Clarion Housing Association Limited (202108182)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202108182

Clarion Housing Association Limited

4 July 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. The response to reports of various repairs at the property.
2. The handling of reports of a faulty boiler.
3. The response to concerns about the suitability of the upgraded kitchen and bathroom.
4. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident moved into the property as part of a mutual exchange in 2005. She had an assured tenancy agreement with the landlord. The resident was elderly and had a representative, her son, as she did not speak much English. After his death, the resident’s grandchildren represented her and brought the complaint to the Ombudsman. I have referred to them as “the representative” throughout this report.
Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord agrees to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the property including, among other things, the external doors, window catches, window frames and glazing; internal doors and door frames; door hinges and locks, window catches and safety devices and kitchen fittings. It also agrees to keep in good repair and working order any installations for space heating, water heating and sanitation and for the supply of water, gas and electricity including basins, sinks, showers, toilets, flushing systems and waste pipes as well as electric wiring including sockets and central heating installations.
The landlord’s repair and maintenance policy says that residents can report repairs by telephone, email or via our website reporting tool or webchat system. It says that responsive repairs fall into two main categories: emergency and non‑emergency repairs:

An emergency repair can be classified as one that presents an immediate danger to the resident or the public, or would jeopardise the health, safety or security of the resident. It should be attended to within 24 hours and works to make safe or a temporarily repair should be completed at this visit. Further repairs may subsequently be required.

A non-emergency repair can be given an appointment by the contact centre at the initial point of contact. These appointments are termed as “at residents’ convenience” offering the next available appointment that suits the resident and will be offered within 28 calendar days of the repair being reported.

The landlord’s adaptations and aids policy says that it will only consider requests for aids and adaptations if the disabled person is the tenant or their partner, or a member of the immediate family who permanently resides in the household. It will consider major adaptations (such as significant adaptations for bathrooms or kitchens) by working in conjunction with the local authority.
The landlord’s website says that the resident would first need to contact the local authority to get an occupational therapist referral. The local authority will arrange for an occupational therapist to visit the resident at home and identify any adaptations they might need. The occupational therapist will then send their assessment to the landlord so it can plan the adaptation works. The website says that the landlord will keep the resident informed throughout and will arrange a convenient time to carry out the improvements. It adds that, for major adaptations, it will work with the occupational therapist and local authority, and will discuss funding arrangements with them.
At the time of the complaint, the landlord had a two-stage complaints policy. This did not include timescales for responses at stages one and two. Such timescales were introduced from June 2022.
The landlord’s compensation policy says that it will pay compensation for where instances of service failure has resulted in some impact on the resident. It names examples including the failure to meet service standards for actions and responses but where that failure had no significant impact. It says it will pay £5 a day for lack of heating and £5 a day for lack of hot water (after an initial period of seven days has passed) where there is an outstanding boiler repair.
On 23 March 2020 the UK government announced a national lockdown due to covid-19. This was eased from June 2020 when schools and non-essential retail outlets re-opened. The government introduced new restrictions from 22 September 2020 and a second full national lockdown was announced on 31 October 2020 that came into effect from 5 November 2020. While restrictions were lifted slightly over Christmas, there was a new national lockdown from 6 January 2021. While schools re-opened on 8 March 2021, the “stay at home” order remained in place until 29 March 2021.

Summary of events

The landlord did not initially provide its repair logs but included a timeline of the repair actions that it used as part of its complaint handling which was subsequently corroborated to the repair log.
On 27 September 2019 the resident reported a broken doorbell. The repair log noted that it was replaced with a wireless version a few days later, as the wiring was faulty.
On 10 October 2019 the representative emailed the landlord with a list of repairs required to the property. These included:
1. The front door was not only not closing fully but the door was not sealed properly and had multiple holes which allowed pests and a draught to come through the property.
2. The doorbell was replaced but contractor had left live wires; the new wireless doorbell did not stay on the wall as it was held on with glue.
3. The kitchen was refurbished but was not designed to accommodate the resident’s needs as she was disabled; she could not reach cupboards or access many of them. The kitchen floor was cheap and slippery and was a major hazard for the resident.
4. The boiler was inefficient at heating the property.
5. Various issues with the bathrooms including no water pressure, sinks were too small, and the baseboard had come loose.
6. Various problems with window latches, seals around windows, internal door handles and broken light switches.
7. The handrail on the stairs was not stable and kept coming loose which caused a trip hazard for the resident as she needed this to use the stairs.
8. The bedroom had a cracked window.
The representative asked for a surveyor to come to the property to fully evaluate the issues requiring attention.
There is no evidence of action for several months; the landlord’s timeline of events noted for 2020 and early 2021:

26 August 2020 – order raised for the following work: multi carpentry and plumbing for the whole property. Internal doors not closing, window handles, skirting coming away from wall tiles around kitchen, flooring, windows not closing fully, low pressure in bathroom to water and shower head, disabled shower seat covered in rust, kitchen socket falling off wall and exposed wires, insulation boards coming through the wall and falling onto worktop. Appointment booked for 10 September 2021 (this appears to be a typo and should read 2020). Job completed 12 October 2020.

26 August 2020 – order raised for the following work: broken light switches cracked unit and fallen off wall, sockets falling off of walls, doorbell installed, socket cracked and hanging off the wall. Appointment booked for 2 September 2020. The job notes from operative advised that resident had no issues with the electrics and the problem was with her gas boiler with dirt coming out of the boiler every day. This was passed to its boiler servicing team. Job completed 2 September 2020.

1 October 2020 – emergency order raised as no water coming from electric shower and resident is disabled. Contractor attended and job note on 2 October 2020 stated shower fixed and recommissioned. Broken hose probably causing low pressure faulty on shower. New hose or shower needed. Resident reported that she was not happy with the shower room installation; the old one was left in the garden and was still there. A chasing email was sent on 16 February 2021 to book in follow–on work as resident still could not use her shower. Job completed on 2 October 2020; no follow-on work raised.

24 December 2020 – an order was raised to look at the outstanding issues in the property and flag any repairs which were outstanding. It noted this was cancelled as the resident was refusing repairs until a surveyor had attended.

Meanwhile, on 14 December 2020 the representative had raised a complaint about the delay in undertaking various repairs; the boiler repair; rubbish removal and the suitability of the kitchen and bathroom.
On 8 January 2021 the landlord told the representative that it was carrying out emergency repairs only due to the lockdown and asked for a list of outstanding repairs.
On 13 January 2021 the representative gave the landlord details of the issues in the property including:
1. The boiler was outdated and inefficient at heating the property.
2. Many of the windows and doors needed resealing as the seals had deteriorated with age.
3. The kitchen was not designed to suit the resident’s needs; the units were smaller than the previous ones and higher, which was resulting in her being unable to use the majority of it.
4. The kitchen flooring needed looking at also; the kitchen units were not straight; and there was an exposed wall socket.
5. The wet room had caused “endless problems”; the electric shower was intermittent and always turned off due to a broken shower head that was supposed to have been fixed “months ago”. The toilet barely flushed, and the sink was too small to use. He said the resident banged her head on the unit above the sink.
6. The wireless doorbell keeps falling off.
7. The baseboard of the door to the garden had rotted away and raised a safety issue as there were exposed nails on the door.
8. The bedroom had a cracked window, a broken window handle and there were other window handles that were loose.
9. Another bedroom had a broken light switch.
On 15 January 2021 the landlord told the representative that it would be reviewing the list of these repairs and would then draw up a plan of action to ensure these repairs were carried out. It said it would give a full response by 21 January 2021 with a time frame for completing the repairs.
The landlord’s timeline noted:

20 January 2021– order raised for the following: window/doors; bulk waste collection; doorbell; garden entrance door baseboard: downstairs bathroom door; upstairs flooring and stairs creak; bedroom has cracked window; outside rubbish storage. Appointment booked 18 February 2021. Operative job notes state – cleared bulk waste; fitted new weather bar and overhauled back door; overhauled bathroom door keep; fitted new lever handle to upstairs bedroom window; took measurements and ordered new double-glazed unit; fitted new yale night latch to front door; overhauled draught excluder to front door; repaired door framework and door to bin store and some pointing. This has been rebooked for another appointment. Job completed 18 February 2021.

On 2 February 2021 the representative told the landlord that on 6 January 2021 an annual check was made on the boiler, and it was placed out of use due to a safety concern. He said that parts were replaced on 1 February 2021 but remained out of use due to another safety concern. He said a request for a new boiler had been made and he asked that this could be dealt with as quickly as possible as the resident had not had a working boiler for a long period of time. The representative added that he would be invoicing the landlord for the electricity costs incurred from the electric heaters it had provided.
The representative also said that the kitchen and bathroom upgrades had been carried out to a poor standard and needed work to bring it up to a good standard, rather than “temporary fixes and downgrades on equipment”.
On 3 February 2021 the landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the representative. The main points were:
1. It offered £50 for the inconvenience caused to the representative by its failure to respond within its target of ten working days.
2. It thanked the representative for agreeing to provide access on 18 February 2021 when it would do the following:
  1. Windows/doors: to inspect the seals and replaced/repairs where possible.
  2. Doorbell: to review if the original doorbell system can be reinstated and replacement wireless doorbell system removed or effectively made safe/repaired and secured.
  3. Garden entrance door baseboard: to repair/replace to make safe exposed nails.
  4. Downstairs bathroom door: to repair to ensure closure.
  5. Upstairs flooring and stairs creak: to review and repair where required.
  6. Cracked bedroom window/broken handle: to review and repair/make safe where possible.
  7. Loose window handles: to review and repair/replace where possible.
  8. Broken bedroom light switch: to review and repair/replace where possible.
  9. External bin store split in half and door rotted: to review and repair as needed.
  10. Electric shower: to review/repair regarding reported intermittent working and broken shower head.
3. There would be a post-inspection visit on 19 February 2021.
4. It had arranged for the old units and cabinets left following kitchen and bathroom refurbishment works to be removed on 18 February 2021.
5. It confirmed that the boiler had been reviewed by its gas team and did not need to be replaced as it was a highly efficient condensing boiler.
6. It said it had completed bathroom works under an occupation therapy service request in 2018. It said that the works relating to the sink and rails were inspected and signed off by the local authority. It added it was unable to make any alterations unless specified by an occupational therapist and suggested that the representative contact them for a further assessment if the adaptation was no longer suited to the resident’s needs. It said an occupational therapist could also assess the kitchen for any required adaptations.
7. It said it would look at the concerns raised about the kitchen refurbishment at the visit planned for 19 February 2021.
The landlord’s timeline noted:

19 February 2021 – landlord attended property on pre-booked inspection made with representative. Carded as no access to phone call to representative.

On 28 March 2021 the representative told the landlord that he was “disgusted” by the offer of compensation. He said the property had been neglected since 2019 and, because of the delay in maintenance, the resident had used a “ridiculous amount of electricity” from the electric heaters that were supplied during the period that the gas boiler was out of use. He said compensation was also required for the cost of a cleaner as the property needed a deep clean after the visit of 18 February 2021 which had caused his grandmother distress and her mental and physical health had been affected.
On 9 May 2021 the representative thanked the landlord for the repairs that were carried out on 18 February 2021. He said, however, that there were still quite a lot of issues that needed to be addressed including:
1. The doorbell – parts were ordered after the visit on 18 February however the repair remains outstanding.
2. The kitchen flooring has still not been resolved; it was not graded correctly and the repairs operative had said it was not safe. A carpenter was booked for 1 April 2021 but did not attend.
3. The general state of the kitchen.
4. The bedroom window was cracked and had not been repaired.
5. The toilet took multiple flushes to flush due to low water pressure.
6. The upstairs bathroom still needed work; half of the reported issues were not addressed. The new shower head did not fit on the shower head holder and fell on to the resident every time she used the shower.
The landlord’s timeline noted:

12 May 2021– order raised to repair doorbell. Appointment booked 17 May 2021. Job notes advised that wires had been cut to doorbell, but resident had a wireless doorbell fitted which was working. Job completed 17 May 2021.

12 May 2021 – order raised to assess kitchen flooring and report back follow on work. Appointment booked for 4 June 2021 and operative notes advised resident had wrong flooring in kitchen and needed non-slip. Job completed 4 June 2021, but follow-on work raised.

12 May 2021 – order raised to repair bedroom window. Operative advised on 4 June 2021 the follow-on work needed for two men to remove window and measure glass then take to shop to be made. Job completed 4 June 2021, but no follow-on work raised.

12 May 2021 – order raised to check the water pressure as multiple attempts to flush toilet. Job noted on 8 June 2021 stated email for more information. Job completed on 10 June 2021 with no notes as to whether repair completed or not.

The landlord’s timeline noted:

4 June 2021 – order raised to remove one row of tiles and lower kitchen unit doors. Appointment booked for 2 July 2021.

The repair log notes a visit to the property on 4 June 2021 where it inspected the kitchen lino and found “the lino is the wrong lino in the kitchen. The tenant needs non-slip lino because elderly tenant have [sic] slip on the lino”.
In an internal email dated 18 June 2021 the landlord noted that on 2 October 2020 the bathroom contractor recommissioned the shower and also recommended a new shower. It noted this was never raised and was the reason for the chase up email on 16 February 2021.
In an internal email dated 2 July 2021 the landlord noted that it would have to assume that the representative’s email from October 2019 was either not forwarded to the local surveying team or that that team did not act upon it. It noted it could not clarify this as it no longer had access to certain email addresses,
In an internal email dated 6 July 2021 the landlord noted that it was “unclear what action was taken in response to the customer’s email dated October 2019 but, ultimately, no jobs were raised until August 2020 – this is a clear service failure ,,, which warrants compensating”.
On 8 July 2021 the representative told the landlord that there were serious issues that remained unresolved. He explained that, initially, there were roughly twenty reported repairs with the property and there were still eight problems that have not been resolved.
In an internal email dated 15 July 2021 the landlord noted that it was “unclear” whether an inspection had ever taken place to ensure the works were properly scoped. It noted further there was a “huge gap” between February 2021 when a card was left and May 2021, when further jobs were raised. It noted that perhaps this could have been avoided if the inspection had been followed up; and that the resident had “invested considerable time and effort in getting issues resolved”.
On 30 July 2021 the landlord responded to the representative at the final stage of its formal complaints procedure. The main points were:
1. The landlord acknowledged there was a delay in resolving some of the repairs reported and, in some cases, the requested follow-on works had not been raised appropriately.
2. Having reviewed the list of repairs raised at stage one, with the exception of the shower repair, the other items had been completed within its service level agreement from the date they were raised.
3. It would visit the property on 3 August 2021 to ensure that that all concerns had been addressed satisfactorily. It would also take action to resolve any concerns with the kitchen flooring.
4. It acknowledged there were some repairs outstanding. It noted that had it been able to gain access to the property on 19 February 2021, as arranged, any outstanding repairs could have been determined and further delays hopefully avoided.
5. The resident should obtain an occupational therapist’s report if she believed that the bathroom and/or kitchen were not suitable for her needs.
6. There had been delays in resolving repairs to the boiler, which was eventually replaced on 16 February 2021. It offered compensation for the loss of heating and hot water for a period of six weeks.
The landlord offered the resident compensation amounting to £650 which was made up of £50 for the delay in providing the stage one response; £100 for not raising the follow-up works in a timely manner; £350 for the loss of heating and hot water; £50 for the delay in completing the shower repair; £100 for its lack of action in response to the email of 10 October 2019. The landlord signposted the resident to the Ombudsman.
On 11 August 2021 the landlord replaced the faulty shower head.
The resident died on 2 February 2022.
When the representative approached the Ombudsman, he gave a lot of information. The main points were:
1. The kitchen and bathroom replacements were failures and there were outstanding issues relating to safety including the flooring, units, shower, pipes, walls, sockets, etc. The old units were “dumped” in the garden restricting access and causing a health and safety hazard. He added there was already evidence of water damage in the kitchen and bathroom along with incorrectly fitted units and “collapsing parts”.
2. The resident was without heating and hot water for over six weeks (during the winter period), and she had to use a friend’s house to cook, clean, bathe, and even sleep there as she was afraid to be inside the property.
3. The compensation offered was “incredibly insulting”. He said the missed appointment of 19 February 2021 had taken place at the landlord’s request on 18 February 2021. He added that during that visit many “false promises” about the repairs were made.
4. His grandmother passed away following a fall in the property which resulted in her breaking her hip. He contends that she fell on the unsafe flooring that the landlord had installed. He said she had fallen multiple times.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to reports of various repairs at the property

For ease, I have grouped the various repairs.

The front door and doorbell

The representative reported various issues with the front door in October 2019; at the same time, he reported that the new doorbell kept falling off the wall and live wires were exposed. While carpentry works were raised in August 2020 it is not clear if these included work to the front door. The representative had to raise these issues again in January 2021 and work to resolve the issues with the front door took place in February 2021. The problems with the doorbell were raised again in early May 2021 and resolved a week later.
The landlord’s handling of these repairs was not appropriate. These repairs should have taken place within 28 calendar days in line with its repair policy – that is by early November 2019. It took another 15 months for the front door issues to be resolved and 18 months for the doorbell which is a service failure. While the Ombudsman recognises that the lockdown would have caused some justifiable delays in the landlord’s responses to repairs, the time taken by the landlord was not reasonable in all the circumstances.

The bathrooms

The representative reported several issues with the bathrooms in October 2019. The landlord raised works in August 2020 which were completed in October 2020. The landlord’s handling of these repairs was not appropriate. These repairs should have taken place within 28 calendar days in line with its repair policy – that is by early November 2019. It took another eleven months for works to take place.
It is evident that some issues were not resolved including the water pressure and the representative raised these issues again in January 2021. He also reported that the shower was only working intermittently. While the issue of the water pressure was investigated in May 2021, there is no evidence that this issue was resolved.

The shower

The broken shower was treated as an emergency repair in October 2020 which was appropriate; however, the operative’s request that a new shower should be installed was not followed up. This was acknowledged by the landlord in its internal complaints correspondence, but it was not transparent with the representative about this service in its final complaint response; nor did it suggest that it replace the shower at that point. This was a serious failing by the landlord.
The representative reported a broken shower head in January and May 2021; however, this was not repaired until August 2021. This was again outside the timescales for repair under the landlord’s policy.

Internal doors/window latches/seals on windows/light switches/windows/the old bathroom and kitchen left in the garden

These issues were reported to the landlord by the representative in October 2019. The landlord raised works orders in August 2020 and it is evident that some issues were resolved in September and October 2021.
The representative had to re-report some issues some months later – windows and doors that required re-sealing, broken window handles and a cracked window in the bedroom. The evidence suggests that at the visit of 18 February most of these issues had been resolved (including the removal of the bulk waste from the garden) apart from the cracked window. On 12 May 2021 the landlord noted that new glass was required but there is no evidence that this follow on work was completed.
These repairs should have taken place within 28 calendar days in line with the landlord’s repair policy. Most of the issues raised here took up to twelve months to be resolved; the window repair was not followed up. It is unclear if that is still outstanding and an order has been made for the landlord to follow this up along with the water pressure issue.

The landlord’s handling of reports of a faulty boiler

The representatives reported that the boiler was not working effectively in October 2019. In September 2020 an operative noted that the problem was “dirt coming out of the boiler every day” and passed the matter to its boiler servicing team. There is no evidence that any work was subsequently done to the boiler and the evidence suggests that it failed its annual safety check on 6 January 2021 and was put out of action. In the stage one response the landlord took the view it was a “highly efficient condensing boiler” that did not need replacing; however, it was replaced two weeks later.
In its final response the landlord recognised the impact on the resident of not having heating and hot water for six weeks and offered her £350, which was in line with its compensation policy. This Service considers that this is proportionate redress for the impact of the lack of heating and hot water on the resident for that period.
The landlord should have inspected the boiler within 28 calendar days of the issue being raised, that is, by November 2019. However, the landlord did not consider any impact on the resident for its failure to investigate reports of the boiler not working properly until January 2021. The evidence suggests that the resident was living with a faulty boiler by an operative’s reference to the dirt that it was emitting daily.

Compensation

In relation to the failures identified, 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.
The landlord offered a total of £250 for the delay in dealing with the repairs made up of £100 for not raising the works promptly, £50 for the shower head repair delay and £100 for the lack of response to the representative’s email of October 2019.
These matters evidently caused great distress, inconvenience and frustration to the resident. The impact on her would have been considerable and included draughts from the windows and exterior doors where the seals and baseboards required replacing; low water pressure which meant the toilet took several times to flush each time it was used; living with a poor functioning shower and with a shower head that fell off when in use; poor security due to broken windows and catches; living with bulk waste in the garden that should have been removed at the time of the refurbishments; and living with a boiler that was not in full working order for over a year.
The compensation offered by the landlord does not reflect the full impact on the resident. Most issues took between eleven and eighteen months to be resolved Most repair issues took between eleven and fifteen months to be resolved. Therefore, redress has been calculated as £1,751 which is 20% of the rent of 2019 and 2020, namely the amount of £156.42, over 56 weeks or thirteen months. This is an additional £1,501 to the £250 previously offered.

The landlord’s response to concerns about the suitability of the bathroom and kitchen

This Service cannot consider the standard of the kitchen and bathroom that were installed in the home because, while the resident raised this matter in the original complaint, there is no evidence that it was raised as part of the stage two complaint and therefore did not complete the landlord’s complaint procedure. Under the Scheme the Ombudsman can only look at issues that have completed the landlord’s complaint procedure. This Service has considered the specific issues that the representative raised.
While the landlord undertook some work in June 2021 to lower the kitchen unit doors as the resident could not reach them, it was reasonable for the resident to obtain an occupational therapist’s report if she believed the kitchen and bathroom were no longer suitable for her needs because that is in line with the landlord’s adaptations and aids policy as well as information on the landlord’s website.
The representative reported in October 2019 that the flooring in the kitchen was “slippery” and a “major hazard” for the resident. There is no evidence this matter was considered properly until June 2021 – some twenty months later where the operative noted it was the wrong lino for the kitchen and should have been non‑slip. The landlord noted that no follow-on work was carried out which left the resident with hazardous flooring in the kitchen for almost two years after it was initially reported.
The representative states that his grandmother died as a result of a fall on unsafe flooring in the property. The Ombudsman cannot assess whether or not the incorrect flooring in the property led to the resident’s fall and hospitalisation. Claims can be made for such negligence and this Service would advise taking legal advice if the representative wanted to take further action.
It is clear that living in a property with the incorrect flooring in the kitchen would have caused great distress to the resident. A further award of compensation of £500 is appropriate here for the worry that this would have evidently caused her.

Complaint handling

The landlord acknowledged in its final complaint response that the stage one response had been delayed and offered £50 for the impact of that delay in line with its compensation policy.
While it is not clear when the representative asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage two, he made his dissatisfaction with it clear in his contact of 28 March 2021. It took the landlord some four months to issue a final complaint response. While the landlord did not have timescales for issuing complaint responses, this Service considers there to have been a delay in issuing that response also.
Furthermore, there was a failure to be open with the representative about its delays in carrying out repairs. Despite acknowledging these delays internally, the final response stated that the repairs had been completed within its service level agreement (with the exception of the shower). It then said that some repairs were still outstanding. Having experienced such lengthy delays it is understandable that this statement caused great frustration to the resident and representative.
In its final response the landlord also said that, if it had been able to gain access on 19 February 2021, any outstanding repairs could have been determined and further delays hopefully avoided. While a visit took place the previous day and action taken; it appears that the inspection report of 19 February 2021 did not take place. However, as the landlord acknowledged internally such delay might have been avoided had it followed this visit up. It is understandable therefore that the representative considered the landlord was trying to side step responsibility for the delays in carrying out the repairs by placing blame on them. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code says that accountability and transparency are integral to a positive complaint handling culture. The landlord should ensure that, where it recognises it could have done better, that this is reflected in its complaint responses.
Additional financial compensation of £200 is appropriate here for the frustration and distress caused to the resident by the complaint handling failures. Delayed and poor complaint responses mean that the landlord lost the opportunity to resolve matters at the earliest opportunity.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its:
1. Response to reports of various repairs at the property.
2. Handling of reports of a faulty boiler.
3. Response to concerns about the suitability of the upgraded kitchen and bathroom.
4. Complaint handling.

Reasons

There were long delays in carrying out many various repairs to the property. These were reported in October 2019, but no action taken until September 2020 at the earliest. A shower replacement was not followed up nor was the lack or water pressure in the property nor a broken bedroom window.
While the landlord offered compensation to the resident for the six-week period she was without heating and hot water, it did not consider that the representative had been reporting the boiler as faulty for some time before it was put out of action during an annual safety check.
The landlord responded appropriately by signposting the representative to an occupational therapist if the upgraded kitchen and bathroom no longer suited the resident’s needs. However, it took twenty months for the landlord to look into the issue of the slippery lino that was found to be the wrong type.
There were delays in the landlord’s complaint handling at both stages. Its final response was not accurate when it said that most of the repairs had been completed within its service level agreement.

Orders

The landlord shall take the following action within four weeks of the date of this report and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders:
1. To make a written apology to the representative for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident’s estate the sum of £2,501 made up of:
  1. £250 for the delay in carrying out repairs that it previously offered if it has not done so already.
  2. An additional £1,501 for the impact of delays in carrying out repairs.
  3. £500 for the impact of living with a kitchen with the wrong flooring.
  4. £200 for the impact of poor complaint handling.
  5. £50 that it previously offered for the delay in issuing the stage one complaint response if it has not done so already.
3. Inspect the property with the representative (who we understand is living in the property) to ascertain any outstanding repairs – in particular repairs to the water pressure and broken window that appear outstanding.
4. To carry out those repairs within six weeks of the date of this report.
5. Provide an explanation, supported by evidence, to the resident if the landlord considers that some works cannot be completed in the kitchen and bathroom due to the fact that the landlord considers the nature of the work to be an adaptation, and will therefore require an occupational therapist assessment to complete the works.