Clarion Housing Association Limited (202126948)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202126948

Clarion Housing Association Limited

31 January 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 response to the resident about:
1. Front and back doors reportedly resulting in water ingress and draughts.
2. A leaking roof
3. Issues with an immersion and boiler and loss of hot water.
4. Costs incurred as a result of flooding and damage, in relation to issues such as a hole under the bath and a broken seal to the immersion heater.
5. A request for her ex-partner to be removed from the tenancy.
6. A request for her children to be added to be added as household members, to be transferred and for priority to be awarded to an housing application.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The resident’s joint tenancy with her ex-partner commenced in 2003. The property is a house.

Front and back doors reportedly resulting in water ingress and draughts

In 2018 and 2019, the resident reported that her front and rear doors were draughty and let in water; had been missed from a replacement programme; and were beyond repair according to operatives. In 2018, an operative noted the front and back doors and frames were in poor condition and had had many previous repairs. The landlord internally agreed to inspect the doors for its repairs team to replace them if necessary, however difficulties were noted trying to contact the resident, and it is unclear that an inspection took place. In 2019, an operative attended for a repairs report and noted that the front door was “ok” but the back door and frame were damaged. The repair was subsequently cancelled with a note that the resident wanted PVC doors.
In February 2022, a repair was raised for flooding occurring under the carpet in front of the back door, when a shower was used. Three days later, the landlord’s records note that a section of pipe was replaced under the bath.
The same month, the resident complained that there were issues with the back door which resulted in water ingress. She also said there were issues with the front door frame moving away from the wall, resulting in draughts, which the repairs service kept securing with screws instead of repairing properly.
In its March 2022 stage 1 response, the landlord reviewed recent repairs and noted that after works for the February 2022 report of flooding under the carpet in front of the back door, no further reports were received relating to the back door. It asked the resident to report a new repair about the back door to its repairs team. The same month, the resident escalated the complaint, and made a disrepair claim via a solicitor. She said that the back door leaked when it rained, and queried the response linking this to a broken bath drain. She said that she had reported the front door being draughty and unsafe on many occasions.
In April 2022, the landlord’s disrepair surveyor inspected but ceased their employment soon after. In May 2022 the landlord identified that an inspection report had not been completed, after which it contacted the resident about a re-inspection and adding the property to a current major works programme that would include the doors. There were delays in progress as the resident refused access on solicitor advice. On 25 July 2022, the landlord’s disrepair surveyor produced a report following an inspection. It was noted that the front doorframe was beyond economical and practical repair and that the rear door also required replacement, as the frame was rotten and the door was in poor condition. It was noted that as the planned major works included replacement of doors these works would be omitted from the disrepair schedule at that time.
Between July and September 2022, the evidence indicates that there were discussions between the landlord and resident’s solicitors, during which time it is understood the property was removed from the major works due to access not being gained. On September 2022, the landlord internally noted that solicitors had confirmed that a specification of disrepair works, including the doors, should be commenced.
In its final October 2022 response, the landlord noted that the resident had agreed for works to start that day, including replacement of front and rear doors and frames. It acknowledged and apologised that there were repairs delays and that the resident experienced frustrating service. It awarded a total of £650 for time taken to do repairs, failure to follow repairs policy, repeated visits and inconvenience caused to the resident.
The October 2022 works did not progress due to access issues, and a further repair was raised in April 2023 in relation to the doors which is recorded as being completed in June 2023. The landlord provides information that a settlement of £8,000 was agreed in August 2023 for the resident’s disrepair claim.

A leaking roof

In September 2021, the resident reported water ingress to her landing, after which a contractor inspected in October and submitted a quote that included scaffold. In December 2021, it was noted that the resident was called; she advised that no water ingress had occurred after the October inspection; and a follow up inspection would be done in January 2022. A repair order was raised for “Following inspection to slipped tiles, further survey roof area after reported hallway water ingress,” which was recorded as cancelled due to access being refused when a contractor contacted the resident in January 2022.
In February 2022, the resident complained. She disputed that she had been called in December 2021 and had said the leak had stopped, and she said she had been told one whole side of the roof needed work.
In its March 2022 stage 1 response, the landlord said that there was no open repair for the roof, as a roofing operative was unable to gain access to carry out a survey. The same month, the resident escalated the complaint, and made a disrepair claim via a solicitor. She said that the landlord was lying about the roof, and that an operative had inspected and identified holes and broken tiles that they would report back.
In April 2022, the landlord’s disrepair surveyor inspected but ceased their employment soon after. In May 2022 the landlord identified that an inspection report had not been completed, after which it contacted the resident about a re-inspection and adding the property to a current major works programme that would include the roof. There were delays in progress and it was noted on multiple occasions that the resident refused to let any works commence on solicitor advice. The landlord noted that the property may have to be omitted from the major works if there was no agreement by a certain date as otherwise the project would be impacted. The landlord was later informed there were no objections to the major works, but when the contractor contacted the resident, she said she was still being advised by her solicitor not to let works begin.
On 25 July 2022, the landlord’s disrepair surveyor produced a report following an inspection. It was noted that the resident reported that leaks from the roof only occurred through the loft hatch located on the landing; that guttering above the front door leaked during rainfall; and that no roof inspection was possible but no signs of water ingress was noted. It was noted that as the planned major works included replacement of the roof and rainwater pipes and awaited access from the resident, these works would be omitted from the disrepair schedule at that time.
Between July and September 2022, it is understood that there were discussions between the landlord and resident’s solicitors, during which time the property was removed from the major works due to access not being gained. On September 2022, the landlord circulated a specification of disrepair works which solicitors had confirmed should be commenced. This included an inspection of the roof, and some leak-related patch repairs to the landing ceiling.
In its final October 2022 response, the landlord noted that the resident had agreed for works to start that day, which included a roof inspection. It noted there was communication in December 2021 about a roof leak, it had tried to arrange a subcontractor to attend, the resident had denied access and had engaged solicitors. It noted that its major works team were in contact to arrange renewal of the roof, and the resident had said she would not give access as she had instructed solicitors. It noted that there was a previous surveyor inspection however there was a failure to raise repairs. It apologised for this and noted the surveyor was no longer an employee. It acknowledged there were repairs delays, as while the roof was initially attended in timescales, no follow on works were booked. It apologised that there were repairs delays and that the resident had experienced frustrating service. It awarded a total of £650 for time taken to do repairs, failure to follow repairs policy, repeated visits and inconvenience caused to the resident.
The October 2022 inspection did not progress. The information provided advises that a number of disrepair works were subsequently re-raised from April 2023; a settlement of £8,000 was agreed in August 2023 for the disrepair claim; and in December 2023 a repair was raised for remaining disrepair work and an inspection of the roof space. The landlord recently says the inspection remains outstanding due to access issues.

Issues with an immersion and boiler and loss of hot water

On 9 February 2022, the resident made an out of hours report that water was leaking from a ceiling due to a leak to her immersion heater. This was attended the following morning, when it was noted that the water was isolated and the leak contained and the immersion heater was identified to need replacing. Following this, an operative attended on 17 February, drained the immersion cylinder and replaced the element, after an appointment on 15 February which it is indicated did not provide a long enough timeframe to complete the repair.
On 21 February 2022, the resident reported that there was no hot water and that the element was changed recently. This was attended the following day, when an operative changed a thermostat, noted they were unsure the water tank was pressurised, and noted there was a combi boiler which was playing up as the resident reported the pressure went up and down a lot. It was noted that the resident was advised to call the boiler contractor.
On 3 March 2022, a contractor attended and reported that a new immersion and a new diverter valve for the kitchen boiler were suspected to be needed, but kitchen cupboards needed to be removed to check this. It was noted that the resident said she had been without heating and hot water for a month and it was requested if a follow on repair could be scheduled as soon as possible. After internal discussions, a visit was arranged for 11 March 2022 when works were completed.
In her complaint, the resident complained about a lack of hot water for a month and having to repeatedly chase for updates. In its response, the landlord reviewed events, and apologised for the time it took for the immersion heater and boiler repairs and the resident having to repeatedly contact it for updates. It awarded a total of £315 for the loss of hot water and the delays in repairs to the immersion heater and boiler. It also offered to review bills for any additional heating usage.

Costs incurred as a result of damage and flooding, in relation to issues such as a hole under the bath and a broken seal to the immersion heater

On 6 February 2022, the resident reported that flooding occurred under the carpet when the shower was being used, after which an operative attended 3 days later and replaced a section of pipe under the bath. The resident subsequently requested compensation for damage to her carpet, after which the landlord informed her that it did not compensate for damage to carpet and explained how to make a claim to its insurer.
On 9 February 2022, the resident made an out of hours report about a leak to her immersion heater. This was attended the following morning, when it was noted that the water was isolated and the leak contained. The repairs records contain no reference to immersion heater leaks in the 4 years prior to this.
The resident subsequently complained about costs she had incurred cleaning carpets and using electric heaters, due to leaks such as the immersion heater leaking onto her carpet on multiple occasions and not being fixed in a timely manner, and requested reimbursement for these.
In its complaint responses, the landlord noted there was no record of it agreeing to pay for the resident’s carpet to be cleaned, and asked for details of who agreed to this. The landlord also requested bills for current and previous year in order to review additional heating usage and consider appropriate compensation. The landlord stated that the resident should normally go through home insurance for possessions damage, and it provided details on how to make a claim against its insurance.

A request for her ex-partner to be removed from the tenancy

The resident commenced the tenancy in 2003 with her ex-partner. The landlord notes its historic records are limited, but notes this shows the resident requested for her ex-partner to be removed in 2014. The landlord notes an assignment request was made but the resident was informed in 2015 that the tenancy could not be changed due to the rent account being in arrears.
After the landlord’s stage 1 response, the resident complained that she had requested many times for a joint tenant to be removed from the tenancy, as they had not lived at the property for 18 years. In May 2022, an appointment was made for landlord staff to visit the resident, but this was not attended as the appointment was scheduled when the staff were away. In June 2022, a further appointment was made, however the resident was not in, and she was subsequently sent paperwork to complete and return.
In its final complaint response, the landlord noted that staff had contacted the resident, but it understood that she did not want to sign relevant documents at the moment. It invited the resident to make contact when she wanted to proceed with this. The resident later said she would like to restart the application to change her tenancy, and she was sent a new tenancy agreement to sign. To date it is understood that the landlord has not received signed documents back to change the tenancy from a joint to a sole, and it noted this in correspondence to the resident in March 2023. In January 2024, the landlord informed the Ombudsman that it had decided there was sufficient evidence to support a change of tenancy from joint to sole, and would be sending correspondence to the resident to confirm this.

A request for her children to be added to be added as household members, to be transferred and for priority to be awarded to an housing application

In February 2022, the resident made enquiries about her options to move, as she noted her household number meant she was overcrowded and required a 4 bedroom house. Following this, she was advised to contact her local authority and provided details about mutual exchange, and internal discussions confirmed that only the local authority could award priority for overcrowding.
After the landlord’s stage 1 response, the resident complained in her March 2022 complaint escalation that the landlord did not have her 3 children recorded as living at her property, which was overcrowded. She said this had impacted her ability to transfer from her home, and sought for priority to be added to a transfer application. The landlord subsequently liaised with the resident to obtain the necessary documentation to update its records.
In its final complaint response, the landlord confirmed that the children were not shown as residing at property, and it apologised for this administrative error. It confirmed the children had now been added as household members. The landlord explained that only the local authority could award priority to be rehoused for overcrowding. It provided information about contacting the local authority, and also noted that mutual exchange was another option for moving which it provided information about. The landlord acknowledged there had been a failing in its recordkeeping, and it awarded £150 for the time taken to rectify records and failing to follow recordkeeping policy.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The resident complained on 24 and 28 February 2022, and the landlord provided a stage 1 response on 17 Mach 2022. The resident escalated the complaint on 21 March 2022. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 31 October 2022, where it acknowledged and apologised for the delay in response and explained that disruption to IT systems from a cyber security incident had impacted response times. It awarded £100 for complaint response delay. It said that the total £900 compensation would be applied to the resident’s rent account as this was in arrears. After the resident detailed the impact of issues on her and asked for £200 to be paid directly to her, the landlord reviewed this request and arranged for half the compensation to be paid directly to her.
In March 2023, the landlord carried out a review of the case and provided a follow up response to the resident, where it noted that there had been delays with the complaint it had not previously acknowledged. It apologised that it did not follow process and confirmed that staff had undergone training. It awarded a further £100 for delay and inconvenience, to be paid directly to the resident, and confirmed that the total compensation that had been awarded was £1,315.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The Ombudsman notes that the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s communication and the compensation it offered. Where relevant, these are considered under the individual complaint issues rather than separately.

Front and back doors

It is evident that the resident previously raised concerns about the doors and the landlord attempted to arrange to inspect the doors to see if they were beyond repair in 2018. It is evident that contractors offered repairs but reported that doors and frames were damaged and in poor condition.
It is understandable that the resident was frustrated by the limited way that the landlord’s stage 1 response addressed the doors issues. However, we generally expect complaints to relate to issues that occurred recently, and there had not been any reports about the doors for 3 years. The landlord’s stage 1 response therefore reasonably addressed the issues based on recent reports.
The disrepair inspection in April 2022 without a report being lodged will have delayed progress; caused the resident frustration; and impacted her perception of how seriously her concerns were being taken. Following this, it is evident that the landlord tried to progress matters, but this seems to have been dependent to a large extent on access being provided by the resident on the advice of her solicitor.
The landlord’s disrepair surveyor re-inspected in July 2022 and found the doors were beyond repair and should be replaced. Prior to this, the landlord reviewed historic repairs and agreed an inspection of the doors was the most appropriate way forward. The landlord could have identified that it intended to inspect in 2018. However, an inspection of the doors seems the most appropriate action on the evidence, given no report had confirmed the doors were beyond repair and there had been no reports about the issue in the past 3 years.
The landlord tried to replace the doors in Summer 2022 as part of major works, but it is evident there were issues agreeing access with the resident and her solicitor. The resident raised dissatisfaction to this Service that her doors were not done at the same time as everyone else, and if she refers to the major works in 2022, this seems to be because access was not obtained before the major works contractors had to move on to their next scheduled project. The landlord then started to progress works in September 2022 after agreement between solicitors, and the October 2022 stage 2 response confirmed that works including doors were starting that day. There therefore seems to have been delays related to the legal claim the resident was pursuing which were out of the landlord’s control.
The stage 2 response acknowledged and compensated for delays in respect to repairs including the doors, which equated to around £325 for the doors issues. This seems generally reasonable, as the landlord rightly recognised there had been some delays, and the compensation seems reasonably proportionate to service issues evident in the timeframe of the complaint. The doors do not seem to have been not completed until around June 2023, however legal discussions seem to have been ongoing until August 2023 and the landlord reasonably demonstrates that it attempted to resolve the issue in the timeframe of the complaint. This leads the Ombudsman to find reasonable redress for this aspect.

Leaking roof

The evidence shows that after the resident reported a roof leak in September 2021, a contractor inspected and submitted a quote in October. In December 2021, the resident was called and reportedly said there had been no further water ingress, and a repair was raised to further survey the roof area following an inspection to slipped tiles. This was recorded as cancelled due to access reportedly being refused when a contractor contacted the resident in January 2022. The landlord’s March 2022 stage 1 response briefly summarised these events and said there was no open repair for the roof.
This investigation cannot determine specific aspects that the resident disputed, however the landlord’s response was not satisfactory. The landlord should have reviewed findings in October and events in December and January in more detail. It should have considered further action for the roof given repairs records referred to scaffold and slipped tiles. Further, it is concerning that it seems that a repair involving slipped tiles, resulting in a leak, can be so easily closed without this being progressed any further even when a resident has complained. This seems to show a lack of regard of the responsibilities for the property structure. It is understandable if the resident was frustrated by the landlord’s stage 1 response, and her questioning how the issue will have been resolved without any repairs was reasonable.
The inspection in April 2022 without a report being lodged will have delayed progress; caused the resident further frustration; and impacted her perception of how seriously her concerns were being taken. The landlord’s disrepair surveyor re-inspected in July 2022 and noted the resident’s concerns but that no signs of water ingress was noted. The landlord tried to replace the roof and rainwater pipes as part of major works, but it is evident that there were issues agreeing access with the resident and her solicitor, as with the doors. The landlord then started to progress works in September 2022 after agreement between solicitors, and the October 2022 stage 2 response confirmed that works including a roof inspection was starting that day. The landlord provides information that there have been issues to date gaining access to the property to inspect the roof.
The stage 2 response acknowledged and compensated for delays in respect to repair including the roof, which equated to around £325 for the roof. This does not seem unreasonable given the limited evidence of ingress when the disrepair surveyor inspected, and given that reports of roof leaks appear limited despite no roof works seeming to have been done. However, in the Ombudsman’s view the landlord did not go far enough to acknowledge the issues with its initial handling and investigation of the issue. This leads the Ombudsman to find a service failure for this aspect.

Immersion and boiler and loss of hot water

The evidence shows that after reports about the immersion and boiler, the landlord often attended in a timely manner such as the following day. There were instances however where attendances took a week, such as when an element needed to be changed and kitchen cupboards needed to be arranged to be removed in order to access areas to carry out repairs. The resident complained that she was without hot water for a month and she will have clearly been affected by lack of a fully functional immersion and boiler between 9 February and 11 March. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delays, and offered compensation for the delays in the repair and loss of service.
For loss of hot water, the landlord awards £5 per day after 7 days since the initial repair report is exceeded, while the ‘Right to Repair’ legislation that applies to local authorities says that £10 plus £2 per day is considered reasonable. The landlord may also award an amount between £5 to £15 per day for the delay in carrying out a repair, separate to the loss of amenity.
The landlord awarded £115 for the loss of hot water, and this reflects its compensation policy and exceeds the £70 that may have been applicable if the landlord was a local authority. The landlord also awarded an additional £200, which equals around £15 per day the repair was ongoing, and is in line with its compensation policy.
The Ombudsman understands the distress and inconvenience the resident will have been caused by the issue, however the landlord’s response demonstrates it sought to provide compensation in line with policies that recognised the impact on her. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord provided reasonable redress for this aspect, as the compensation was in line with the amounts normally considered reasonable for the repairs delay and loss of service the resident experienced.

Costs incurred as a result of flooding and damage

The Ombudsman understands the resident experienced inconvenience and costs as a result of leaks and damage, and recognises this must have been frustrating and upsetting for her. This Service also notes the resident’s general dissatisfaction and understandable desire not to be out of pocket for issues that are no fault of her own. However, an insurance claims procedure is separate to the complaints procedure, and it is not within our authority or expertise to determine cause, liability or negligence for damages. We can assess if a landlord responded in a timely way to issues and reasonably to a complaint, and consider the impact if a landlord did not respond in a timely way, but if this is disputed only an insurance procedure or court can offer a definitive and legally binding decision.
From the evidence seen, the landlord responded to reports of leaks such as the bathroom and immersion in a timely manner. Where damage is caused to personal belongings, occupants are expected to claim on home contents insurance, and if a resident believes that a landlord was responsible, it is good practice for a landlord to provide details of their insurer so a resident can contact them and make a claim. It is evident that the landlord provided the resident with details of how to make a claim to its insurer, before and after she made her complaint. It is also good practise to review if a tenant has incurred additional costs for periods where they were affected by a repair, and it is evident that the landlord requested bills to consider if there had been any additional utility usage as a result of issues.
Overall, the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s request for compensation, as it explained how to make a claim to its insurer, and requested evidence of utility costs for it to consider reimbursement. This leads the Ombudsman to find no maladministration for this aspect.

Request for ex-partner to be removed from the tenancy

It is understandable that the resident was frustrated that her ex-partner had not been removed from the tenancy, if she had requested this many times. As with the doors complaint, we generally expect complaints to relate to issues that occurred recently. This is because the longer time goes on, the more difficult it is for the Ombudsman, and the landlord, to conduct an effective investigation.
From the available evidence, the amount of times that the resident had asked for her ex-partner to be removed from the tenancy is unclear, and there did not seem to have been a request to remove the ex-partner from the tenancy in recent years. The landlord’s records report that one previous request did not progress as the rent account was in arrears at that time, which was in line with the landlord’s ‘changes to tenancy and assignment policy’ that changes are not normally allowed when an account is in arrears.
When the resident complained, the landlord scheduled staff who were away to visit, so this appointment was missed. This was not reasonable and may have caused some inconvenience to the resident. However, it is not clear that this has resulted in significant detriment. The landlord also arranged another appointment, where the resident was not in, and it subsequently invited the resident multiple times to complete and return necessary paperwork. These actions reasonably resolve the issue with the initial appointment.
As a tenancy is a contractual agreement, the removal of an ex-partner from the tenancy is not one a landlord is expected to easily make, and the landlord was reasonably entitled to follow its procedure and require necessary documentation to do this. The landlord has demonstrated reasonable discretion in deciding to now change the tenancy to be solely in the resident’s name.

Request for children to be added to be added as household members, to be transferred and for priority to be awarded to an housing application

The evidence advises that the resident had previously supplied the landlord with her children’s details, but when the system was updated at some point they had not been added to the account. The resident complained when this came to light, as she wanted to be transferred from the property and wanted priority to be awarded to an housing application due to being overcrowded. The landlord subsequently liaised with the resident to re-add the children, advised her to contact her local authority about awarding priority to an housing application due to overcrowding; provided details about mutual exchange; and apologised and compensated £150 for the issues with its recordkeeping.
The resident complains that she and her household have been left in an overcrowded property for longer than necessary, however it is not evident that this will have been significantly impacted by the loss of the children’s details during the system update. The landlord seems to have taken steps to rectify the issue in a timely manner when brought to its attention. The local authority manages the housing register and is responsible for awarding housing priority based on information that applicants provide to them. The resident will have been informed of her priority by the local authority following her application to them, and will have been able to amend or challenge this with the local authority if she thought her priority was incorrect.
Overall, the landlord provided reasonable redress for the resident’s complaint, as it provided appropriate acknowledgement and compensation that seems proportionate to the distress and inconvenience that will have been caused as a result of the removal of the children’s details from the household during the system update. It also provided reasonable response to the resident’s request to be transferred and priority to be awarded, as it provided reasonable advice about mutual exchange and signposted her to the appropriate party to assist with reviewing her housing priority.

Complaint handling

The landlord responded at stage 1 within a reasonable timeframe, and it demonstrated sympathy and understanding at stage 2, when it arranged for £450 to be paid directly to the resident, more than the £200 she requested to help ease the financial impact of issues on her. This was a positive and customer focused approach. The resident requested escalation of the complaint on 21 March 2022, and the landlord did not respond until 31 October 2022. The landlord awarded £100 in recognition of this then. In March 2023, the landlord then reviewed the case and awarded a further £100 in recognition that the complaint was not escalated to stage 2 until 19 April 2022. The landlord acknowledged delays at stage 2, however this was not entirely satisfactory.
Based on the dates, the stage 2 complaint response should have been provided around 20 April 2022 or 18 May 2022. The landlord explained that the delay was partly due to a cyber attack, but by the time of the cyber incident around 21 June 2022, the complaint was 2 to 3 months overdue, and in early June internal correspondence said that the landlord had all the information it needed to respond. The landlord explained that the delay was partly due to the complexity and that a legal disrepair was being progressed at the same time. It is evident that steps were being taken to progress issues the resident raised in her complaint, and there were clearly complexities and issues with the resident withholding access on solicitor advice, however the landlord should have been able to provide a complaint response by mid June 2022.
The Ombudsman issued 2021 guidance that advised how complaints and legal procedures should work effectively together and continue to use the complaint procedure. It would have been beneficial if the resident had been provided written complaint correspondence earlier that addressed issues such as major works for the roof and doors, and explained how time dependent access for these were. We cannot say that doing so would have resulted in different outcomes, however a lack of complaints involvement at points, such as when the major works team were attempting to book works in with the resident in early June 2022, shows the complaints procedure did not make the most of all the opportunities it had to try to impact the outcome. It was not reasonable that the resident was dependent on contact from her solicitor and the landlord’s disrepair surveyor in respect to the issues for a lengthy period, when she had also made a complaint.
Overall, while the landlord acknowledged and compensated for the delay in escalation and the lengthy delay in responding to the complaint, in the Ombudsman’s view the £200 does not go far enough to acknowledge the response delay before the cyber attack around 21 June 2022, and missed opportunities for the complaints procedure to be involved in trying to progress practical aspects such as the major works. In addition, while it was positive that the landlord acknowledged the delay in escalating the complaint, it should have done this within the timeframe of the complaint, not 5 months after the stage 2 response. This leads the Ombudsman to find a service failure for this aspect.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident about a leaking roof
2. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident about a request for her ex-partner to be removed from the tenancy.
3. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident about costs incurred as a result of flooding and damage, in relation to issues such as a hole under the bath and a broken seal to the immersion heater.
4. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident about:
1. Front and back doors reportedly resulting in water ingress and draughts.
2. Issues with an immersion and boiler and loss of hot water.
3. A request for her children to be added to be added as household members, to be transferred and for priority to be awarded to an housing application.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord to, within 4 weeks, pay the resident £200 for the issues identified with the roof and complaint handling.
The landlord to, within 4 weeks, contact the resident to arrange the inspection for the roof, then confirm the agreed appointment in writing with sufficient notice.

Recommendations

The landlord to review its initial handling and investigation of the roof repair and complaint, and how to ensure that structural repairs reports are progressed where it is evident practical works for these are outstanding.