Crawley Borough Council (202201018)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202201018

Crawley Borough Council

14 February 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to reports of leaks.
2. Response to the associated repair work from the leaks.
3. Response to reports of groundwork defects in the garden.
4. Handling of reports of settlement cracks.
5. Handling of the resident’s queries about solar panels.
6. Response to reports of repair to the front door.
7. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 3 bedroom house. The landlord is a local authority and it has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.

Landlord’s obligations

The tenancy agreement explains that the landlord will be responsible for repairing and maintaining the structure of the property.
The landlord’s tenants handbook says it is responsible for most repairs in the property. It lists the external and internal elements of the property it will maintain which includes, amongst other things, gutters and drainpipes, boundary walls, gates, fences, doors, door frames, skirting, wastewater and soil disposal installations. The tenancy handbook defines four main types of damp which includes defective plumbing where leaks are from water or waste pipes.
The landlord has told the Service that it does not have a repair policy. However, it has confirmed the timescales for works on defects as: priority 1 is 24 hours, priority 2 is 1 week, priority 3 is 4 weeks for non-urgent issues and priority 4 are issues that are latent defects.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process.
1. Stage 1- where a response will be provided within 10 working days. It says it will provide regular progress if it cannot meet this timeframe.
2. Stage 2- where a response will be provided within 10 working days and it says it will keep the resident updated if it cannot respond within this time.

Summary of events

The landlord has provided a report from 7 October 2019, this lists 7 items outstanding, which include a defect due to no draining at the patio door. It said “water 15mm up door when heavy down pours”.
On 8 June 2020 the resident reported a possible leak from behind the toilets. The landlord’s call notes show it was told there seemed to be water damage to the skirting boards. It raised this as a priority 2 repair.
On 3 September 2020 the landlord told the resident that the 12 month defects policy for her property was coming to an end. This meant the developer would no longer be responsible for repairs at the property and the repair obligations would fall to the landlord. It explained that it would not be attending any end of defect inspections due to the Covid-19 situation. But asked the resident to send details of any defects to it by no later than 21 September 2020. The resident has disputed receiving this letter.
On 17 August 2020 the resident called the landlord again about her report of 8 June 2020. Here the landlord noted that the leak was resolved but there was water damage to the skirting board and the bath panel which had not been replaced.
On 4 December 2020 the resident reported water leaking into the property when it rained. The landlord scheduled an inspection for 8 December 2020 and it completed a reseal. The landlord’s repair log notes from 16 December 2020 say there was an issue with the rear gutter and that it was a “slip and trip hazard and water ingress to lounge”. The landlord booked the works in for 14 January 2021 when the gutter was refixed.
On 14 February 2021 the landlord’s repair log notes that there was an “uncontainable leak in downstairs” bathroom. It noted that the resident moved carpet to find water “pooling up” at the base of toilet. The notes show the landlord located the leak and isolated it on 15 February 2021. It then repaired the toilet on 17 February 2021.
On 9 June 2021 the resident reported the front door was hard to open and close. The landlord sent its contractor an email to book an appointment and noted “dummy date entered 18/06”.
On 9 July 2021 the landlord logged multi-trade repairs, which included:
1. Water damage to bath panel and skirting board.
2. Water from a previous leak affected nearby carpet and underlay- possible water damage to door lining and adjacent skirting boards in hall.
3. Rear door catches on patio slabs, possible water damage.
4. Plasterboard screw heads visible.
5. For the patio the resident requested pressure washing be undertaken.
The landlord’s repair log notes its contractor had no access on 19 July 2021.
On 18 August 2021 the repair log said it had assigned work to its contractor which was about rain entering from the bottom of the back door. It said the contractor would contact the resident directly.
On 23 November 2021 the repair log notes the same list of repairs from 9 July 2021 but adds:
1. A make good repair for the decoration of screw heads through plasterboard.
2. To investigate flood issues in back garden by patio and to look at drainage issues.
On 7 February 2022 the resident reported a leak in the downstairs bathroom and told the landlord that the carpet was damaged.
On 12 February 2022 the resident told the landlord that she had asked for information on solar panels and how she could use them to help with energy costs and said the landlord’s staff did not know the answer. She said she found the details of its specialist via an online search. She asked if she was able to benefit from the solar panels to help with her energy costs.
The specialist responded on 15 February 2022 and said it would pursue the enquiry. The resident responded the same day to say she was glad to finally know who to speak to at the landlord.
On 16 February 2022 the resident raised her complaint. She told the landlord that she was “fed up”, she said it did not remember things and ignored her emails.
1. She also told it that she had asked how to make a claim for damage caused to carpets and had been ignored or told staff did not know.
2. She said she was having similar experiences with the solar panels and had spent over 2 years trying to find out who to speak to. She said she ended up finding the right person by conducting an internet search.
3. She told the landlord that she felt it did not want to do its job until a complaint was made. She told it this was its last chance before she came to the Service.
4. She said the situation had an impact on her mental and physical health causing her unnecessary stress.
The resident chased for an update on the solar panel query on 24 February 2022. The landlord’s specialist responded the same day and asked if it could follow up with a visit. In March 2022 the resident and specialist were in contact about the solar panels.
On 19 April 2022 the specialist attended the property in response to the solar panel query. In a follow up email on 22 April 2022 the landlord’s internal notes of the visit say the resident was shown how the solar panels worked.
On 22 April 2022 the landlord’s repair log notes a request for it to assess the skirting boards and change them. It also noted a request for assessment of settlement cracks and said these should have been picked up within defects period but were missed.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 28 April 2022. Here it apologised for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint and said the complaint was extended due to the wide ranging issues it covered. It said:
1. Carpet- its surveyor agreed that it would assess the carpet and advise if a professional clean would solve the issue or if it would need replacement. It said its contractor would be in touch within 7 days.
2. Woodwork and painting- a multi trader would assess the upstairs bathroom, downstairs toilet, the skirting boards and wooden areas. It proposed the dates of 31 May and 1 June and asked the resident to confirm if they were suitable.
3. Groundworks- Its contractors confirmed they attended last year but the works were declined by the resident. It said the ground works would be down to the developer to resolve. It said it could arrange a revisit at the end of May and said it would contact the resident.
4. Solar panels- its specialist attended on 19 April 2022 and had been dealing with the issue directly with the resident.
5. Front door- It apologised for the delay and said it had received a quote and would authorise the works. It explained the door was on order and would be in stock by the end of May. It said its contractor would contact the resident to arrange an appointment once the door was in stock.
6. Settlement cracks- the work would have been undertaken by the end of defects contractors and apologised it had not. It said it would also address this issue when it was on site.
7. It apologised for the outstanding repairs and said it was keen to work with the resident to resolve the issues. It apologised for any distress caused.
On 24 May 2022 the Service provided the resident with the landlord’s stage 1 response.
On 10 June 2022 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. She said she was unhappy with its response, the time taken to respond to her complaint and how those involved failed to attempt to resolve the issues. She told it she only received its stage 1 response the week before from the Service.
1. Carpets – she said she did not know what was happening. She explained the floor contractor said it would be in touch within 7 days and had not done so.
2. Woodwork – she told it that she was keen to get a date for when its contractor could attend. She said the date given in the stage 1 response was cancelled and not confirmed as she hadn’t received a letter.
3. Groundworks – she said she had never declined works and said on occasions its contractors would arrive with no appointment which made it hard to arrange with her work commitments.
4. Solar panel – she asked for information from multiple staff over years and no one had told her about the solar panels until she tracked down the person who then answered her questions and visited. She said the issue she had was more about why she had to wait so long for answers to her questions.
5. Settlement cracks – she said she was keen to get this booked. She said she was hugely disappointed with the whole ordeal.
6. She told it about the detrimental effect this has had on her mental and physical health. She said her house did not feel like a home with all the issues that had been left.
The landlord completed work to the resident’s front door on 20 June 2022.
On 24 June 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident to introduce the person responsible for the stage 2 response, it said it would provide a response by 4 July 2022.
The landlord raised the ground works issues with the developer on 30 June 2022.
On 1 July 2022 the landlord’s repair log noted that it was to assess the carpet downstairs.
On 4 July 2022 the landlord issues its stage 2 response. It thanked the resident for her complaint from 6 June 2022 and said:
1. It apologised for the delay in the resident receiving its stage 1 response. It said it sent it in the post and it should have sent the response by email.
2. Carpets- it repeated its stage 1 response and apologised that it had not followed up on the carpets. It accepted this was a service failure on its part. It said its previous order was overlooked by its contractor but it raised a new order on 1 July 2022 and had asked its contractor to contact the resident to confirm the assessment appointment. It said it would follow up on 11 July 2022.
3. Woodwork- It said the work was booked for 31 May 2022 but cancelled due to staffing issue. It said it had rebooked this for 22 July 2022.
4. Groundworks- It said the issues with the ground works were outside its control and it had contacted the developer to resolve. It said it was in the process of securing some potential times and dates with the developer. It apologised for any confusion caused by its stage 1 response.
5. Solar panels- It accepted its poor customer experience and said that its customer service advisors did have a basic level of training and knowledge on this issue. It said the staff should have been able to direct the resident to the right escalation point. It explained that it would remind its team of the appropriate escalation and ensure further training was provided.
6. Settlement cracks- It said it would address this on 22 July 2022. It apologised for the delay in getting this work completed.
7. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint and said there was a lack of follow up from its stage 1 complaint resulting in a number of disappointing experiences for the resident. It offered £75 compensation to acknowledge its service failures.

Post internal complaints process

On 18 July 2022 the landlord asked the resident if its contractor for the flooring had been in touch. It also said it was liaising with the developer on the ground works issue and said it felt it would be best for its colleague to attend to assess the extent of remaining works. It asked if an appointment on 28 or 29 July was suitable.
The resident responded on 19 July 2022 and told it that the contractors had been in touch. The resident said she would escalate the complaint to the Service. Within its response from the same day, the landlord provided an update on the flooring and said it was getting conflicting information from the developer and was trying to arrange a further visit to “iron out” what remained outstanding. It explained the £75 compensation offer was to recognise its service failures.
On 20 July 2022 the landlord’s contractor confirmed the carpet needed replacing. It said the resident’s preference was vinyl in case the area was to flood again. The landlord agreed to this despite it being more expensive and said it was to recognise the issues the resident had dealt with. The landlord provided the resident with an update on 21 July 2022 explaining it would agree to vinyl. It asked how she wished to proceed with an appointment for the ground works. The landlord increased its compensation offer to £150 in light of the ongoing issues.
On 28 July 2022 the landlord visited the property. Its internal email from the following day explain:
1. The internal work would need to be completed by its contractor.
2. The skirting had been poorly fitted and not finished off in the corner, which needed to be resolved.
3. The downstairs toilet skirting was to be sanded, primed and painted. Boxing in the toilet to also be replaced.
4. Its contractors to address screw pops and settlement cracks.
5. It confirmed the vinyl was to go ahead and asked its staff to confirm this with contractor.
6. Agreed work dates as 12 and 13 September 2022.
On 11 August 2022 the landlord provided the resident with an update. It said its letter was to follow up on its visit and confirm:
1. It had approved the replacement on vinyl flooring despite the increased cost. It told the resident to contact the contractor to agree an installation date.
2. Internal works would be completed on 12 and 13 September 2022.
3. It confirmed the work orders again which include the downstairs toilet, settlement cracks, skirting boards in parts of the property.
4. It added that instead of passing works to the developer it had decided to issue its own contractor to complete the works and avoid delays. It said it would also complete works to the groundwork on 12 and 13 September.
On 14 November 2022 the landlord’s external contractors completed some work. The landlord’s repair logs show it replaced skirting, boxing in around toilets and replaced the downstairs toilet in November 2022.
On 29 November 2022 the landlord listed the agreed works for the property following its visit on 28 July 2022. It told the resident that the settlement cracks were outstanding works. It said it agreed for a surveyor to attend to put together a full scope of works but an appointment had not been booked in. It said it was keen to help and asked the resident to contact it to book a suitable appointment.
On 24 January 2023 the landlord noted the decoration and carpet as outstanding. It attempted to arrange contact with the resident around this time and also noted that the carpet would be installed after decoration works.
The landlord has told the Service that it offered compensation as part of its stage 2 response and it agreed to replace the carpet and upgrade to a different flooring with an increase of £400 (approximately) in costs. It said the floor hadn’t been installed as it was waiting for the works to be completed first. It said the offer of compensation and flooring would remain available.
The landlord told the Service on 29 January 2024 that it was unable to find evidence of when the resident made initial queries about solar panels. It said the area of work was new and there was limited specialist technical knowledge across its departments. It said training had been provided to its staff and they were reminded of the appropriate escalation for queries about solar panels.
On 30 January 2024 the resident told the Service that the vinyl was still outstanding and was agreed to be installed once the decoration work was completed. She said the smell of the carpet was horrendous, it was damp and mouldy. She said the settlement cracks were also outstanding and the landlord said it would just fill in the cracks and not repaint. She said that a lack of a step outside her back door meant water gathered in the area, she says water still gathers near her back door despite the landlord’s work. In relation to the solar panels, she said she sent the landlord an email on 23 November 2021 about this and it did not response. The resident explained the situation had been distressing and mentally draining for her and explained how she feels she cannot take pride in her home.
On 1 February 2024 the resident told the Service that the landlord attended but there were items missed by it. She said she would have to save to get the work done herself as the landlord had made the walls look “even worse”.

Assessment and findings

Response to reports of leaks

The resident reported a leak from a toilet on 8 June 2020. The evidence shows the leak was appropriately resolved at that time.
A further leak was reported on 14 February 2021, this was noted as a “uncontainable leak” in the downstairs bathroom. The landlord appropriately isolated the leak on 15 February 2021 and repaired the toilet on 17 February 2021.
On 7 February 2022 the resident reported a further leak in the downstairs bathroom and told it about further carpet damage. The landlord appropriately responded to the leak at that time.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks was appropriate and amounts to no maladministration.

Response to the associated repair work from the leak

The above aspect of the resident’s complaint considers the associated repair work for the damaged woodwork and carpet as a result of the leaks.
The landlord was aware of damage to the skirting boards on 8 June 2020 however it took it 13 months, until 9 July 2021, to raise repairs for the wood damage to the bathroom. It then took it until April 2022 to request an assessment of the wood damage which was completed on 28 July 2022. The landlord took over 2 years to tell the resident it would replace the skirting boards and boxing work in the bathroom and it then took a further 4 months to complete this work. This timeframe of 29 months in total, was not appropriate.
The landlord was aware of damage to the carpet on 14 February 2021, at the latest. It took it 14 months to tell the resident it would request an assessment of the carpet. It then took the landlord until 20 July 2022 to confirm it would replace the carpet. This timeframe of 17 months to confirm it would replace the carpet when it was aware of the number of leaks at the property and the damage, was not appropriate.
It is noted that the landlord agreed to install vinyl flooring instead of carpet after the conclusion of its internal complaints process. It is important to note that the resident has said she opted for vinyl to avoid the same situation happening again. When considering the repeated leaks and the timeframe taken for the landlord to confirm it would replace the carpet, it is understandable why the resident would opt for something different to carpet.
It is important to add that the evidence does not describe the condition of the carpet when it was inspected, however the resident has explained that the carpet had mould and smelt. When considering the landlord’s decision to replace the carpet, on balance, it is reasonable to accept the comments made by the resident about its poor condition.
The evidence shows that following the landlord’s stage 2 response it did attempt to complete the work to the carpet but between September 2022 and January 2023 it was agreed that vinyl would be installed after works had completed. It is understood the installation of vinyl is still outstanding.
Overall, it is accepted that when considering the extended timeframe taken by landlord here, it would have been an extremely difficult time for the resident. She reported leaks, made it aware of damage to the property due to the leaks and repeatedly chased it over years to do something about the damage. The landlord did not handle the repairs associated with the leak appropriately. Its failings here amount to maladministration.
Within its stage 2 response the landlord appropriately accepted its failings and offered the resident £75 compensation to acknowledge what it said were service failings. The agreement to install vinyl was made after this as was its increased compensation offer of £150. While the landlord’s attempts are noted, its offer of compensation does not reflect the scale of its failings and the impact the length of delays would have had on the resident. As such the Ombudsman has made a further order of compensation.

Response to reports of groundwork defects in the garden

On 7 October 2019 the landlord’s report noted a defect due to no draining at the patio door. It is unclear what the landlord did following its report of the defect and whether this was passed to the developer to address at that time.
The evidence shows that on 4 December 2020 the resident reported water leaking into the property. The landlord acted appropriately in inspecting the property and on 16 December 2020 it noted again the issue with a rear gutter and said it was a slip/trip hazard as water was entering into the lounge. It is understood some work was completed in January 2021 in relation to this.
However, it seems the above work did not resolve the issue because on 18 August 2021 the landlord accepted that rain was entering from the bottom of the back door. There is no evidence to show the landlord took any action following this, this was not appropriate. The landlord’s notes from 23 November 2021 show it understood there was a drainage issue to be looked at. There is no evidence to show it did this work at that time either, this was also not appropriate.
It took the landlord until its stage 1 response, on 28 April 2022, to tell the resident the issue would be for the developer to resolve. It repeated this position within its stage 2 response and said the works were outside its control. While the issue may have initially been one that formed part of a building defect it was not appropriate for the landlord to have taken as long as it did to tell the resident this. It is accepted that the resident would have been caused some distress in being told this after reporting the issue to it for years.
While the evidence shows the landlord raised the issue with the developer on 30 June 2022, this timeframe of over 2 and a half years to do this was not appropriate.
However, following its stage 2 response it is noted that on 11 August 2022 the landlord told the resident that it had decided to complete the works to avoid delays. The evidence suggests this work was completed in November 2022. However, the resident has said that when there is heavy rain, water does pool outside her patio door. It seems she is worried about water entering the property if she was to open the door.
Overall, the landlord was aware of the issue in October 2019 but has not provided any evidence to show it did work to the property at that time or passed it to the developer. This was not appropriate.
The landlord repeated noted issues relating to the groundwork but failed to reasonably progress the matter. It took it 19 months to tell the resident it was an issue for the developer when it would have known it was outside the defect period. It is accepted that being told this after such a significant time would have caused the resident upset and worry. It is acknowledged that it did eventually change its approach in August 2022 which was reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord’s handling of groundworks issue was not appropriate and amounts to maladministration.

Handling of reports of settlement cracks

It is unclear from the evidence when reports of cracks within the property were first reported to the landlord. However, on 22 April 2022 the landlord’s repairs log notes that it made a request for settlement cracks to be assessed, it said they should have been picked up within the defects period but were missed.
Within its stage 1 response on 28 April 2022 the landlord appropriately apologised that the work was not undertaken at the defects stage but said it would address the issue when it was on site. In June 2022 the resident told it that she was keen for the work to be booked in and explained the impact it was having on her, however there is no evidence to show the landlord did this work at that time. This was not appropriate.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 4 July 2022 and apologised again agreeing to address the issue on 22 July 2022. There is no evidence to show this work was completed at that time, while the landlord reconfirmed the work on 11 August 2022, it is understood that the issue may have been addressed in February 2024.
Overall the landlord accepted it missed the issue within the defects period, it then failed to complete the work within a reasonable time following this, and at the time of its stage 2 response, the work was still outstanding. It is accepted that this would have added to the resident’s frustration and that it also remains unclear whether the work now completed to the settlement cracks would have been in line with what would have been done had the landlord identified it within the defects period. This mainly involves painting the surrounding area of the walls. The landlord’s handling of reports of settlement cracks was not appropriate and amounts to maladministration.

Handling of the resident’s queries about solar panels

The evidence shows that on 12 February 2022 the resident emailed the landlord’s solar panel specialist asking how she could use the solar panels to help with energy costs. Here she said the landlord’s staff did not know the answer to her query and that she found the specialists contact details online. The contents of the resident’s email have not been disputed.
It is unclear when the resident initially raised queries about solar panels. While the resident said she emailed the landlord in November 2021 about it, the Service has not been provided with evidence to show this. The landlord has been unable to provide details of queries raised prior to February 2022. However, it has accepted that there was limited specialist knowledge across its department at that time. It said training has been provided and details of the appropriate escalation for solar panel queries.
When considering both sides positions, and while the timeframe remains unclear, it is reasonable to generally accept the resident’s version of events. That she raised solar panel queries directly with the landlord’s staff, it was unable to answer her queries and she had to find the correct contact details online. The landlord’s service here was unreasonable and amounts to service failure.
However, following the resident’s email from 12 February 2022, the specialist appropriately responded to confirm it would look at the query and then conducted a visit. This was reasonable.

Response to reports of repair to the front door

On 9 June 2021 the resident told the landlord that the front door was difficult to open and close. The repair notes show the landlord booked an appointment for 18 June 2021. However, it is unclear if this appointment went ahead and what it did at that time.
The evidence shows that the next contact about the front door was within the landlord’s stage 1 response on 28 April 2022 where it apologised for the delay and told the resident that it had authorised work to the door. It said it had ordered the door which would be in stock by the end of May 2022. There is no evidence to show the landlord completed the work at the end of May 2022 or that it updated with this at that time. This meant the resident had to chase it and then raised her complaint on 10 June 2022. It is noted that the landlord completed work to the front door on 20 June 2022.
While it is acknowledged that the landlord did eventually resolve the issue with the front door, there were elements of its communication about the front door being unreasonable. This amounts to a service failure.

Complaint handling

The evidence shows that the resident raised her complaint on 16 February 2022. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 28 April 2022. The timeframe taken of 50 working days to issue its stage 1 response was not appropriate and significantly exceeded the timeframe it set within its complaints process. Furthermore the landlord did not keep the resident updated.
The resident escalated her complaint on 10 June 2022 and on 24 June 2022 said it would provide a response by 4 July 2022. While the landlord exceeded the 10 working days timeframe it set within its complaint procedure it did issue its response on 4 July 2022. As such the timeframe taken to issue its stage 2 response was reasonable.
However, the timeframe taken by the landlord to issue its stage 1 response was not appropriate and amounts to a service failure.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration for the landlord’s response to reports of leaks.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
1. Response to the associated repair work from the leaks.
2. Response to reports of groundwork defects in the garden.
3. Handling of reports of settlement cracks.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s queries about solar panels.
2. Response to reports of repair to the front door.
3. Complaint handling.

Reasons

The resident reported 3 leaks between June 2020 and February 2022, the landlord responded appropriately to all the leaks. There was no maladministration.
The landlord took over 2 years to confirm it would replace the wood damage in the bathroom, it then took a further 4 months to complete this work. The landlord took 17 months to confirm it would replace the carpet despite being aware of the damage. The resident said the carpet smelt and was mouldy. The timeframe taken by the landlord to complete this work was not appropriate.
The landlord took 19 months to tell the resident the issue with the groundwork was for the developer. It was aware of the issue in October 2019 but took 2 and a half year to refer it to the developer. It did not appropriately progress the matter despite the water ingress issues the resident told it. While it did eventually decide to complete the work itself this was after its internal complaints process.
The landlord has accepted it missed the settlement cracks issue within the defects period in April 2022. It then failed to complete the work within a reasonable time following this and the resident has said this was done on 1 February 2024.
The landlord has accepted that it has limited specialist knowledge on solar panels queries. It has said it had trained its staff who should have details of the correct escalation point. However, it is not disputed that the resident had to locate the correct contact via a search online as the landlord’s staff could not provide her with the information.
The landlord told the resident the front door would be in stock in May 2022. However, it failed to keep the resident updated with replacing the door, which meant she had to chase it again on 10 June 2022. The door was eventually fitted on 20 June 2022. However, the landlord’s communication here fell short.
The landlord took 50 days to issue its stage 1 response and during this time it did not keep the resident updated. The landlord exceeded the timeframe set within its complaints procedure by 40 days and the timeframe the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, applicable at that time, said it must not exceed.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to apologise for the failings identified within this report. This should be within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £1,425 compensation within 4 weeks of the date of this report. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. This comprises of:
1. £400 to acknowledge the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its response to repair work from the leak.
2. £250 to acknowledge the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its response to groundworks defects.
3. £300 to acknowledge the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its handling of reports of settlement cracks.
4. £325 to acknowledge the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its combined failings for its handling of solar panels, response to repair of the front door and its complaint handling.
5. £150 it previously offered, if it has not been paid already.
6. Vinyl flooring installation, if it has not already been installed.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to conduct an inspection of the property within 4 weeks of the date of this report. Within 2 weeks of the inspection, it should provide the resident and the Service with an outcome of its inspection addressing the following points.
1. Explain the remaining work and timeframe for completion.
2. Assess if further drainage work is required to the groundworks, near the back door.
3. Assess if the work to the settlement cracks is in line with what would have been completed within defects period. It should assess if work completed within the defects would have involved redecorating.

Recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends the landlord consider the findings of this report and its lack of repair policy. If after considering this the landlord decides it does not need a repairs policy it should write to the Service and explain why with 4 weeks of the date of this report.