Acis Group Limited (202119678)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119678

Acis Group Limited

29 November 2023

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. response to the resident’s reports about the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy.
2. handling of repairs to the resident’s property.
3. handling of roof repairs to the resident’s property.
4. complaints handling.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant at the property of the landlord since 25 October 2021. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a two bedroom bungalow. The landlord is aware that the resident has a number of medical conditions that include limited mobility.

Policies and procedures

The resident’s tenancy agreement says that:
1. The landlord will keep the structure and exterior of the property in good repair, including:
  1. Drains;
  2. Internal walls (not including minor plaster cracks);
  3. Floors and ceilings (not including floor coverings).
2. The landlord will repair and keep the heating equipment in good working order.
3. The landlord will decorate the outside of the property as often as is needed to keep it in a reasonable condition.
4. The landlord will keep in good repair any boundary structure (wall or fence) where there is a legal obligation for it to do so.
5. It is the resident’s responsibility to:
  1. Fill any minor plaster cracks or holes;
  2. Unblock waste pipes, gutters and drain gullies (except where the blockage occurs outside of the resident’s control);
  3. Maintain any boundary structure (wall or fence) where the landlord does not have a legal obligation to provide one.
6. The resident must keep the property in good decorative order, meaning walls, ceilings, doors and woodwork must be decorated to a reasonable standard.
7. The resident must grant access to the property to carry out repairs, either by arrangement or after being given 24 hours written notice by the landlord.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy sets out three repairs categories:
1. Emergency repairs, which it will attend within 24 hours.
2. Urgent repairs, which it will attend within seven days.
3. Routine repairs, which it will attend within 28 days.
The landlord’s voids process says that it will carry out a quality inspection after the completion of any void works.
The landlord’s lettable standard says:
1. The property is to be presented in a clean and tidy condition, ready for the customer to decorate as required.
2. All empty properties will have a full asbestos survey undertaken.
3. All properties will be provided with a fully functional primary heating system.
4. Any existing fencing must be presented in a safe condition and any which is unsafe will be removed and replaced.
5. All gates shall open and close correctly. Defective gates will be repaired or replaced on a like for like basis, as necessary.
6. Soffits and fascia’s must be structurally sound and securely fixed.
7. All floors will be free from trip hazards and in a good and safe condition.
8. All floor tiles that contain asbestos will be managed in line with the asbestos policy.
9. It is the responsibility of the in-coming resident to decorate the property. The landlord will carry out appropriate decoration where there is graffiti and/ or severe nicotine staining.
10. Plaster cracks to walls and ceilings over 2mm will be filled in readiness for decoration.
The landlord’s asbestos management policy says that it will carry out a specialist survey in any of its properties as part of the planning process for works to buildings where asbestos is present. Where asbestos is assessed as being in good condition, it will be left where it is and where it is assessed as posing a health risk, it will be removed or encapsulated.
The landlord’s customer feedback policy sets out a two-stage procedure and will provide responses within 10 working days at stage one and within 20 working days at stage two. It aims to resolve complaints as quickly as possible and so some feedback is dealt with as a ‘service issue’, which are concerns raised by a customer that can be dealt with immediately or very quickly. This could include where it fails to attend a repair appointment and the resolution would be to book another appointment.

Summary of events

On 8 September 2021, the landlord inspected the ‘void’ property and identified works required, including cleaning, repairs to cracks in the walls and ceilings, and removal of floor tiles. On completion of these works, the landlord re-inspected the property on 14 October 2021, and completed the ‘void property quality inspection form’. This noted “all work completed to the desired standard” and the inspection result was a “pass”.
On 26 October 2021 (the day after her tenancy started), the resident reported that the storage heaters were not working. She chased the landlord two days later asking when the repair would be carried out and advised if she could not be present, the landlord would need to arrange to access the property. The landlord replied that it had asked its repairs team to raise this as a priority due to her health concerns and that she would need to be present to provide access.
On 29 October 2021, the landlord raised a job for the heating to be fixed and arranged to attend the following day. The landlord’s system noted that it attended and the job was completed.
On 2 November 2021, the resident reported that she was contacted by a contractor who was on their way to her property to repair the heaters. She advised she was not at home so could not give access.
The resident reported that on 19 November 2021, all but one of the heaters (kitchen heater) were now working and had been repaired on the previous day when a contractor had attended without an appointment.
On 10 November 2021, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord, which said:
1. The storage heaters did not work, and this made the property uninhabitable. A contractor attended on 30 October 2021, and identified that three of the heaters had not been wired in properly and advised her not to continue moving in to the property.
2. The landlord had failed to give notice of when its contractors would be attending.
3. The uneven floors were dangerous for a person with her condition.
4. She asked the landlord to repair the heaters and compensate her for the time she was not able to live in the property, travelling, and for “other” expenses.
On 21 November 2021, the resident reported that the septic tank was leaking. The landlord raised a works order to inspect this two days later, which it noted was completed the following day and that there was no evidence of any leak.
In November 2021, the resident also reported concerns regarding the fencing and boundaries, blocked gutters, condition of fascia’s, standard of internal decoration and asbestos floor tiles. She said that she could not live in the property until repairs were completed and asked for alternative accommodation. The landlord responded that a supervisor would inspect the property to determine whether it was habitable. It also told her that an asbestos survey had been completed prior to her moving in and works were completed to remove broken floor tiles.
In early December 2021, the landlord asked the resident to advise a suitable date and time to carry out the proposed inspection. The resident responded that she would not be at the property and would provide access by the landlord collecting the keys or her sending via courier. She requested this be viewed as a reasonable adjustment due to her disability. The landlord agreed and the resident later suggested she could be present via video call for the inspection.
On 9 December 2021, the landlord inspected the property and noted that:
1. The floors were in a good state of repair, with only one area of concern identified and that a job would be raised to screed that area. The landlord has advised this job was completed on 20 December 2021.
2. There were superficial cracks in the living room ceiling, but these did not need to be repaired.
3. The kitchen heater was turned on and no error message was showing.
4. The hedge at the front of the property was dying but still acted as a boundary. It noted some of the other fencing should be removed and replaced. The landlord has advised this work was completed by 16 December 2021.
5. There was no evidence of the septic tank leaking.
6. The front gates needed replacing. A job for this was raised on the same day and recorded as completed on 4 January 2022.
7. The internal decoration was in line with its lettable standards.
The resident chased an update from the landlord on 16 December 2021. It responded on the same day with a copy of its inspection report. She sent further e-mails in December 2021, and stated that there were hazards in the property and that it was uninhabitable.
On 11 January 2022, the landlord provided its stage one complaint response, which said:
1. Some floor tiles containing asbestos had been removed and sealed by a specialist asbestos contractor and any undisturbed tiles would remain in place in line with its asbestos management policy. This type of asbestos had the lowest risk, so there was no risk of harm to her. Due to her concerns about uneven flooring, it agreed to screed the floor to address the minimal difference in the level.
2. It had investigated the leaking septic tank and sewage in the garden and found there was no evidence of a leak. It had nevertheless jetted the pipe and emptied the tank as a precaution.
3. It had used its discretion and replaced and removed some fencing in response to her concerns but reminded her that fencing was her responsibility under the terms of the tenancy agreement.
4. Cracks in the ceiling were decorative and deemed to be her responsibility under the terms of the tenancy agreement. It signposted her to a company who could provide a quote for decoration.
5. The heaters were programmed to operate off-peak which led to confusion about their operation. The kitchen heater had also been turned off at the wall but this issue was now resolved.
6. The soffits and facias had been inspected and it considered these were in good structural condition but needed painting. It confirmed the property was included in the external repair and paint programme for 2024-25. It also confirmed that it had cleared all the gutters as a preventative measure.
7. At the viewing and key collection, the resident had not raised any specific requirements regarding reasonable adjustments. It had attempted to work with her to address all concerns and had full regard for the guidance provided by the Equality Act.
8. It believed that the property was fit to live in and that it had addressed all issues raised and completed works above its lettable standard.
On 21 February 2022, the resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage two. The landlord acknowledged this the following month and apologised for the delay in responding.
On the same day, the resident reported that staining in the property could have been caused by damp and mould, rather than being cosmetic and that she was in the process of contacting RICS registered surveyors for their advice. The following month, she advised that two contractors had inspected the property and raised concerns about damp and mould and a possible roof leak. The landlord asked for copies of the contractor reports and the resident replied that she could only pass on the information given verbally.
On 3 March 2022, the local authority inspected the property and carried out an assessment under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) legislation, at the resident’s request. It concluded that the property was in good order with no category one hazards identified. While two minor issues were identified, neither of these prevented the property being occupied or let by the landlord.
On 1 April 2022, the landlord provided its stage two complaint response, which said:
1. The process undertaken to let the property and ensure it was to a lettable standard had been carried out appropriately. An internal review had been carried out, including a survey where the standard of the property had been reviewed by a manager. The issues listed at stage one were either deemed to be within the lettable standard or addressed during the complaint, including additional works to screed the floor.
2. The local authority had inspected the property and the subsequent report noted that the property was of a standard to allow occupancy. Two minor items were identified as needing action and it asked her to confirm a suitable time for it to attend to complete these works.
3. No repair had been logged regarding a roof leak and it asked her to report the roof leak if this needed further investigation.
4. No formal reports from other contractors who had attended the property had been provided and so while it had noted that she had said they disagreed with its assessments, it could not review this feedback as part of the complaint process.
5. All repairs raised had been investigated and/or completed and it had reviewed her concerns against its lettable standard and believed the property met this. It believed it had acted appropriately, in a timely manner, and in accordance with its values and policy.
On 4 April 2022, the resident replied that she did not agree with the stage two response and stated that its attitude was discriminatory.
On 19 May 2022, the resident reported a hole in the roof and the landlord raised a job for this. It attended on 10 June 2022, and carried out a temporary repair. It noted that there was “further work reported following a repair”. A further job was raised for “felt repair” on 12 July 2022, and the job was closed with a note stating “closed as no access, contractor attempted access over 10 times”.
On 3 August 2022, the resident made a complaint to the landlord about issues with the roof that had been delayed or not completed. The landlord provided a response on 9 August 2022, which said:
1. This had been raised as a ‘service issue’ under its complaints procedure.
2. It had attempted to make “several appointments” with her throughout April and May 2022, to carry out an inspection and complete the repair. It had completed this and the contractor had not fed back that any further work was required but asked her to report any further issues if issues were ongoing.
The resident replied on 17 August 2022, and asked again for the roof issues to be dealt with as a complaint. She said that the landlord had not properly investigated the issues and asked for confirmation of what works had been completed. The landlord responded the following day. It said that the issue had already been investigated and addressed as a ‘service issue’ under its complaints procedure and its stance remained the same. It also provided details on what works had been completed.
On 31 October 2022, the landlord agreed with the resident that pre-arranged access would be given through a key safe arrangement for repairs to be carried out. On 1 December 2022, the resident advised that she felt she should be at the property to provide access.
Between July 2022 and June 2023, the resident reported more than 10 additional repairs, including drainage issues, cracked and uneven paving, a leaking toilet, front and back door issues, pest issues, a loose kitchen tap, internal door handle falling off, missing stop cock, no timer switch on the immersion heater, and damaged decoration following a repair to the smoke alarm.
Between December 2022 and June 2023, there were multiple communications between the parties regarding arranging access to the property to complete various outstanding works. The landlord provided schedules of works to the resident and appointments were arranged; however, these did not go ahead and the landlord has recently advised that there are outstanding works to be completed but that the resident has refused to provide access.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has told the landlord that its handling of these matters has had a negative impact on her health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments; however, it is beyond the remit of this service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s health. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord. While this service cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience, which the resident experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord.
This service has been provided with multiple photographs of the property taken on the completion of the ‘void’ works, prior to the resident moving in. While these have been considered, it is not for the Ombudsman to make a determination on whether the condition of the property was acceptable or unacceptable based on photographic evidence. What this service has investigated is whether the landlord followed its process in respect of void properties, considered its lettable standard, and whether it appropriately considered and responded to the resident’s concerns in respect of the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy.
The resident made a further complaint to the landlord in August 2022, regarding roof repairs. The landlord responded that this had been raised as a service issue under its complaints procedure and provided its response. It also confirmed in a follow up e-mail that it had addressed the resident’s concerns through its formal complaints procedure and its stance remained the same. While this issue has not gone through the landlords formal stage one and stage two complaints process, the landlord has set out its position regarding this issue and confirmed that it had investigated this. Based on this, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the complaint about roof repairs has completed the landlord’s internal complaint procedure and so it falls within the scope of this investigation.
Following the completion of the landlord’s internal complaints process, the resident has reported more than 10 additional repairs to the landlord, including a pest control issue. The resident has submitted additional evidence that shows that the pest control issue has gone through the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. However, as this was over 6 months after this complaint was concluded and there is no evidence that it is linked to any of the substantive issues within this complaint, it falls outside of the scope of this investigation but will be investigated as a separate complaint by this service. In relation to the other repair issues reported, there is no evidence that these have gone through the landlord’s internal complaints procedure and therefore, cannot be investigated by this service and fall outside of the scope of this investigation. If she wishes, the resident is able to raise these other repair issues as formal complaints direct with the landlord.

Response to the resident’s reports about the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy

In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s schedule of void works for the property was extensive and sought to address disrepair issues as well as the general condition and cleanliness of the property. On completion of the void works, the landlord carried out a quality inspection in line with its voids process. It documented that all work had been completed to the desired standard. This indicated that it considered the condition of the property in respect of its lettable standard, which was appropriate.
In response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property, the landlord arranged for a supervisor to inspect the property, which was appropriate. The subsequent report made further reference to its lettable standard, showing again that it considered the condition of the property in respect of this standard.
The inspection took place on 9 December 2021, and it provided a copy of the report to the resident on 16 December 2021. It then confirmed within its stage one complaint response that the property met its lettable standard. While appropriate to include this as part of the formal complaint response, it would have been useful to inform the resident of this on 16 December 2021, at the point it provided her with a copy of its inspection report. This alone would not amount to service failure, however.
The resident continued to be dissatisfied with the condition of the property and approached the local authority, which carried out a further inspection in March 2022. The local authority concluded that the property was of a lettable standard and the landlord made reference to and relied upon this conclusion within its stage two complaint response in April 2022. While frustrating for the resident, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was reasonable in the circumstances.
Shortly after the start of the tenancy, the resident raised concerns about cracks in the ceiling and the general condition of the property that she said went beyond cosmetic decoration. The landlord considered these issues as part of its inspection in December 2021, and noted that the cracks were superficial, that no repairs were required, and that the decoration met its lettable standard. It subsequently advised the resident of this and confirmed that decoration works were her responsibility under the terms and conditions of the tenancy.
The schedule of void works showed that, prior to the start of the resident’s tenancy, the landlord cleaned the property and carried out some repair works to cracks in the ceilings and walls in various rooms to bring it up to its lettable standard. However, it did not explain this to the resident. It would have been useful to share this with her to offer further reassurance that it had properly considered the condition of the property in respect of its lettable standard.
The resident also raised concerns about the boundary fences, hedge, and gates shortly after the start of the tenancy. Under the terms of the tenancy, the resident is responsible for the maintenance of any boundary structures and so the landlord was not required to carry out any works to these. However, it agreed to do some additional works to the fencing and the gate following its inspection in December 2021. As the resident’s concerns related to the existing boundaries that were in place when she moved in, it was appropriate that the landlord considered what additional works it could do to improve these, particularly in light of the resident’s medical conditions and vulnerabilities.
Another of the resident’s concerns related to asbestos floor tiles. The landlord told her that an asbestos survey had been carried out and explained what works it had completed and the reasons behind this. It then provided further detail and reassurance within its stage one response. This was an appropriate response and in line with its lettable standard and asbestos management policy.
In summary, the landlord’s actions and communications were in line with its policies and good practice. There was therefore no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy.

Handling of repairs to the resident’s property

When the resident reported that the heating was not working, the landlord raised the works as priority works due to her health concerns, which was appropriate. The Ombudsman notes, however, that there was a delay of two days between the resident reporting the issue and the landlord raising the works, which unreasonably added to the period the resident was without heating.
Additionally, the landlord’s records show that the job was completed on 30 October 2021; however, e-mail communication between the resident and the landlord indicate that the heating was not repaired until 18 November 2021, which was 18 working days after the resident first reported it. This indicates that the landlord’s record keeping is not accurate, which may have impacted its own investigation of the issue.
This period of delay occurred during the winter months and the resident had advised that she could not live in the property without heating due to her medical conditions. While the repairs were completed within the landlord’s timeframe for ‘routine’ repairs, they were significantly beyond the timeframe for its ‘urgent’ repairs. Given that it had raised the resident’s expectations it would treat them as a priority, the resident’s health conditions, and that this issue occurred during the winter months, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, this repair was unreasonably delayed and amounts to service failure.
The Ombudsman notes the resident’s position that she was told by a contractor that three of the heaters had not been wired in properly. However, the landlord’s stage one response stated that the heating had not been working because the heaters had been programmed to operate off-peak and one had been turned off at the wall. While this service does not doubt the resident’s position, there is no record that this was the cause of the issue. Given that the parties positions on this issue differ, the Ombudsman is unable to conclusively determine the cause of the heater issues. It was appropriate, however, that the landlord ultimately ensured they were functioning, and communicated its position.
When the resident told the landlord that she could not live at the property because of various repair issues, it said it would inspect the property to assess whether it was habitable, which was a reasonable response. The resident said that she was advised by contractors not to move in to the property because of the problems with the heating. While the Ombudsman understands this would have caused concern for the resident, it was reasonable for the landlord to carry out its own inspection, rather than rely on an unsolicited observation from its contractor operative. However, it is important that the landlord and its contractors give clear and consistent communication to residents to avoid any confusion. A recommendation has been made below for the landlord to provide training to its contractors on how to deal with issues around potentially uninhabitable properties.
The resident reported uneven flooring in the property on 10 November 2021, and told the landlord that this was a risk to her because of her medical condition. The landlord considered this as part of its inspection in December 2021, and it subsequently agreed to screed the floor to address this issue. The landlord advised that the difference in the flooring level was “minimal” and, therefore, it would not be required to undertake any works to address this. However, it used its discretion to carry out additional works to level the flooring which was appropriate considering the resident’s medical conditions and the increased risk that the uneven flooring posed to her.
When the resident reported that the septic tank was leaking in November 2021, the landlord attended within its committed response time; however, there was a minor delay in the job being raised. While no leak was identified, it later advised in its stage one response that it carried out precautionary works, which it was not required to do. It also considered this issue as part of its inspection in December 2021, although no issues were identified. This showed that it took the resident’s concerns seriously.
Since September 2022, the resident has made several reports of blocked drains and the landlord has carried out a number of repairs and a drainage survey. However, this service has seen no evidence that the drainage issues related to the previously reported leak from the septic tank.
The resident reported concerns regarding the general condition of the property, including facia’s, in November 2021. The landlord confirmed that it inspected these and found they were in good structural condition but acknowledged they needed decoration. It advised this would be included in its external repair and paint programme of works in 2024-25. While the Ombudsman understands that the cosmetics of a property are important, the Ombudsman also notes that a landlord has an obligation to manage its resources appropriately. Given that these areas remained functional, it was reasonable for the landlord to include the works within its upcoming planned programme of works.
The resident also raised concerns about damp and mould at the property in February 2022. The local authority inspected the property the following month and while it identified two small areas of mould in the porches, it did not consider these were caused by rising or penetrating damp and suggested they could be resolved by cleaning. The landlord relied on this assessment and took no further action in respect of the damp and mould, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion was reasonable. The landlord subsequently identified that works were required to address damp and mould within the porch areas, although, it is not clear from the evidence provided how it reached this conclusion. While frustrating for the resident that it did not reach this conclusion earlier, it is reasonable that it relied on the expert opinion of the local authority HHSRS inspection to inform its decisions on this issue and that it did not progress these works at an earlier stage. It is appropriate that where further reports or new information is received, that it reassess its position, which it did in this case and confirmed that additional works were required to address this issue.
The resident told the landlord that she had been given conflicting advice from her own contractors regarding several repair issues. The landlord asked to see reports from these contractors but the resident could not provide these as she was only given the advice verbally. While the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s position, it was reasonable that the landlord asked to see written report. In the absence of any formal reports, it was reasonable that it relied on its own findings and that it did not consider these verbal opinions as part of its decision making.
The resident raised repeated concerns about the landlord’s expectation that she provide access for repairs to be carried out. Generally, it is a requirement that a resident provide reasonable access for any repairs, which the landlord appropriately explained to the resident in this case. However, where a resident raises issues around their ability to provide access and asks for reasonable adjustments in light of any disabilities, it is also reasonable that the landlord considers these and shows due regard for the resident’s needs. While the landlord agreed to enter the property without the resident present in order to accommodate her requirements, there were some inconsistencies in the landlord’s communications and approach, which would have been confusing and frustrating for the resident.
In October 2022, the landlord agreed that pre-arranged access would be given via a key safe, which was appropriate considering the resident’s requests for reasonable adjustments in respect of access. When the resident advised in December 2022, that she felt she should be at the property to give access, it was reasonable that the landlord revert back to only accessing the property with her present and no longer make use of the key safe.
Based on the evidence provided to this service, a number of requests for access have been made, but not agreed to by the resident. The landlord has attempted to arrange for works to be completed over set timeframes and has provided detailed schedules for the resident to refer to. It has also provided details of what reasonable adjustments it would make in respect of her disabilities and made changes to appointment times in order to accommodate her medical appointments. While the Ombudsman understands that the ongoing issues have caused distress to the resident, it is nevertheless reasonable for the landlord to seek access in order to comply with its repair obligations. It is evident that the landlord has taken reasonable steps to minimise the disruption caused to the resident and has clearly set out what it will be doing on each visit. Given that some of the repairs remain outstanding, a recommendation has been made below for the landlord to contact the resident and discuss future access arrangements and confirm any arrangements in writing.
In summary, while the landlord has complied with its repair responsibilities in some instances, there was an unreasonable delay in it carrying out the repairs to the storage heaters, which resulted in the resident being left without heating in winter months. This amounted to service failure in the circumstances and an order has been made for £150 in compensation to reflect the impact caused to the resident.

Handling of roof repairs to the resident’s property

In March 2022, the resident reported that her own contractors had suggested there could be a roof leak on the back porch. In its stage two response the following month, the landlord asked the resident to formally report this as a repair if there was an ongoing issue, which was reasonable. When the resident reported a roof leak in May 2022, the landlord attended 15 working days later and carried out a temporary repair. As the leak related to a porch area, which is not a main living area in the property, this response time was reasonable and in line with the landlord’s policies.
Following the temporary repair, a job was raised for further roof works. The landlord’s repair records indicate that the this job was not completed due to failed access; however, its complaint response provided in August 2022, said that the works were completed from outside of the property, although it does not say on what date this was done. If the works could be completed from the outside, it is not clear why repeated attempts at access were made, especially considering the resident had raised concerns about the number of times she had been asked to give access for repairs to be carried out. There is also no record that the landlord updated the resident about what it had done until after she raised this as a formal complaint.
The temporary repair was carried out on 10 June 2022, and while it is not clear the exact date when the follow on repair was completed, the complaint response confirmed this was done prior to 9 August 2022, which is less than two months later. As the repair was to the porch roof, which is not a main living area in the property, and had already been temporarily repaired, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was reasonable.
The landlord’s records noted that the resident did not provide access on at least 10 occasions; however, there is no record of any prior communication with the resident to inform her of these appointments. It is unreasonable for landlords to expect residents to be able to accommodate unannounced contractor visits and to then record these visits as ‘no-access’, implying that the resident was at fault, when it was the responsibility of the landlord to provide the resident with reasonable notice of the appointment. The resident told the landlord why this was even more important in her case because of her medical conditions and had repeatedly asked for reasonable adjustments to be made. This repair was eventually completed from outside the property, rather than having to obtain access, which could be considered a reasonable adjustment. However, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the contractor raised the repeated no access issues with the landlord at an earlier point, which would have been appropriate and given the landlord the opportunity to consider whether any alternative arrangements could be made for the repair to be carried out at an earlier stage.
Overall, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the roof repairs. While it carried out repairs in a reasonable timeframe, it is not clear why it repeatedly attempted to gain access to the property when it could have completed the repairs from the outside. After it had completed the repairs, there is no record that it updated the resident until after she raised the issue as a formal complaint. Despite saying the resident refused access “more than ten times”, there is no evidence that it gave her prior notice of these appointments, which was unreasonable and would have been frustrating for her, particularly as she had told it many times that she was often away from the property for medical appointments. Orders have been made below for the landlord to apologise to the resident for its handling of this matter, pay her £150 in compensation and to work with its contractor to ensure it has a robust process for notifying residents in advance of appointments.

Complaint handling

When the resident asked to make a complaint about roof repairs in August 2022, the landlord dealt with this as a ‘service issue’. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) encourages early resolution of issues and recognises that in some situations action can be agreed immediately to resolve an issue; however, this should be agreed with the resident and should not obstruct access to its formal complaints procedure.
In this case, the resident was clear that she wanted to make a formal complaint and raised new, recent issues that required investigation. Therefore, the landlord should have dealt with this as a formal complaint, rather than as a ‘service issue’ and its failure to do so amounts to service failure. While a response was provided, it lacked detail and did not fully address all of the resident’s concerns, which would have been frustrating for her. Orders have been made below for the landlord to pay the resident £100 in compensation and provide staff training on its complaint handling procedure.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of roof repairs to the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The evidence provided shows that the landlord properly followed its voids process, considered the condition of the property in respect of its lettable standard, and responded appropriately to the resident when she raised concerns about the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy.
There was a delay in the landlord carrying out a repair to the storage heaters, which resulted in her being left with no heating in winter months and she said this prevented her from moving in to the property.
The landlord said that it made repeated attempts to gain access to the property to complete the roof repair but there is no evidence that it notified the resident about these appointments. It said that it completed the repair from outside and so not clear why there were so many attempts made to access the property, particularly when the resident had raised concerns about having to regularly provide access. After it had completed the repair, it did not update the resident until after she made a complaint about this.
The landlord inappropriately dealt with the resident’s complaint as a ‘service issue’, despite her specifically asking for it to be treated as a formal complaint. Its response lacked detail and did not address all of the resident’s concerns.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £400 compensation, made up of:
  1. £150 for its handling of repairs to her property.
  2. £150 for its handling of roof repairs to her property.
  3. £100 for its complaint handling.
2. Apologise to the resident for its handling of roof repairs to her property.
3. Work with its contractor to review its process for notifying residents in advance of repair appointments to ensure, where possible that at least 24 hours’ notice is given and that this contact is centrally recorded.
4. Provide staff training on complaint handling following the failings identified within the investigation report.
5. The landlord to provide training to its contractors on how to deal with issues around potentially uninhabitable properties, including what advice they can give to residents, how this should be recorded with the landlord and the importance of feeding back any concerns to the landlord for further action.
6. The landlord to contact the resident to discuss and agree access arrangements for repairs going forward, taking account of the resident’s requests for reasonable adjustments in respect of her disability. Any agreed approach to be confirmed in writing and noted on the landlord’s systems to ensure consistency in its approach and responses going forward.
7. Write to the resident setting out the landlord’s position in relation to who is responsible for the fencing and hedges in each area of the property (this includes setting out areas where it is the landlord’s legal obligation to complete the repairs). If any of the responsibility falls on the landlord, it should set out how it will deal with any issues regarding them moving forward.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with these orders to this service within four weeks of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord contacts the resident to progress the further issues identified above through its internal complaints procedure and to ensure the matters are reasonably addressed in line with its policy.
The landlord sends a qualified inspector to assess the damp and mould. Following the inspection, any further works that need to be completed to address the issues should be carried out within a reasonable timeframe and considering the residents vulnerabilities.
The landlord sends a qualified inspector to assess the issues relating to the sewage and toilet. Following the inspection, any further works that need to be completed to address the issues should be carried out within a reasonable timeframe at the resident’s convenience.
The landlord sends a qualified independent inspector to assess the issues relating to the storage heaters. This inspection should consider whether a replacement heater is necessary. Following the inspection, any reports should be provided to the resident, and further works that need to be completed to address the issues should be carried out within a reasonable timeframe at the resident’s convenience and considering the resident’s vulnerabilities.
The landlord should notify this service of its intentions regarding these recommendations within four weeks of this report.