlord’s failing regarding its communication. This includes its stage one response regarding the presence of asbestos and who would be completing the repairs to the resident’s ceiling as well as its communication to the representative during the process and information provided to the representative during the repairs process. The award of compensation did state it included an amount for time and trouble which under section 4.7.4 of the landlord’s compensation policy covers the degree of inadequacy of the landlord’s response to letters, phone calls or visits. The total amount of compensation offered by the landlord was not allocated to specific amounts for specific failings. This Service considers the original award of £550 to be reasonable redress for the delays in the repairs process but an additional amount of £250 is an appropriate award of compensation for the landlords failings in its complaint handling and communication.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint and communication with the representative.

Reasons

The landlord was responsible for carrying out the repairs to the balcony. Although the landlord completed the repairs outside its repairs policy timescales the landlord acknowledge this in its complaint response and offered the resident compensation for those delays which this Service considers to be reasonable redress.
The landlord failed to keep the resident appropriately updated with the status of repairs and failed to adequately respond to the resident’s requests for updates. When responses were issued there was occasions of incorrect or conflicting information provided to the resident including in the stage one complaint response.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is to:
1. Pay the resident the £550 offered in its final complaint response if it has not already done so for its handling of the resident’s reports concerning leaks and the consequent damage to their property.
2. Pay the resident £250 for the landlord’s communication and complaint handling.

Recommendations

The landlord reviews how it handles reports for repairs to properties it is responsible for from neighbouring residents to ensure repairs are identified and completed at the earliest opportunity.
The landlord considers how it would comply with the Regulator of Social Housing’s new safety and quality proposed standards. Under the new safety and quality standard, all housing associations, for-profit providers and stock-holding councils “must have an accurate record at an individual property level of the condition of their stock, based on a physical assessment of all homes, and keep this up to date”.