Bristol City Council (202308534)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202308534

Bristol City Council

19 June 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. reports of a crack, damp and mould in the bedroom;
2. reports of repairs to the hallway cupboard;
3. reports of repairs to the kitchen and bathroom;
4. request for window replacement to be completed;
5. request for an uneven floor to be levelled;
6. concerns regarding the safety of the property;
7. concerns regarding the condition of the garden;
8. complaint.

Background

The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord which commenced in 2006. The property is an adapted 3-bedroom terraced house. The resident lives there with her 3 adult children. The landlord’s records state that it has “mental distress and mobility impairments” recorded against 3 of the 4 occupants.
After reporting various repair issues to the landlord since 2016, the resident employed a solicitor to contact it regarding a disrepair claim in January 2021. The solicitor’s letter referred to issues with damaged brickwork, damp and mould, heating, flaking plaster, damaged kitchen units, an ineffective extractor fan, and a toilet leak. The landlord treated the solicitor’s letter as a complaint and issued a stage 1 response. Following 3 appointments during which it was unable to gain access to the property, it inspected the property on 6 September 2021, carried out a pre-works asbestos survey on 17 September 2021, and obtained a series of quotes for works between 20 October 2021 and 22 June 2022. It also completed repairs to the flooring, decoration, electrics, plumbing and windows in various rooms between 22 October 2021 and 15 December 2022. In March 2022 it installed a new kitchen and bathroom, and cut back a hedge at the front of the property to gain access to a stop tap.
The resident complained to the landlord about its handling of her repairs and the condition of her property on 23 March 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the following day and said it aimed to respond by 13 April 2023. It then carried out a further inspection of the property on 9 June 2023 and raised a number of repairs on 16 June 2023. On 19 June 2023 it issued its stage 1 response, stating:
1. It apologised for its delay in responding to the complaint. This was due to the complaint being assigned to the wrong team.
2. A crack on the resident’s bedroom ceiling was cosmetic and did not indicate any risk of the ceiling collapsing. It had instructed a contractor to repair this.
3. Its contractor had been unable to complete works to the resident’s hallway cupboard due to the number of items that were stored there when the contractor attended. It had now instructed a contractor to renew the defective plaster and decorate the ceiling of the cupboard.
4. It had found no issues with the resident’s kitchen installation during its initial snagging inspection, and no issues had been reported to it since. It had gone beyond its normal repair obligations in renewing the kitchen, including opening up the larder to allow the fridge to be placed in a less obstructive position. Although it was unclear how a vent cover became detached, it had instructed a contractor to reinstate the cover.
5. It had instructed a contractor to fit floorboards to the threshold between the resident’s living and dining areas. The floorboards would be flush to the existing boards to prevent any trip hazards.
6. During its recent inspection it identified that handles were present on all of the resident’s windows, but some strike plates were missing. It had instructed a contractor to renew any missing strike plates.
7. It had instructed a contractor to refix a wooden ceiling board near the foot of the stairs that appeared to be loose. This had not been reported to it previously. There was no indication of imminent collapse of the board.
8. Its records showed that an issue with the new bathroom floor was reported shortly after its installation. Its contractor had promptly returned and rectified this, and no further reports had been made. The issue was also not shown to its surveyor during their recent visit. It asked the resident to report any ongoing issues with the flooring to its call centre.
9. It was not responsible for carrying out gardening works during tenancies. It had previously considered some works to the resident’s garden as a gesture of goodwill, but the cost of rectification was prohibitively high. This was due to the poor condition of the garden. The resident was responsible for maintenance of her own garden, but her housing officer may be able to offer some assistance.
10. It asked the resident to provide more details regarding a tap flow issue, which was not mentioned to its surveyor during their visit.
11. It was of the opinion that the remaining issues in the property were minor and did not present any significant risks. It considered the property to be in a habitable condition. It therefore did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
The resident requested to escalate her complaint the same day (19 June 2023). At the landlord’s request, she provided her reasons for escalation on 10 July 2023. She explained that she disagreed that some of the repair issues were not reported or were not major. She pointed out that the stage 1 response did not refer to mould in her bedroom. She also disputed that there were items in her hallway cupboard when the landlord’s contractor attended, and said she felt the landlord should not have promised to carry out gardening work if this was not something it offered. Overall she felt the landlord’s repairs service had been poor. The landlord confirmed receipt of this information on 14 July 2023 and said it aimed to provide its stage 2 response by 7 August 2023. It subsequently issued the response on 3 August 2023, stating:
1. It had reviewed the complaint and its stage 1 response, and made further enquiries with its repairs service.
2. The mould in the corner of the resident’s bedroom was not noted during its inspection. If the resident could provide a photo, it would consider any action required.
3. It was sorry if its contractor missed the hallway cupboard when carrying out other works. As stated in its stage 1 response, it had instructed a contractor to renew the defective plaster and decorate the ceiling.
4. It was also sorry if the resident was given the impression it would be undertaking work to her garden. While it initially considered some works as a gesture of goodwill, this was not pursued due to the condition of the garden. It had referred the resident to her housing officer for assistance.
5. It repeated its stage 1 responder’s advice to provide further details regarding issues with tap flow and the bathroom floor.
6. The remedial works set out by its stage 1 responder were raised and should have been completed. However, it could see from recent correspondence with its contractor that the contractor had been unable to gain access to the property. It asked her to respond to the contractor’s contact note to arrange completion of the works.
7. It accepted that it had initially delayed in responding to the resident’s reports of repairs. However, it considered that it had then acted appropriately and proportionately in inspecting the property and arranging repairs. It therefore did not uphold the complaint.
On 7 June 2024, the landlord informed this Service that it had been unable to access the resident’s property to complete the repairs raised on 16 June 2023, and so these remained outstanding.

Assessment and findings

The tenancy agreement sets out the resident’s conditions of tenancy. These include reporting any repair work that is required, allowing the landlord access to carry out necessary repairs and inspections, and maintaining the garden (including any hedges and trees).
The tenancy agreement also sets out the landlord’s repair responsibilities. These include maintaining the interior and exterior structure of the property, external doors and windows, floor structure and ceilings, and installations for the supply of water, gas, electricity and sanitation. The tenant’s handbook states that tenants are responsible for minor items of repair, maintenance and decoration.
The landlord’s repairs policy and website lists the types of emergency and urgent repairs it will complete within 1, 3 or 7 working days. These include repairs that present a security or health and safety risk, or involve total or partial loss of power or utilities. The tenant handbook states that it will complete other repairs on an appointment basis.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy (introduced in November 2023) states that it adopts a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould and will respond quickly to reported issues.
The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process for non-statutory complaints such as those relating to housing. It will acknowledge a complaint within 3 working days, and respond within 15 working days at stage 1. If its response will be delayed, it will inform the complainant of this and provide a revised response date. Following receipt of an escalation request, it will decide either to investigate the complaint at stage 2, to refer the case back to the relevant service for further consideration, or to support the stage 1 response without further detailed investigation. The landlord’s complaints policy does not specify a timescale for stage 2 responses.
The landlord does not have a compensation policy, and considers each case on its own merits.

Scope of investigation

In the resident’s complaint to this Service, she referred to wires hanging from walls and a dated boiler. However, as these matters were not addressed by the landlord in its response to her complaint of 23 March 2023, they fall outside the scope of the current investigation. The resident has the option of making a further complaint to the landlord regarding its handling of these issues, which she may choose to refer to the Ombudsman if she remains dissatisfied with its final response. Any subsequent investigation will take account of the findings of this report.

Crack, damp and mould in bedroom

From the records provided, the first reference to a crack, damp and mould in the bedroom is within the resident’s complaint on 23 March 2023 (after a survey of the property in May 2022 had found “no problems with mould and condensation throughout”). The resident submitted 2 complaints on this date: the first referred to “a major crack which suggests roof repairs are needed” and “a damp/mould issue” in the same room, and the second described “a massive crack running the length of the [upstairs bedroom] and a potential damp/mould problem in the corner of the room”.
The landlord’s response was at odds with its policy. It delayed for 11 weeks in inspecting the property, and when it did so on 9 June 2023, it did not specifically investigate the damp and mould issue. The repair it subsequently raised on 16 June 2023 addressed the crack, but not the damp and mould. This was unsatisfactory. Even if the damp and mould was not apparent to the landlord from a visual inspection, it should have taken the opportunity to explore and assess all matters raised by the resident in her complaint. This was particularly important in view of the household’s vulnerabilities, the resident’s concerns about a child staying in the affected bedroom, and the challenges previously experienced by the landlord in arranging a convenient appointment.
Notwithstanding the landlord’s failure to note the damp and mould issue when it recorded the resident’s complaint, it was appropriate for it to address each of the repair issues it was aware of in its stage 1 response. It gave appropriate reassurance to the resident that, having inspected the property that month, it was satisfied the crack did not present any risk of ceiling collapse. However, the resident had not expressed concern about collapse of the bedroom ceiling, but about the ceiling above the entrance to the property. As the landlord did not address her concern about this other area of ceiling, the response gave the impression of not fully understanding her concerns. Furthermore, given the resident’s concerns about ceiling collapse, the landlord should have explored whether this constituted an emergency or urgent repair requiring completion within 1-7 days. It did not document that it considered this.
In her escalation request, the resident highlighted that the damp and mould issue had been missed. An internal email by the landlord on 27 July 2023 accepted that “we did miss the mould in the response”, but nevertheless said it was “minded not to uphold” the complaint. Its reasoning for this was unclear. Further internal correspondence on 3 August 2023 confirmed that the mould was not noted during the inspection on 9 June 2023, but that the landlord would arrange for the mould to be cleaned if the resident could provide photos. While it was appropriate for the landlord to treat the mould, its requirement for photographic proof was unreasonable. The repair policy does not state a requirement for evidence before repairs will be logged. The damp and mould policy – which was not introduced until later in the year – also does not require residents to provide evidence of mould, and instead advocates a supportive and proactive approach by the landlord (with operatives and contractors taking photos when necessary).
Given that the landlord accepted it had missed the mould in its stage 1 response, it should have apologised for this and considered whether financial redress was appropriate. Instead, it simply stated that it did not note the mould during its inspection. Its conditional offer to complete repairs was misleading, as it presented a routine repair – for which it was responsible regardless of the complaint – as a form of redress. The landlord’s omission to apologise and take responsibility for its error caused further understandable distress and frustration to the resident. Its approach also indicated a reluctance to admit fault.
The resident and landlord agree that, 10 months after the stage 2 response was issued on 3 August 2023, the repair to the bedroom ceiling remains outstanding. It is noted that the landlord has experienced further issues gaining or arranging access to the property during this period. According to the resident, on one occasion “a company did contact and arrange to do one of the repairs but came on a different day, we didn’t hear them at the door and haven’t been contacted by them since”. The landlord’s position at the time of its latest update, on 7 June 2024, was that the resident had been invited to send a photo of the damp and mould, but nothing had been received. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this position conflicts with the approach set out in its damp and mould policy (which has been in effect since 7 November 2023). This states that the landlord has adopted a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould, takes all reports seriously, and will follow up cases to ensure the effectiveness of solutions implemented.
As there is no evidence that the landlord has taken sufficient steps to follow up and address the damp and mould in the resident’s bedroom, as well as progress the repair to the reported crack, a finding of maladministration has been made. This finding takes account of the timescales involved, the nature of the issue described by the resident, the lack of redress, and mitigating factors such as the access issues faced by the landlord. Orders have also been made in relation to the outstanding repairs and compensation.

Hallway cupboard repair

The resident also brought the hallway cupboard repair to the landlord’s attention in her complaint on 23 March 2023, although this followed earlier works during which the cupboard repair was overlooked. The issue was not urgent, and while it would have been good practice for the landlord to update the resident promptly regarding its intentions and likely timescale, its 11-week delay in carrying out an inspection was more understandable. Following the inspection, the landlord raised a job for its contractor to renew defective plaster on the cupboard ceiling and redecorate. Given that decoration is usually the tenant’s responsibility, this was an appropriate and solution-focused response.
However, it appears there were some communication issues in relation to this repair. According to the resident, the landlord initially advised that the cupboard was not on its original schedule of works to be completed. She then said it changed its position and claimed there were items in the cupboard at the time of the works, preventing the repair from being completed. In her escalation request, she noted that neither were true: the cupboard was empty when the works were carried out, and it was simply missed. The landlord did not dispute that conflicting advice may have been given, and said it was “sorry if this is the case”. The Ombudsman cannot say for sure why the cupboard repair did not take place at the same time as other works, but considers the landlord’s apology and swift instruction to its contractor to be appropriate. There is evidence that the contractor attended the property to complete repairs on 19 and 24 July 2023, but was unable to gain access.
A finding of reasonable redress has been made in relation to this aspect of the complaint, as while the landlord’s communication was at times inadequate and/or confusing, its apology and subsequent actions are considered sufficient.

Kitchen and bathroom repairs

Kitchen

A letter to the landlord from the resident’s solicitor, dated 18 January 2021, referred to issues with the kitchen including flaking plaster, damp and mould, damaged flooring and units, and an inefficient extractor fan. Though the disrepair claim did not proceed to court, the landlord installed a new kitchen in March 2022. It exercised appropriate discretion by carrying out additional works to the pantry.
The landlord’s repair logs show that repairs relating to refitting of the kickboards, cleaning of windows and frames, and fixing a kitchen radiator leak were raised on 14 April 2022 and completed on 20 April 2022. This timescale was appropriate and in line with its policy. The landlord then arranged a damp and mould survey of the property on 25 May 2022, for which it received a specialist report on 22 June 2022. The specialist also provided a quote for installing a humidistat controlled fan in the kitchen, and the landlord promptly appointed this on 24 June 2022. However, it appears the fan was not fitted until 19 October 2022. This exceeded the target date of 25 July 2022 by almost 3 months. While the delay was unsatisfactory, and there is no evidence that the landlord kept the resident regularly updated about the repair, the Ombudsman does not consider that it would have caused significant detriment.
In March 2023, the resident complained of poor workmanship to her kitchen, a damp issue which had caused patches of paint to bubble, and a vent that had fallen off leaving a hole in the wall. She also noted that the kitchen taps only worked if the heating was on its maximum setting. In this case the landlord’s 11-week delay in taking action by carrying out an inspection was unacceptable, particularly in respect of the tap issue which was affecting the resident’s use of her taps. As the repairs had not been reported prior to the resident’s complaint, it is unclear why the landlord did not identify any new service requests within the complaint and log these in the usual way (as well as logging the complaint). An inspection was no doubt necessary to assess some of the reported issues, but it may not have been the most appropriate way of dealing with all of them. It therefore had the apparent effect of delaying some more urgent and straightforward works.
In its stage 1 response the landlord confirmed that it had raised a repair in relation to the vent cover, although it questioned how the cover became detached. This was unhelpful, as it suggested potential dishonesty by the resident (in circumstances where the cause of the damage could not be proven). The response also stated that the tap flow issue had not been reported to the landlord’s repair service or mentioned to its surveyor during the recent inspection, and asked the resident to provide more details. As with the damp and mould in the bedroom, discussed above, the landlord should have addressed all the issues raised by the resident in her complaint during its inspection. While the difference between service requests and complaints is appreciated, the resident would have been under the impression that she had reported the tap issue to the landlord in March 2023.
With regard to reporting of repairs, although the resident’s disrepair claim in 2021 referred to repairs she had reported verbally and mentioned to contractors when they attended for other matters, there is no evidence that the landlord clarified its repair reporting process until 19 and 20 June 2023 (other than directing her to its website for “useful information in relation to reporting a report” on 19 January 2023). It therefore repeatedly missed opportunities to confirm the resident’s understanding of how to report repairs, and consequently to improve its response to issues in her property.
It is noted that the landlord raised a repair for replacement of hot taps in the resident’s kitchen and bathroom on the same day it issued its stage 1 response (19 June 2023), which appeared to conflict with its request for more information from the resident. The repair logs indicate that the repair was initially appointed for 4 July 2023, and subsequently completed on 30 August 2023. This 10-week delay – resulting in an overall repair timeframe of over 5 months – was unacceptable, and would have caused the resident’s household substantial inconvenience. However, some access issues in July 2023 have been taken into consideration, alongside evidence of the landlord accessing the property on other occasions during this month.
The stage 1 response also stated that “no issues were found with the kitchen installation during the initial snagging inspection, and no issues have been reported to [the landlord] with the kitchen since the works were carried out”. This was relevant to the resident’s concerns about poor workmanship, which she could reasonably have been expected to express at the point the kitchen installation was carried out or soon afterwards. However, it was not relevant to the issue of damp and bubbling paint, which the landlord did not otherwise address at stage 1 or 2. This was unacceptable, and this Service has seen no evidence that the issue was eventually resolved.

Bathroom

Following an inspection and asbestos refurbishment survey in September 2021, and a repair to the wet room floor raised in October 2021 and completed in November 2021, the landlord carried out a bathroom replacement in March 2022. In the resident’s complaint in March 2023, she referred to poor workmanship in respect of the bathroom works, describing “tiles peeling immediately after the new fitment” and “the shower room [being] refitted due to the first fit not being adequate and done poorly”. She said she had reported her concerns verbally to “a gentleman who was handling the repairs”, and as discussed above, the landlord again apparently missed an opportunity to clarify its process for reporting and appointing repairs.
In its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses, the landlord referred to previous repairs it had completed to the bathroom floor and an absence of recent reports. However, it did not demonstrate sufficient attempts to engage with the resident in order to understand any ongoing issues and raise further repairs as needed. This meant that some aspects of her complaint, such as peeling glue, potentially went unaddressed. It is appreciated that the landlord advised the resident how to report new issues via its call centre and/or website, but in the Ombudsman’s opinion, it would have been a reasonable adjustment for it to step outside its usual reporting process by establishing and logging any further repairs on this occasion. This reflects both the protracted nature of the bathroom issues, previous correspondence regarding the matter (leading the resident to believe the landlord was already aware of her concerns), and the resident’s individual circumstances and needs.

Summary

A finding of maladministration has been made in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to her kitchen and bathroom. This is due to its delayed completion of some works, such as installation of a kitchen fan and repairs to the taps and vent; its omission to identify or raise other potentially ongoing repair issues, such as damp in the kitchen and peeling glue in the bathroom; and communication issues, such as in relation to reporting of repairs, which prevented it from fully understanding the resident’s concerns. In making this finding, some positive action taken by the landlord – such as prompt completion of some repairs and carrying out additional works to the resident’s new kitchen – have been taken into account.

Window replacement

The documentation provided indicates that, following a visit by the landlord and its contractor on 7 December 2021, the landlord received a quote for works to the resident’s windows on 23 December 2021. It then raised a repair for the quoted works. On 14 January 2022, internal correspondence noted that the works involved easing and adjusting 17 windows, and renewing 10 locking handles to the PVCU locking plates. The works were marked as complete on 1 February 2022. However, over a year later, the resident noted in her complaint that she had not been contacted to arrange replacement of her windows as she expected. She told the landlord that “the person who was doing the work took the handles off the windows” and she had been “left without handles to most windows around the house” for a period of months.
It is unclear from the records provided whether the landlord undertook to replace the windows in the property, and if so, on what basis. The landlord did not address this matter in its complaint responses, and it would have been helpful for it to do so. As a result, the Ombudsman cannot make a finding in relation to whether the landlord should have carried out a full window replacement.
Instead, the landlord clarified that it was not handles that were missing, but strike plates to some windows. This compromised the security of the windows, and it was unacceptable that the resident was left without fully secure windows for an initial period of around 16 months (between February 2022 and the landlord’s inspection in June 2023). While the landlord raised a job for the missing strike plates to be fitted on 16 June 2023, and subsequently faced some difficulties gaining access to carry out the work, at the time of writing this report the resident had been without fully functional and secure windows for 28 months. This is concerning, particularly in view of the vulnerability of her household.
A finding of maladministration has been made in relation to the window handle repair, as in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord has not made sufficient efforts to ensure the security and functionality of the resident’s property. It is also unclear whether this partially completed repair would have been followed up if the resident had not made a formal complaint.

Uneven floor

Prior to the resident’s complaint, she had been led to believe that a levelling floor or platform would be installed between the living and dining areas of her property. This was due to a gap that presented a trip hazard. The issue would have disproportionately affected the resident’s household as a result of mobility issues, which were known to the landlord. Since it cannot be established from the documentation provided when or how this arrangement was made, the Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s actions from the time of the complaint onwards. However, the need for landlords to keep detailed and comprehensive repair records is highlighted.
Once the resident brought the trip hazard to the landlord’s attention, it would have been good practice for it to address the issue as a matter of priority and to consider interim measures if it anticipated a delay in carrying out the repair. It could also have carried out a risk assessment, taking account of the particular needs of the resident’s family. Since it apparently did not do so, its 11-week delay in carrying out an inspection and raising a repair was unsatisfactory. It is possible that the delay was due in part to the landlord’s wish to address all the repair issues raised in the resident’s complaint together, following a similar approach to the disrepair claim she began in 2021. However, there was no need for it to take this approach, and it may have been appropriate for it to address some of the straightforward repairs more quickly.
While the landlord’s agreement to carry out the repair was appropriate, a finding of service failure has been made as a result of the initial delays and insufficient recent attempts to resolve the issue.

Safety of property

Although the focus of this investigation is on more recent matters, the historical correspondence supplied shows that the resident has raised concerns about the safety of the property over an extended period of time. The letter to the landlord from her solicitor in 2021 referred to damaged brickwork and damp, and stated that the resident had reported issues since 2016. However, the landlord disputed that the issues described in the solicitor’s letter had been reported to it previously. The Ombudsman is unable to assess the landlord’s response to the solicitor’s letter, as while it treated the matter as a complaint, it was not escalated to stage 2 of the complaints process. However, it is noted that an internal email by the landlord on 14 January 2022 asked for an explanation regarding “there being no disrepair and yet £10,000 to £12,000 is needed to be spent on the property”.
In her complaint on 23 March 2023, the resident told the landlord that “the supporting wall above the entrance to the property has begun cracking again and leaks occasionally from the toilet”. She also said “there is a gap which looks like a potential hazard where the ceiling can collapse at any point”. Since this constituted a potentially serious structural issue, the landlord’s 11-week delay in completing an inspection was unacceptable. As discussed above, it also confused the resident’s concerns about ceiling collapse with another area of the property, and so did not adequately address her concerns about the safety of the entrance wall in its response.
At stage 1, the landlord stated that its inspection identified “a wooden ceiling board near the foot of the stairs appears to be slightly loose”. It noted that this had not been reported to it previously, but that it had instructed its contractor to refix the board. While it reassured the resident that “there is no evidence of a danger of imminent collapse of the board”, it is unclear whether the landlord was referring to the same part of the property that had given the resident cause for concern. The landlord appeared to be referring to a low-level ground floor location (near the foot of the stairs), whereas the resident’s description seemed to refer to an upstairs location or one near a ceiling. If the landlord was unsure which part of the property to assess, it should have clarified this with the resident. Likewise, if it discovered during its inspection that a different part of the property related to the issue reported, it should have stated this in its stage 1 response and/or elsewhere in its records.
As a response to the resident’s general complaint about “my house condition and the repair work that’s been carried out”, the landlord replied that, in its opinion, “this property is in a habitable condition” and “the remaining issues … are minor and do not present any significant risk to the occupiers”. As no report or record of assessment has been supplied for review, it is unclear how it reached this conclusion. The resident said in her escalation request that she felt “the service from [the landlord] has been poor in regard to repairs and not up to the required standard”. At stage 2, the landlord restated its belief that the property was habitable. Though it accepted “the remedial works set out by [its stage 1 responder] were raised and should have been completed”, and that “there was an initial delay in responding to your repair reports”, it concluded that it had acted appropriately and proportionately in arranging repairs. It appeared to base this conclusion on the fact that there had been some access issues. However, the adequacy of its response to the resident’s reports was a separate matter to whether the property was safe and habitable. Since the landlord apparently had not had the opportunity to investigate all the issues raised by the resident in her complaint – such as mould in the bedroom and concerns about a supporting wall – the Ombudsman would question how it was qualified to say whether the property was safe.
Across the various repair issues addressed in this investigation, the landlord frequently referred to its difficulties in gaining access to the property. It is appreciated that this would have had a bearing on the landlord’s ability to respond quickly to some issues. However, landlords must balance residents’ preferences regarding appointments against their repair obligations. There is no evidence that the landlord explored alternative methods of engaging with the resident to facilitate access, other than liaising with her son. For example, it could have allocated a single point of contact, offered regular updates regarding unresolved repair issues, explored any technological barriers, or considered arranging appointments at different times of day. It could also have enquired whether its choice of contractor or routine practices (such as COVID-19 measures or policy regarding removing footwear inside properties) affected the resident’s willingness to engage with it. If necessary, it could have reviewed whether the reported repairs were potentially serious enough for it to require access (in line with the tenancy agreement). Forced access may not have been appropriate or the most sensitive option, but landlords are expected to consider and document all avenues in cases of persistent access issues.
A finding of maladministration has been made in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the safety of the property. This is because the Ombudsman does not consider the landlord carried out sufficient investigation to satisfy itself that the property was safe, or that it adequately reassured the resident on this point. It also delayed excessively in responding to her potentially serious concerns, and if it had reason to believe the issues were not serious, it did not inform her of this.

Condition of garden

Both parties agree that the landlord previously considered clearing the resident’s overgrown garden as a “gesture of goodwill”. On 21 October 2021 it obtained a quote for removal of rubbish, cutting back of hedges and bushes, cutting of grass, and removal of waste, totalling £5,325 (plus VAT). It apparently concluded that this cost could not be justified, but either did not inform the resident of its decision at the time, or a communication went astray.
Four months later, in February 2022, the landlord cut back foliage at the front of the property in line with the wall. This was done to gain access to an external stop tap in connection with a leak repair. The cost of these works to the tree and hedge and removal of debris was £180 (plus VAT). It was reasonable for the landlord to carry out works necessary to locate and access the stop tap, despite its decision not to carry out larger-scale garden clearance works the previous year.
In July 2022, the resident enquired whether the garden clearance was still due to take place. The landlord replied that the cost was too high, especially as “these are works that [it] would not ordinarily carry out during a tenancy”. When the resident explained that her son could not reach the top of the front hedge using a ladder, and that she could no longer enter her back garden, the landlord repeated its position. The resident asked if there was a service available for disabled residents, and the landlord gave her contact details for a local service. This was appropriate, although it could have been proactive in its support (for example, my making a referral to the relevant service with the resident’s permission).
In her subsequent complaint on 23 March 2023, the resident again said that she was disabled and unable to carry out work to her garden herself. She felt the landlord had “promised work” and then “backtracked”. In her escalation request, she pointed out that the landlord should not have agreed to carry out the work if this was not something it offered. The landlord’s stage 1 and 2 responses repeated the explanation it had given in July 2022, and referred the resident to her housing officer for assistance.
In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord was justified in adhering to the repair responsibilities set out in its tenancy agreement and policies. However, it was unfair for it to raise the resident’s expectations by agreeing to carry out works, then change its position and fail to update her (or confirm that she had received an update). If the landlord intended to assist the resident with maintenance of her garden, it should have followed this through in some other way – for example, by seeking alternative quotes, varying the items quoted for, or providing gardening vouchers to the value of the amount it would authorise. It could also have explored whether its caretaking, grounds maintenance or handyperson services could have carried out the works on an exceptional basis. This would have constituted a reasonable adjustment as a result of the resident’s disability, which would allow her to use and enjoy her garden (and possibly also benefit other nearby residents).
A finding of service failure has been made as a result of the landlord’s inconsistent communication and inadequate offer of support to a disabled resident. While its offer of assistance via the resident’s housing officer was reasonable, it should not have put the onus on the resident to seek out this assistance, and so an order has been made for the landlord to advise what support it is able to arrange.

Complaint handling

The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint within 1 working day, which was appropriate. However, having told the resident it aimed to respond by 13 April 2023, it did not do so until 44 working days later (on 19 June 2023). Its response timeframe of 57 working days – almost 4 times the 15-day timeframe set out in its complaints policy – was unacceptable. There is also no evidence that it informed the resident of its need for more time or that it provided an explanation or revised target date. This lack of communication would have caused her avoidable distress and uncertainty.
The stage 1 response contained a number of errors. The first sentence was repeated, and there were a number of spelling/grammatical errors and missing words (“should of went”, “you’re complaint”, “regretabbly”, “if you which to”, “I urge you that exhaust”, “taken to respond your complaint”). While the response rightly acknowledged and apologised for its lateness, it repeatedly attributed this to the complaint being allocated to the wrong team. This conveyed an avoidance of personal blame by the stage 1 responder, and as a result the response did not accept organisational responsibility for the failure. It also inappropriately stated that factors contributing to the delay were its stage 1 responder being “inundated with work” and another staff member’s holiday. Landlords are expected to manage their resources to ensure that leave does not impact on effective service delivery.
The stage 1 response provided a useful summary in relation to each issue raised by the resident. However, while the structure was helpful, it would have been clearer for descriptive headings to be used rather than “complaint 1”, “complaint 2” and so on, as this required cross-referencing with a list at the start of the response. While an apology for the late response was given as referred to above, in the Ombudsman’s opinion compensation would also have been appropriate due to the length of the delay.
When the resident asked to escalate her complaint, the landlord again acknowledged this within 1 working day, which was within the 3-day timescale set out in its policy. However, it did not ask her for her reasons for escalation until 13 working days later. It was reasonable for the landlord to clarify the resident’s reasons for escalating her complaint, but it should have done so at the point of initial acknowledgement. Its omission to do so caused a further unnecessary delay, with the complaint not actually being escalated until 19 working days after the resident’s first request (after she provided her reasons and the landlord confirmed receipt of these).
Though not specific to the resident’s complaint, it is noted that the landlord’s escalation process provides for various scenarios in which a stage 2 response will not be produced. These include circumstances where a further response is requested from the relevant service, and circumstances where the landlord decides not to reinvestigate the complaint if it considers that its findings are unlikely to change. While the latter scenario does not prevent escalation to this Service, it denies residents access to a 2-stage complaints process and inhibits a transparent and independent internal review of the complaint. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this is not best practice, and a recommendation has been made for the landlord to review its process as part of its response to this Service’s statutory complaint handling code (if it has not already done so). Landlords’ complaints processes should be clear, accessible, and not overly convoluted.
The landlord told the resident it would provide its stage 2 response by 7 August 2023, and went on to do so on 3 August 2023, which was satisfactory. However, despite the stage 2 responder stating “I uphold the fact that there was an initial delay in responding to your repairs reports” and apologising for other matters, the complaint itself was not upheld. The repeated use of ‘uphold’ (“I uphold the fact … I cannot uphold your complaint”) was misleading. In addition, the decision not to uphold the complaint appeared to be based on recent access issues experienced by the landlord’s contractor. While it was appropriate for the landlord to refer to these in the context of facilitating a solution to the repair issues, they did not mitigate against the landlord’s earlier identified failures such as delayed repairs and confusing communication regarding the garden and hallway cupboard works. In the Ombudsman’s view, based on the landlord’s internal correspondence and the content of its stage 2 response, it would have been appropriate for it to at least partially uphold the complaint and offer financial redress. It should also have acknowledged and considered redress for its complaint handling failures.
A finding of maladministration has been made in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling, due to the combined factors of its excessively delayed stage 1 response, lack of explanation or update regarding the delay, errors and inappropriate statements in the stage 1 response, delayed request for escalation reasons, apparently contradictory stage 2 outcome, and inadequate offer of redress at both stages.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a crack, damp and mould in the bedroom;
2. maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the kitchen and bathroom;
3. maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for window replacement to be completed;
4. service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for an uneven floor to be levelled;
5. maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns regarding the safety of the property;
6. service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns regarding the condition of the garden;
7. maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the hallway cupboard.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. Apologise to the resident for its initial delays, insufficient recent action, and poor communication in relation to her repair reports and complaint.
2. Pay the resident £1,600, comprising:
  1. £300 for its delayed repair of the ceiling crack and lack of follow-up in relation to mould in the bedroom;
  2. £300 for its delayed works, omission to identify and raise new repair issues, and inadequate communication in relation to the kitchen and bathroom repairs;
  3. £200 for its delayed completion of window repairs and the associated security issues;
  4. £100 for its delays in resolving the uneven floor issue;
  5. £300 for its delayed response, inadequate communication and insufficient efforts to assure itself of the safety of the property;
  6. £100 for its inconsistent communication and inadequate offer of support in relation to gardening works;
  7. £300 for its delays, inadequate offer of redress and other failures in relation to complaint handling.
3. Conduct a further inspection to address any repair issues it has not yet had the opportunity to assess, including the damp and mould in the resident’s bedroom and any remaining issues with the bathroom tiling. During the inspection it should discuss each issue with the resident and confirm it has addressed all outstanding items of concern. It should then provide a detailed and timebound schedule of works to the resident and this Service within the 4 weeks. It should also allocate the resident a designated point of contact until the works are completed, who should update her at agreed intervals (eg weekly or fortnightly) and ensure appointments are arranged at convenient times using her preferred contact method. Subject to access being granted by the resident, the landlord should complete the repairs within 12 weeks of the date of this report. Any anticipated delays should be notified to the resident and this Service at the earliest opportunity.
4. Write to the resident to advise what practical and/or financial support it is able to offer in cutting back trees/hedges and restoring her garden to a condition where she is able to access and use it. This should include any support the landlord is able to offer directly, and, if this will not fully restore the garden to a usable state, any external support and/or funding of which it is aware. If referrals for such support are required, the landlord should offer to make the referrals (with the resident’s permission) rather than simply signposting her to the relevant agencies. It should then not unreasonably delay in making any such referrals.
5. Provide evidence of compliance with the above to this Service.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord reviews its repair policy and considers introducing target timeframes for non-emergency/urgent repairs.
It is recommended that, to align its complaints policy with the Ombudsman’s statutory complaint handling code, the landlord ensures that provision is made for escalation to stage 2 where a complainant is unhappy with its response at stage 1 (if it has not already done so).