Believe Housing Limited (202208091)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208091

Believe Housing Limited

21 February 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handing of majors works.
2. Response to damage to her closed-circuit television (CCTV).

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord since April 2019. The property is 3-bedroom semi-detached house. The resident is over 65. The landlord noted on the tenancy file that in April 2022, the resident reported medical conditions related to her mobility and general health.
The landlord’s repairs policy sets out:
1. Emergency repairs will be responded to and made safe within 24 working hours.
2. Appointable repairs will be carried out within 20 working days.
3. Major repairs will be carried out within 60 working days.
According to the landlord’s complaints policy, the complaints process has 2 stages. At stage 1, the landlord will respond within 10 working days and at stage 2, within 20 working days.
The landlord compensation policy states:
1. The purpose of the compensation is to make amends for the loss, injury, service failure, breach of contract, inconvenience or offence.
2. Compensation does not have to be of a financial nature, it can also be made by way of a gesture of goodwill or replacement.
3. To accept the compensation an acceptance slip is required to be returned from the resident to the Customer Insight Team at which point the compensation will be processed within seven days.
At the beginning of 2022, the landlord undertook a pilot project for improvement works for a number of properties including the resident’s property. It had a partnering contractor, which acted as its principal contractor. The principal contractor had a number of subcontractors reporting to it as part of their supply chain.
The major works involved at the resident’s property were as follows:
1. external, loft and cavity wall insulation;
2. roof replacement, installation of solar photovoltaic (PV) panels and battery storage;
3. air source heat pump;
4. electrical upgrade;
5. triple glaze windows and external doors.
Prior to the works, the landlord noted in its file that it had provided information to all the residents involved to ensure that they were ready for the process and that it had considered their special circumstances and support needs. In February 2022, the landlord undertook a 2-day event to provide opportunity for the residents to learn more about the new equipment which was planned to be installed in their properties. A comprehensive customer information guide was provided with brochures of the new equipment use and points of contacts.
As part of the ongoing works, the landlord’s file evidenced that it had arranged weekly meetings to inform all residents of ongoing works, give residents an opportunity to discuss their individual property whilst providing a platform to raise or discuss any ongoing concerns with progress or quality of the works being undertaken. Residents were also provided with a dedicated liaison officer and their direct mobile number. As part of the works in progress the landlord stated that all properties which received new equipment would receive a specialist visit to demonstrate how the equipment was used. This service has seen no evidence of those visits or minutes of the meetings.
The programme gave a 7-week period to complete all internal and external works. On 13 January 2022, the landlord conducted inspection of the property which was assessed as being in overall good condition.
The resident’s property was initially programmed for works during the period of 14 January 2022 until 3 March 2022. However, due to a family bereavement, the works at the resident’s property were deferred until 18 February 2022. Scaffolding was erected as part of the enabling stage on 10 February 2022. However, the landlord noted on its file that due to COVID-19, which had created a national shortage of PV panels, works had been delayed.
The landlord provided to this Service notes of its contractor’s contact with the resident at the start of the major works. This was mainly correspondence related to arrangements of works, options for materials, cooker rewiring and general discussions. However, this Service has not seen any direct evidence of correspondence between the contractor and the resident and the contractor and the landlord. For the period between February 2022 and April 2022 during some of the works at her property, the landlord noted that the contractors had contacted the resident over 15 times and no issues had been identified. In April 2022, the contactor noted that the resident had reported issues with lights not turning on in the bedroom which were marked as attended and resolved the same day.
The landlord noted that due to changes in circumstances and ongoing difficulties with the contract, it took on a more proactive role in its contact with residents from April 2022. During this time the resident raised with the landlord her concerns about a decoration voucher for £300, which she had received. She explained that due to her health and age she was unable to decorate herself. She stated that she wanted the property put back to its original state.
Following this, on 13 April 2022, the landlord noted that in a telephone call, the resident stated the £300 decoration voucher would not be enough to cover the cost of what was needed following the major works. She was also dissatisfied with the rubbish left by contractors and was planning to reach out to the media. The landlord made a few contacts with the resident over the phone and emailed to confirm its position. (This Service has not seen this email, but only a note that it had been sent). On a few occasions, the landlord noted that the resident was not available, and the landlord communicated with her daughter. In April 2022, the resident also raised concerns about the blinds being replaced due to the change of the size of the windows.
On 22 April 2022, the resident contacted her MP for assistance and expressed her dissatisfaction with the disruptive and delayed works, which she stated had caused mess and dust. The resident stated she was left at times without heating, lights, roof tiles and cooking facilities. She also said that her health treatment had been put on hold due to awaiting the completion of the works. She added that she wanted her property back to its previous condition. This Service has seen no evidence that this communication was forwarded to the landlord.
On 17 May 2022, the landlord carried out a home visit, where the resident handed back the decoration voucher. The landlord noted that there was extensive correspondence with the resident between May and June 2022 with another 2 home visits carried out regarding the rubbish left from contractors, redecoration and the outstanding works. However, this Service has not seen the content of these emails. On 10 June 2022, the resident also raised a complaint with the contractors about damaged carpet. The landlord’s file shows that compensation of £200 was agreed.
On 27 June 2022, the resident reported loss of power to the heating and solar PV system, which was attended the following day.
The major works were completed on 1 July 2022 and recognised by the landlord as significantly behind programme. The landlord noted that the contractor had committed to carry out further plastering works that were required to complete the programme at the property. The landlord also noted that on completion of works the contractors had sent a letter of apology to the resident, a branded hamper and a £50 high street gift card for the inconvenience endured during the major works. This Service has not seen this letter.
On 18 July 2022, the resident reported no heating and hot water to the main contractor. The landlord noted the contractor had not responded within reasonable timescales, and as set within a few hours. As such, its in-house team attended the same day.
On 22 July 2022, the resident raised a formal complaint about disruption and delays during major works and also contacted this Service for assistance. She stated to the landlord as follows:
1. The reconstruction works had been ongoing for over 6 months.
2. The resident was unable to decorate the property on her own and at her age with the £300 decoration voucher.
3. She had had a media reporter attend the previous day to take photos. She stated that she should have called the media at an earlier stage to evidence “the bomb site” during the works and what she had had to endure through “horrendous” living conditions left by the contractors.
4. Two of the ceilings were still to be plastered after the plasterers had already attended 3 times. Additionally, the resident was dissatisfied with the attitude of the person responsible for arranging those works following her refusal to let plasterers in after 5pm.
5. Windowsills were lifting and the doorstep from the patio was lifting.
6. The CCTV had not been fixed properly and all the wires had been “buried” under the cladding.
7. Her life was not “worth living”.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 25 July 2022, and committed to respond by 8 August 2022.
On 3 August 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord and asked for all correspondence in future to be in writing due to the involvement of this Service. The resident reiterated that she was not satisfied with the decoration allowance.
In an internal meeting with the contractor, the landlord noted that it had discussed the issues and noted as follows:
1. Delays caused to the plastering were also due to the resident refusing works after 5pm.
2. The resident had been offered a choice of £300 decoration voucher or the actual decoration of 3 rooms by the landlord.
3. The CCTV had not been touched. Additionally, the resident had not obtained permission for this. As such, any damage would be more suitable for an insurance claim.
4. The officer responsible for the works had refuted the allegation that the resident had been poorly spoken to. They were disappointed to hear this as they had been “heavily involved with the customer”.
This Service has seen no evidence of the correspondence between the landlord and the main contractors. However, the landlord explained to this Service that the plastering of the 2 ceilings had been left incomplete by the main contractor. It therefore appointed another contractor to complete the plastering on 6 August 2022.
On 8 August 2022, the landlord issued its stage 1 response and stated as follows:
1. It explained that the improvement works were aiming to increase the long-term sustainability and efficiency of the property and when carrying them out disruption or low level of mess was unavoidable.
2. However, in this case, it upheld her complaint and acknowledged the major works’ delay and disruption as being high. It committed to investigate further with the contractor in order to avoid such failures in future. (This Service has seen no evidence of this.) It also apologised and stated that it would consider a good will gesture for the inconvenience.
3. In regard to staff attitude, it explained that the offer for the plastering to be completed daily after 5pm was made in the view of completing the works at an earlier stage. However, it had considered the inconvenience this could have caused to the resident’s family and had made other arrangements. The works had been completed on 6 August 2022.
4. The contractors had been instructed not to touch the CCTV. As such, if any damage had been done, it should be reported to the landlord’s insurance team.
5. It would reimburse the resident for the cost of the replacement blinds where the dimension of the windows had changed as a result of the improvement works.
6. The resident could escalate her complaint.
On the same day, the resident requested for her complaint to be escalated and stated as follows:
1. Other residents had also made complaints and she was uncertain of whether those complaints had reached the landlord’s officials.
2. She was not satisfied with the decoration proposal of only 3 rooms to be decorated by the landlord, and 4 were left unpainted. She added that the property had been fully decorated to a good standard when the major work had begun. As such, she would not accept the offer.
3. Regardless of the aim to modernise, the contractors “wrecked” each room.
4. The landlord had not taken into account the resident’s inability to decorate, or her health issues.
5. The resident had fitted CCTV following a police recommendation which was approved by a member of the landlord’s staff. The landlord, at the time, had advised that it would not have paid for the CCTV. The resident provided the name of the member of staff who she had asked for permission and also added that due to anti-social behaviour (ASB) issues in the area many of the other properties had cameras. The reason was “mainly police and common sense”.
6. The landlord’s statement that the contractor had not touched the CCTV was untrue. The contractor removed the cameras prior to the works. Following the cladding and rendering, they were refitted, but not correctly.
In an email of 12 August 2022, the resident added:
1. She wanted her complaint looked at by a different person than the one who had issued stage 1.
2. The mere apology was not enough, and compensation should be considered for all the residents. She was aware that some residents (referring to the ones from the same pilot programme) had received an allowance during the “disruptive” works, and this should be the case for all.
3. The re-wiring, plumbing and new radiators had not been mentioned at the start of the planned works and as such the residents had not been made aware that the properties would have been taken “from top to bottom”. Additionally, the workmanship was very poor.
4. During the works, the residents had been threatened with eviction if they did not provided access. (It is not clear whether the resident referred to her experience or to the other resident’s included in the pilot programme).
On 15 August 2022, the resident reported heating issues which were reported to the main contractor and resolved. There is no evidence of the timeframes of this repair.
On 6 September 2022, the landlord visited the resident and discussed the complaint with her. The landlord noted that during the visit the resident had raised some additional issues as follows:
1. She had requested support with the new heating system thermostat.
2. There were some outstanding snags and damages to her kitchen.
3. She reported a loose patio sill and window in the lounge, a socket shield in the kitchen and concrete in the patio which was sharp.
4. The resident wanted to be rehoused in a certain area.
On 8 September 2022, the landlord issued its stage 2 response, which stated as follow:
1. It reiterated its stage 1 response and acknowledged the resident had asked in her escalation for the landlord to reconsider its conclusions on the CCTV and the decoration issue.
2. It had arranged for a contractor to provide a demonstration on how to use the thermostat.
3. A repair appointment had been raised for 13 September 2022 to inspect and repair the kitchen issues.
4. It arranged a contractor for the repair to the window and patio sill, and for the socket. It would further inspect the concrete.
5. In regard to the CCTV system, it had checked with its neighbourhood team and had found that no permission had been granted. It could not grant retrospective permission due to a potential damage to the external wall insulation if the cameras were fitted there. It provided 2 options for the resident as a way forward:
  1. She could request permission for an internal CCTV, where the cameras were positioned in the window, and at her expense.
  2. If she felt the landlord was responsible for loss or damage to the CCTV, she could make an insurance claim. It provided information of how the resident could obtain an insurance form.
6. The resident had been placed in band 2 on medical grounds with a priority date of 3 July 2020. It provided information on the type of property she could bid for and stated that there were no available properties at the time in the desired area.
7. According to its record, the resident had received a £300 decoration voucher and reimbursement for the carpet and the blinds.
8. It offered additional £150 as discussed during the home visit on 6 September 2022. This was to cover the cost of a contractor the resident had found to redecorate the property. The landlord also said that this £150 was offered as a further good will gesture in recognition of the issues the resident experienced during the improvement works.
9. The compensation would first be offset against rent arrears, if any.

The compensation slip included a disclaimer stating that the compensation was in full and final settlement and by accepting it the resident accepts settlement of all and any damages arising from a breach of the landlord’s repairing obligation.

On 15 September the resident responded to the landlord’s stage 2 as follows:
1. She was not satisfied with the conclusion that the contractors did not touch the cameras. She stated previously that they had reinstalled them outside already, but the cameras were not working. She was concerned that the landlord’s response had suggested that she was lying about the CCTV being moved by the contractors.
2. She had asked for permission in the past and although it was not in writing she had received it verbally.
3. A contractor had inspected the kitchen the same day and in a later telephone call the resident had been told that the kitchen was 20 years old, and the issues were due to “wear and tear”. She did not agree with this and did not consider the landlord had put things right.
4. The resident considered that the reimbursements of the carpet and the blinds, the £300 voucher and the additional £150 were for the mistakes the landlord and its contractor had made and to put her property into the condition before the works as such these should not be considered as compensation. The resident stated that the landlord had admitted she had endured hardship but had not provided sufficient compensation.
5. The resident did not agree to sign the disclaimer as final settlement and found it an “insult”.
On 20 September 2022, the resident reported an issue with the heating which was cancelled by the resident as resolved. On 5 October 2022, the resident reported again her heating not working. This was attended on the following day and resolved.
On 31 October 2022, as part of the improvement works an audit was planned and according to the landlord’s notes undertaken at the property. The landlord marked that no issues with the improvement works, or heating were identified.
On 4 November 2022, a new kitchen had been installed at the resident’s property. The landlord’s repairs log evidence that on 24 November 2022, a leak was reported from under the kitchen sink, which was noted as completed on the same day.
On 29 November 2022, the resident brought the complaint to this Service and stated:
1. She was not satisfied with the length of time for the major works and the disruption caused. She was unable to use hot water, heating and cooking facilities for long periods of time during those works.
2. The quality of works had been poor, and she experienced leaks from the roof which caused cracks in the ceiling and leaks in the kitchen.
3. She was dissatisfied with the CCTV response and the quality of the works which she reported to have damaged her kitchen.
4. The new heating system frequently did not work, and she had not been shown how to operate it.
5. She was confused as to the meaning of the compensation slip disclaimer and its legal consequences. She did not want to accept it as full and final settlement.

Events following the complaint being brought to this Service

In December 2022, the landlord noted that the resident reported a further leak to her kitchen, and it instructed its contractor to reattend, report back and repair those issues where necessary. This Service has not seen evidence of any report.
On 4 April 2023, the landlord issued a review of the case. It stated that this was in response to this Service’s release of the Complaint Handling Code (The Code). In its letter, the landlord stated as follows:
1. It confirmed the resident had been offered the reimbursement for carpet and blinds, the decoration voucher and the £150 compensation as per its internal complaints process. It also included the contractor’s offer of apology and compensation of high street voucher and a hamper.
2. It apologised for the disclaimer in the acceptance form regarding the £150 compensation and said that it had not explained previously that signing it would not prevent the resident from contacting this Service.
3. It offered additional compensation of £400 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience the major works had caused and in recognition of her vulnerabilities. As such, it stated that the total compensation offered was £550.
4. With regards to the CCTV, it did not have a formal record of the permission. However, it acknowledged the resident had told it about installing it following incidents of antisocial behaviour. As such, it acknowledged not addressing this part of the complaint fully and offered to install window mounted CCTV, paid for by the landlord.
5. It had tried to arrange for a personal visit and apology, but the resident had requested it in writing. However, the offer for a future visit was still valid.
6. It again asked the resident to sign the disclaimer in the acceptance slip and explained that the resident could still continue with her complaint to the Ombudsman.
The landlord explained during this investigation that it had terminated the contract with the principal contractor following the pilot project due to the overall challenges to delivery of works and lack of supply chain management.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Paragraph 42 (a) of the Ombudsman’s Scheme sets out that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. The resident’s complaint about the major works exhausted the landlord’s process on 8 September 2022. As part of its decision to resolve the damage reported to the kitchen, the landlord renewed it on 4 November 2022. Any leaks to the kitchen reported following the renewal will not form part of this investigation, because they have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints process.
Additionally, this Service has seen no evidence of any leaks to the roof, lack of heating and hot water to have been reported to the landlord during the complaints process. These were raised with the resident’s MP but there was no evidence that it was forwarded to the landlord. As such, the Ombudsman will not consider this aspect of the complaint. However, this Service will look into whether the landlord’s response into the reported disruption caused by major works was fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case and how it had considered the impact on the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of major works delays and disruption

The main contractor in this pilot project was appointed by the landlord to carry out major works and is considered by the Ombudsman as an extension of the landlord itself. As such, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to monitor performance and take appropriate action to address poor performance as if the service was inhouse. It is appreciated that the works involved many additional chain contractors, and the relationship was complicated and that following the project the landlord ended the contract. However, the standard of works and any issue arisen from them were the landlord’s responsibility to handle.

Delays in major works

The landlord took on a more proactive role following the resident’s concerns of the disruption in April 2022 and had taken a lead in the communication from that point. However, there is no evidence that this involvement sped up the process or alleviated the disruption. The major works were planned for 7 weeks and started on 18 February 2022. According to the plan, the works should have been completed on 7 April 2022. However, they ended on 6 August 2022 when the plastering was completed. This is a 4-month delay from what the landlord had set out in its initial plan for the works. Additionally, this was outside of the landlord’s repairs policy for major works, which states 60 working days.
It is not disputed that during the works the resident experienced great inconvenience not only related to the damages to the carpet, kitchen and the blinds replacement but also inconvenience as she was going through a health treatment process with ongoing works at her property. Additionally, she had to continuously chase repairs, report disruption and damages which according to the resident were the result of poor workmanship.
The contractors acknowledged the delay and the disturbance, apologised and awarded a £50 high street voucher and a hamper. In addition, in both its stage 1 and 2 responses, the landlord acknowledged delays in handling the major works and apologised. It offered reimbursement for the blinds and for the damage to the carpet, a decoration voucher for £300. It also offered an additional £150 for the decoration work as a good will gesture which the resident refused due to the disclaimer she was asked to sign with the acceptance slip. It agreed to repair the kitchen and completed this in November 2022.
When a failure is identified, as in this case, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
It is appreciated that the landlord had offered reimbursement for damages to the carpet and blinds and whilst the resident had to chase this it was a satisfactory and fair resolution. It is also fair that it had offered an additional £150 for the decoration works for 3 rooms as the resident had stated that she was unable to do the job herself due to her health and age.
However, the resident repeatedly explained that this would not be enough. She also explained that 4 rooms had been left unpainted, and the contractors “wrecked” all the rooms. There is no evidence of whether the landlord inspected the condition of the other rooms and assessed any damage to the decoration. This was not appropriate, and the landlord could not demonstrate that it had returned the property if not to the same condition, in a similar condition as prior to the major works.
In its final response from September 2022, the landlord acknowledged delays and disruption caused by the handling of the works but did not offer any compensation to acknowledge this. In its follow up response from April 2023, it reviewed the case and offered £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused during the major works. It stated that the total offer of compensation was £550 as it included the good will gesture for the decoration works in this calculation. Given the resident’s vulnerabilities and the distress and inconvenience caused by 4 months delays and chasing repairs and damages, this was not enough.
Additionally, the landlord could not demonstrate whether it had considered how the resident was affected by the major works. It also did not demonstrate that it had investigated her concerns of mess being left by contractors. This Service has seen no evidence of the landlord’s communication with the contractor to demonstrate how the landlord assessed the impact on the resident. Given the nature of the works involved, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to investigate with its contractor any potential issue with a lack of hot water, heating and cooking facilities when assessing compensation. While it is appreciated that this might not have been raised directly with the landlord, it would have assisted it in offering reasonable and fair compensation.
It is noted that during this investigation the landlord reviewed the reports of no heating at the property and its responses. It is also noted that its actions were reasonable and in a timely manner. However, it could have done more to investigate the actual disturbance level to the resident as well as her reports of mess left by the contractors.
In bringing the complaint to this Service, the resident stated that she had not been shown how to operate the new heating and thermostat. This was also part of the initial plan of the landlord to provide demonstration to the residents of the use of the new equipment. However, this was not done until the resident raised it. It is noted that in its final response of 8 September 2022, the landlord committed to do so and arranged an appointment. However, no evidence of this was provided to the Ombudsman about such a visit to the resident.
In her communication to the landlord, the resident explained that she was not made aware of the extent of the works and that it would involve rewiring and changing the radiators. The landlord stated to this Service that the works had been discussed prior to their start. In addition, it set out weekly meetings to support the residents. The landlord also stated that it had considered the residents’ needs at the time. However, it had not addressed this in its responses.
Additionally, it is of concern that it has not provided sufficient evidence as to whether the resident was informed at the start of the works about their potential impact. While the landlord provided an overview of the circumstances, it failed to provide considerable amount of direct evidence like emails and minutes of meetings. As such, it could not evidence that it had considered the resident’s health condition and the treatment she was going through during the handling of the major works. In this case, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered an allowance or a decant as an option of reducing the impact of such major works, given the resident’s circumstances and in order to alleviate the disruption. However, it could not demonstrate that it had done so.
In its follow up response where it reviewed the case in the context of the Housing Ombudsman Code, the landlord increased the compensation in recognition of the distress, inconvenience and the resident’s vulnerabilities. However, it is of concern that the landlord reviewed its handling of the complaint following notification from this Service that would investigate the complaint. This Service encourages landlord to try and offer resolution even following the end of its internal process as a way to improve the relationship with the resident. However, in this case it was done over 8 months after its final response. This is a considerable delay and raises questions as to whether any learning had been taken.
For the above reasons, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the major works. Total compensation of £850, including the amount already offered during and following the landlord’s complaints process, is ordered in line with the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance for failures experienced for a protected period of time. It is also ordered, if not done so already for the landlord to arrange a demonstration on how to operate the new equipment.
Further concerns were raised about the disclaimer in the landlord’s compensation acceptance slip. Due to the unclear information and communication about the consequences in signing it at stage 2 of the complaints process the resident did not accept the compensation which she was entitled to. The same disclaimer was sent with the follow up response explaining this would not prevent her from reaching out to this Service. It was clear that the resident was confused as to the legal status of the disclaimer, and this prevented a potential earlier resolution of the issue.
Having such a disclaimer in the compensation acceptance slip negatively affected the complaints process and the resident’s access to redress. Additionally, the landlord failed to communicate clearly the consequences of signing it and as such it did not demonstrate a customer focused approach. Given this was not a legal process and the resident had raised concerns that she did not have the necessary knowledge to take an informed decision of whether to sign it, the landlord could have provided clear information at an earlier stage. The Ombudsman has made a recommendation for the landlord to consider amending its acceptance slip for the purpose of the complaints process.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damage to the CCTV

It is not disputed that prior to the works at the property, the resident had CCTV installed. While the landlord had not provided formal permission, it acknowledged in its follow up response from April 2023 that following events of ASB, the resident had discussed and informed it about the installation of the CCTV.
It is of concern that the landlord had not fully investigated these issues during its complaints process and that it had reviewed the case only after this Service accepted the complaint for investigation. Additionally, the landlord did not address or investigate the resident’s concerns that the CCTV was taken down and then reinstalled by its contractors regardless of the landlord’s note that this could damage the insulation. As such, the landlord failed to properly investigate and respond to her issues. This caused additional frustration to the resident.
As such, there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the CCTV issue. The resolution suggested by the landlord in its follow up response from April 2023 to install a window mounted CCTV camera was not enough to fully resolve this part of the complaint. In addition to this resolution, the Ombudsman has ordered compensation of £100. In addition, it is recommended that the landlord inspects the insulation to identify whether any damage was done by the contractor’s reinstatement of cameras to repair it.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration with regards to the landlord’s handling of major works.
2. Service failure in its response to the resident’s reports of damage to her CCTV.

Reasons

Overall, it is appreciated that the major works would have a positive impact on the property. However, the landlord had not demonstrated that it had monitored their performance and made the necessary arrangements to alleviate disruption and delays, given the resident’s vulnerabilities. It failed to consider any options that could have supported and assisted to lessen the impact of the works.
Whilst the renewal to the kitchen and the reimbursements for damages to the carpet and blinds was fair, the further compensation offered for distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in handling major works was not enough. Furthermore, its follow up response was provided over 8 months following the end of its internal process and it could not demonstrate that it had fully considered and investigated the impact of its failures on the resident.
The landlord had admitted that it had not fully investigated the reports of damages to the CCTV and the permission for it. While it was fair to offer in its response a window mounted installation of CCTV at its expense, it did not demonstrate that it had fully considered the resident’s concerns that her old CCTV had been reinstalled by the contractors.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the receipt of this report, the landlord is required to provide evidence to this Service of compliance of the orders as follows:
1. The landlord to write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report or if the resident prefers to do it in person.
2. The landlord to inspect the property and if any decoration work to the whole property is outstanding to complete it.
3. Pay the resident compensation the total sum of £950 inclusive of what was offered during and after the landlord’s complaints process. The compensation is comprising:
  1. £ 850 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its failures in the handling of the major works.
  2. £100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its failures to investigate the resident’s concerns of the CCTV reinstated by the contractors and not working.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommend that the landlord reviews the inclusion of the disclaimer in its acceptance slip with respect to the complaints process.
The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord inspect the new insulation for any damages by the reinstallation of the CCTV and repair if necessary.