The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

East Midlands Housing Group Limited (201913963)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201913963

East Midlands Housing Group Limited

22 March 2021


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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of repairs to the soffit and fascia boards, guttering and alteration work to the property’s car port roof.
    2. Handling of complaints raised about behaviour of contractors when attending repairs.
    3. Delay in holding the stage two complaint panel hearing.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant. The property is a four-bedroom house.
  2. Under clause 4.2.2 of the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for keeping in good repair the structure and exterior of the home.
  3. The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance (R and M) policy states that responsive repairs, also known as day-to-day repairs, are those repairs which are carried out on an ad hoc basis, usually in response to customer demand (section 4.1). Under Section 4.3, it states that all repairs fall into one of the following categories:
  4. Emergency – completed within a maximum response time of 24 hours;
  5. Appointed – repairs that “if left could develop into a safety hazard or materially effect the enjoyment of the home…to be carried out at a time and date agreed with the tenant”;
  6. Programmed – “a non urgent repair which does not affect the safety or material enjoyment of the property. Such repairs can be grouped by type and/or location to maximise efficiency. Our aim is to have these completed within a three month period”;
  7. Small Works – “repairs of a more complex nature which are likely to take more than two hours to complete and/or require the attendance of multiple trades. They generally arise through our responsive repair ‘follow on’ process or a surveyor pre inspection. Such repairs will be carried out by a specialist team” and;
  8. Cyclical maintenance – a programme of work there is a cycle to be following, such as with external decorations.
  9. The landlord’s R and M policy also states that should it fail to meet its service standards, it has a complaints policy which residents can invoke and it offers compensation described in its compensation policy.
  10. The landlord’s Complaints policy provides a four-stage process for formal complaints. Section 4.4 states that stage one will be dealt with by an appropriate Manager. Stage two complaints will be dealt with by an internal panel made up of including one or more of the following: Head of Service, Director, Executive Director, plus Board member and/or tenant representative.
  11. The landlord’s Compensation policy provides for discretionary compensation payments “by way of apology in instances where our services have not matched published standards irrespective of actual loss or expense incurred by the customer”. Under its Discretionary Compensation Guide its states goodwill gestures of up to £50 are payable for low impact stress and inconvenience, between £50 and £100 for medium impact, and between £100 and £500 for high impact. High impact is described as a serious failure in service standards, either due to the severity of the event, a persistent failure over a prolonged period of time or an unacceptable number of attempts to address and resolve the issue.
  12. The landlord’s ‘Contractor Service Standard’ sets out standards it expects its contractors to meet when working in and around a resident’s property/dealing with a resident. It requires contractors to be “trustworthy, respectful and processional in their dealings with residents”. It includes examples of how a contractor should conduct themselves, for example, arriving on time, getting any permission before they start work, using dust sheets and checking with the resident before leaving rubbish or materials at their home.
  13. The Government document titled: ‘Guidance for landlords, tenants and local authorities’ (dated 28 March 2020) recommended that access to a property is only proposed by landlords for “serious and urgent health and safety issues” but encouraged tenants and landlords to: “take a pragmatic, common-sense approach to non-urgent issues which are affected by Covid-19 related restrictions”.

Summary of Events

  1. The landlord’s original stage one response on 24 September 2019 referenced repairs that had been identified as part of its void process following the start of the resident’s tenancy on 29 July 2019.  In this response, the landlord confirmed that works to the front door, fence and replacement of “sections of missing soffit board” will be completed by November 2019.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord again on 15 November 2019 stating that he had not heard back regarding follow on work in relation to the soffit boards after its contractor had inspected earlier in the month. The resident also asked about progress on the issue with his roof which he had first reported in late September 2019; there was a section of roof at the front that fills up with water, which leaks down the wall.
  3. The landlord’s internal email communications with its contractor refers to the roofing subcontractor visiting the resident’s home in early November 2019 to inspect the roof. The roofing contractor found that the flat roof over the car port was holding water and that it was seeping through the roof covering. The resident advised during this visit that he had to climb through the window to clear debris off the roof.  The landlord’s internal correspondence also referred to a further joint inspection/survey taking place later in November 2019 when it was agreed for the flat section of roof to be altered to a pitched roof however it said that a structural building inspection was needed. It is unclear from the available evidence if or when this inspection took place.  It was also identified during the visit that there was a missing section of soffit board.
  4. Following further communication from the resident regarding the repairs, the landlord advised the resident on 17 December 2019 that works to the soffits as well to the fascia boards would now take place in the New Year at the same time the alteration to the roof would be completed. It did not give an exact date for the works at this time. The resident explained he had asthma and that the issues were seriously affecting his health as the missing soffit boards were causing cold air to come through his roof and he was having to use the heating more frequently due to this. The landlord arranged for a temporary repair to be carried out to the soffit boards in late December 2019 to try and prevent any further inconvenience to the resident.
  5. On 8 January 2020, the resident was informed via text message by the subcontractor that repairs to the soffit and fascia boards and roof were booked in for 20 January 2020 and operatives would arrive between 8.00 and 9.00 am.
  6. The resident called the landlord on 24 January 2020 to complain that its contractors had not attended appointments to carry our repairs when agreed that week and he was told when they missed the appointment on 20 January 2020 that one of their vans had been broken into. He also said they had then visited his property sometime that week and taken photographs without his knowledge. Around the same time, the landlord’s subcontractor advised the landlord that the soffit and fascia boards at the resident’s home did not require repairing/replacing and that a structural building survey was needed for work to the roof that involved altering a flat section of roof over the car port into a pitched roof to resolve.
  7. Following communication from the Ombudsman, the landlord raised a new complaint summarised as:
    1. the guttering was “all twisted and blocked up with trees growing out of it” and “wire brushes” were missing;
    2. the fascia boards at the rear of the property were broken. Its contractor had tried to do an emergency repair but had been unable to effect this;
    3. the alteration to front flat roof is still outstanding;
    4. a temporary soffit board had been fitted by its contractor but this was not painted because it was raining.
  8. On 3 February 2020, the landlord advised it had logged a new complaint for the resident.
  9. On 7 February 2020, the landlord provided a new stage one response as the previous complaint of 24 September 2019 had been closed after 28 days as no request for escalation had been received. Within this response it apologised for the length of time it was taking to complete his repairs and acknowledged concerns the resident had raised regarding the subcontractor. It said its main contractor would undertake the works themselves, and the work would be overseen by their repair team leader personally who would contact him early next week to agree a start date. It advised of his right to request the complaint panel review his complaint and said any such request with reasons should be made in writing by 28 working days from the date of the letter
  10. The resident contacted the landlord on multiple occasions in February 2020 seeking an update of the works. The landlord’s internal email communications show that the landlord contacted its contractors to chase up the works.  On or around 28 February 2020, the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage two stating that promises made in its letter had not been met and no one had contacted him. He advised he could not sleep as he could hear water flowing loudly when it rained. The stage two panel hearing was booked in by the landlord for March 2020 although the exact date is unclear.
  11. On 6 March 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident to advise the necessary alteration work to his roof was scheduled to take place between 20 April 2020 and 22 April 2020.
  12. On 17 March 2020, the landlord called the resident to advise it wished to postpone the stage two panel hearing due to “current government guidance”. Comments in the landlord’s Customer Experience (CE) contact history indicate the resident was in acceptance with this as he was “self-isolating” for three months. The CE entry dated 5 May 2020 states the resident’s works were also postponed “due to Covid-19” as they were non-essential.
  13. The landlord’s evidence shows the resident contacted it on occasions in June and July 2020 requesting an update on repairs to the roof, the guttering and soffit and fascia boards. He also complained about the delay in holding the stage two panel hearing. In its email to the resident dated 30 July 2020, the landlord advised it was exploring holding stage two panel hearings digitally and it would provide an update on this soon. The landlord’s internal communications show it raised the outstanding work with its repair contactors and the majority of the outstanding repairs were subsequently completed during August 2020 with the panel hearing was booked for 17 September 2020.
  14. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 17 August 2020  regarding the behaviour of staff whilst carrying out the work to the property including inappropriate language; the attendance of the roofing subcontractor he had previously made a complaint about; his car being blocked in with contractors’ vehicles; rubbish being left and; dust from a tile cutting tool dirtying his car.
  15. On 17 September 2020, the stage two panel hearing took place remotely and the landlord followed up on this by issuing a stage two response on 21 September 2020 summarising the discussions. This referred to complaints including:
    1. The length of time taken to resolve the guttering/fascia and car port roof repairs. The landlord stated the repairs were correctly given a routine priority which then did overrun primarily due to the need to redesign and rebuild the roof over the car port and then the Covid-19 outbreak. It offered an “ex-gratia” payment of £100.00 for the time taken to complete the repairs and the inconvenience and upset caused.
    2. The poor communication and ‘no shows’ experienced during this time and inappropriate use of language used by some site staff in his presence and a general feeling of disrespectfulness. The landlord said its panel concluded that communications throughout this time had not been to the standard that the resident should reasonably expect and stated it would like to pass on their genuine apologies for any inconvenience this caused him and his family. It said the panel could not corroborate his reports of disrespectful behaviour of the site staff but offered a full apology for anything said that may have caused embarrassment or offence. It advised such unacceptable behaviour would be dealt with through contractor management arrangements to ensure that it was formally recorded. It offered a further £100.00 ex-gratia payment in recognition of this.
    3. The failure of workman to request removal of his adjacent parked car prior to their use of a dust-producing roof tile cutting tool. It was unable to verify for certain if its contractor failed to give notice regarding the positioning of his parked car prior to their use of a roof tile cutting tool which deposited dust upon it. It said the panel recognised that the resident would have needed to have the vehicle cleaned after the incident for which it offered an additional ex-gratia payment of £50 to cover any inconvenience and incurred costs.
    4. The need to assess further minor faults with the guttering and fascia. The landlord stated that the resident’s home was scheduled to be externally redecorated on the 2021/22 painting cycle and so the panel had instructed that the remaining minor concerns he had with the fascias and gutters were to be picked up as part of that works programme.
    5. Dislodged gutter guards. Its contractor has been booked to return to refit dislodged gutter guards back into position.
  16. On 23 September 2020, the resident complained to the landlord by phone  and via Facebook messaging that the stage two response had failed to address complaints he had raised including:
    1. the same contractor attending whom the landlord had previously agreed would not return to carry out the work following his complaint made about their behaviour;
    2. damage caused to his belongings due to a hole in the roof as well as birds in his loft which he incurred costs for fumigation;
    3. his lack of sleep for a year due to broken guttering which meant water dripped on the ledge near his bed head/ the loss of time due to staying in and missed appointments and;
    4. site workers leaving rubbish for two weeks at his property and failing to knock on his door on arrival.
  17. The resident advised he strongly disagreed with the stage two response and asked for his complaint to be reconsidered and stated he would be willing to accept £900.00 in compensation.
  18. The landlord sent a further reply dated 9 November 2020 responding to the resident’s 23 September 2020 communication. It advised:
    1. that the roofing subcontractor had attended in August 2020 as some aspects of the required work was specialist, meaning only the subcontractor was able to complete this but advised its main contractor had completed as much of the work as possible.
    2. The resident had made “brief mention” of infestations in his loft during the stage two hearing but was unable to provide any evidence such as photographs, certificate of clearance or receipt of payment for consideration. There was also no mention of an attached monetary value or any overview of items damaged provided or voiced to the panel. Despite the absence of this information it said the panel had taken these comments into consideration when determining its financial offer to the resident.
    3. It acknowledged that part of the inconvenience caused by the delays resulted in him having a lack of sleep during this period. This was considered as part of the financial offer previously made.
    4. It acknowledged that some building debris arising from the works was left at his home which it said was later collected. It apologised for any inconvenience that this caused.
  19. It also stated that following the concerns raised, the panel arranged for its contractors and surveyor to return to his home to carry out some checks on the works completed and to remedy any defects found. It advised its surveyor had confirmed all repairs have been completed to a satisfactory standard except for a short section of missing leaf gutter guard that would be fitted in the next few weeks. The landlord rejected the resident’s claim for £900 as it said its offer of £100.00 (together with additional payments of £100 and £50) had fully taken into account all the inconvenience caused to the resident and was in accordance with its compensation guide.

Assessment and findings

Repairs to the soffit and fascia boards, guttering and alteration work to the resident’s roof.

  1. The landlord’s R and M policy states that it aims to complete non-urgent repairs in three months. The evidence indicates the resident had been reporting a missing section of soffit board which is located at the underside of the roof eave, following the commencement of his tenancy at the end of July 2019. The resident was advised that a replacement of this section would be completed by November 2019. Whilst the timeframe given to the resident is in accordance with its R and M policy of three months for non-urgent repairs, it is acknowledged that the soffit boards were not fixed by the end of November 2019 however the landlord carried out a temporary repair in late December 2019 to try and prevent any further inconvenience to the resident.
  2. After the resident contacted the landlord on a number of occasions from 15 November 2019 to chase the repairs, the landlord advised on 17 December 2020 that the missing sections of soffit board would be replaced in the New Year at the same time the alteration to the roof would be provided. It then confirmed on 8 January 2020 that repairs to the soffit and roof were booked in for 20 January 2020.
  3. However, the landlord did not address the issues when it visited the property January 2020 as promised. The evidence shows this was caused by either a failure to follow up on the need for a structural inspection when initially raised in November 2019 or if it had, a failure to communicate this to the subcontractor prior to their January 2020 visit. There was also internal disagreement over the necessity of aspects of the work.  It is acknowledged the roof alteration is larger-scale work and due to the need to re-design the roof, it was reasonable to expect this may take longer than three months. However, there is no evidence of the landlord communicating this to the resident, rather it told him that this and the replacement to the soffit and facia boards would be completed in January 2020 but did not deliver on this promise.
  4. Following the resident’s formal complaint of 3 February 2020, the landlord advised in its stage one response that the contractor would contact him “next week” to agree a start date for outstanding agreed repairs/works to the soffit and fascia boards, car port roof and guttering including the gutter guard. However, it is clear that the resident was not given a start date for the works within this timeframe, as promised. It was only after further contact from the resident and a request to escalate his complaint to stage two at the end of February 2020, that he received confirmation on 6 March 2020 that the works were to take place between 20 April to 22 April 2020. 
  5. It is acknowledged that in fact the works to the resident’s soffits and fascia boards, guttering and the roof alteration, were delayed again and only provided in August 2020.  The main cause of this delay was the Covid-19 pandemic. The landlord’s evidence shows it told the resident that the works had been cancelled due to Covid-19 and “current Gov guidance” because they were non-essential repairs. The pandemic was accompanied by various law changes, rules, regulations, and guideline, however, at the time the resident’s scheduled works were cancelled, the Government’s ‘Guidance for landlords, tenants and local authorities’ (dated 28 March 2020) recommended that access to a property is only proposed for “serious and urgent health and safety issues” but encouraged tenants and landlords to: “take a pragmatic, common-sense approach to non-urgent issues which are affected by Covid-19 related restrictions”.
  6. Therefore, given that the works in question were not categorised as emergency or urgent, it was appropriate for the landlord to delay the works in this circumstance. The evidence shows the landlord also informed the resident that it was postponing the stage two face-to-face panel hearing as a result of Government guidance; the resident was in agreement with this and advised he was self-isolating for three months.
  7. It is noted from the evidence that once restrictions began to ease in early June 2020, the resident contacted the landlord for an update as to when the repairs and stage two panel hearing, would be taking place.
  8. As mentioned above, the majority of the agreed works were completed when the landlord attended in August 2020. Therefore, with regard to the repairs to the soffit boards and roof alteration which were reported to the landlord around September 2019 or earlier, these took at least eleven months in total before these were addressed in August 2020. However, taking out the delay due to Covid-19 which was between April 2020 to August 2020, this amounts to a delay of seven months. In respect to the repairs to the fascia boards and guttering, it is unclear from the available evidence when these specific issues were first reported by the resident. However, within its email communications, the landlord first referred to work required to the fascia boards in December 2019 and work to the guttering in January 2020. This indicates it took a total of nine months for the broken fascia boards to be repaired and eight months for the guttering. However, after taking out the delay due to Covid-19 which was between April 2020 to August 2020, there were delays of four and three months, respectively.
  9. It is acknowledged however that in its stage two response, the landlord confirmed there was a dislodged/missing short piece of leaf gutter guard that still needed addressing. This was part of the required guttering work first identified in January 2020 to stop leaves blocking the guttering. In its later 9 November 2020 communication to the resident, it confirmed this section of guard had been ordered and would be fitted within the next few weeks. Whilst this communication suggests this issue was addressed by the landlord after stage two of the complaints procedure, its failure to resolve this issue at the same time other agreed repairs and works were provided in August 2020, was unreasonable.
  10. In relation to the landlord’s reference, in the final response, to the resident requesting for it to assess “further minor faults” with the gutters and fascias, it is unclear from the available information what these minor faults were. The landlord advised such would be “picked up” as part of programmed external redecoration works scheduled for 2021/2022. However, it is clear from the evidence that following the resident’s further complaint of 23 September 2020, the landlord arranged for the contractor and its surveyor to return to inspect the work and remedy any defects. The landlord advised in its in its 9 November 2020 response that its surveyor had confirmed that all repairs have been completed to a satisfactory standard (except for the leaf gutter guard dealt with above). This shows that the landlord followed up on further issues raised by the resident with the work carried out and this was reasonable in the circumstances.
  11. In conclusion, due to the landlord failing to provide the agreed repairs to the soffit and fascia boards, guttering (including the gutter guard) and alteration work to the property’s roof within the timescales advised, this is evidence of service failure by the landlord when handling these repairs to the resident’s home.
  12. In its stage two response, the landlord acknowledged that it delayed with delivering the agreed repairs and apologised for this and the inconvenience caused. It also offered an “ex-gratia” payment of £100.00 for the time taken to complete repairs and the upset and inconvenience caused by this. The resident complained about the level of compensation offered on the basis the landlord that it had not taken into account the impact caused by the delay of the agreed repairs. The resident mentioned problems sleeping for a year as a result of hearing rain water flowing loudly due to broken guttering and costs incurred for fumigation after a bird flew into his loft through the hole caused the missing soffits as well as costs for damaged possessions.
  13. In its later response dated 9 November 2020, the landlord rejected the resident’s claim for £900 as it said its offer of £100.00 (together with additional payments of £100 and £50 discussed below) had fully taken into account the inconvenience caused to the resident including the reported problems with sleeping. It also advised that whilst “infestations” had been briefly mentioned at the panel hearing, no evidence of costs for fumigation had been provided nor any overview of items damaged, nonetheless it had still taken his comments into account when determining the financial offer. It said the £100 offered was in accordance with its compensation guide. The landlord’s compensation guide provides for discretionary payments of up to £500 depending on factors including the severity of the impact caused by service failures and timeframe involved. The £100.00 offered falls into highest tier of ‘High impact’, albeit at the lower end.
  14. On balance, as the landlord acknowledged the delays and issues in its stage two response, offered compensation in addition to agreeing to follow up on outstanding issues such as the gutter guards, this demonstrates that the landlord offered redress that resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Complaints raised about service standards of contractors whilst attending repairs

  1. The landlord’s document ‘Contractor Service Standard’ requires contractors to be “trustworthy, respectful and processional in their dealings with residents”. The resident complained to the landlord about its roofing subcontractor missing appointments to carry our repairs during the week commencing 20 January 2020. The resident also complained they visited his property sometime later that week and took photographs without his knowledge. The landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s complaint by raising these issues with its contractors. It was agreed that its main contractor, as opposed to the roofing subcontractor whom the resident had complained about, would undertake the works going forward. This was confirmed by the landlord in its stage one response to the resident.
  2. However, it is clear the subcontractor returned in August 2020 to undertake works at the resident’s property.  The resident complained to the landlord on 17 August 2020 that this was contrary to what it had previously told him. The landlord failed to address this point in its stage two response, however, it subsequently explained in its 17 November 2020 communication that some aspects of the required work was specialist, meaning only the subcontractor was able to complete this but advised its main contractor had completed as much of the work as possible. This explanation is reasonable, nonetheless, the landlord did not make this sufficiently clear to the resident in its stage one response and understandably this resulted in him being unhappy when the subcontractor attended as this was not what had been agreed. There was therefore a shortcoming in the landlord’s communication in relation to this issue although this alone is not sufficiently serious to amount to a service failure.
  3. In relation to the other complaints raised on 24 August 2020 concerning: inappropriate language used by contractors whilst at his property; his car being blocked in by the subcontractor’s vehicles; rubbish being left at the property and; dust from a tile cutting tool dirtying his car, the landlord addressed the majority of these issues in its stage two response under the heading ‘poor communication and disrespect’. It accepted responsibility for aspects of the contractor’s conduct that had been complained about in August 2020 as well as for the missed appointments complained about in January 2020.  It agreed that the service provided “throughout” had fallen below a reasonably expected standard and it passed on “genuine apologies” to the resident for any inconvenience caused to him and his family by such failures on the part of its contractor. It did state that the panel had not been able to corroborate “all” of his reports of “disrespectful behaviour” of site staff yet offered a full apology for anything that was said which caused embarrassment and offence. It also offered a payment of £100 for these failings and a further discretionary payment of £50 for the cost of cleaning the resident’s vehicle.
  4. Whilst it did not address the resident’s complaint raised about rubbish being left at the property in its stage two response, it responded to this in its 17 November 2020 letter when it apologised for the inconvenience caused by building debris left at his home for two weeks in August 2020 before it was removed.
  5. On balance, its offer of £100.00 and the further discretionary payment of £50 offered for the cost of cleaning the resident’s vehicle, sufficiently recognises the shortfalls in service standards by its contractors and resulting upset caused to the resident. Further, its assurance given about these complaints being dealt with through contractor management arrangements to ensure that it is formally recorded, indicates a willingness by the landlord to learn from this outcome; this is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles of putting things right and learning from outcomes. This redress resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Delay in holding the stage two panel hearing.

  1. In relation to the resident’s complaint raised about the delay by the landlord in holding the stage two complaints panel after this was requested on 28 February 2020, it is acknowledged that the panel meeting only took place on 17 September 2020, indicating nearly a seven-month delay. However, it is clear the landlord had originally booked in the meeting for March 2020 and, as with the scheduled repair work, the landlord cancelled this because of the Covid-19 lockdown which came into force on 26 March 2020. It is acknowledged the stage two complaint panel scheduled was face-to-face and therefore it is accepted that in accordance with Government guidance, it would not have been safe or appropriate for this to proceed. The landlord subsequently re-arranged the panel meeting for 17 September 2020 which took place remotely. This indicates some delay by the landlord in rescheduling the panel meeting after the resident got back in touch in early June 2020 once restrictions were easing. The cause is unclear but it may be due to the landlord wishing to hold this once the substantive repair works had been completed in August 2020. Regardless, as it is clear the landlord progressed the resident’s complaint to stage two as per its Complaint policy when requested by the resident in the first instance at the end of February 2020 and the cause of the subsequent delay until 17 September 2020, was due to the Covid-19 pandemic, there is no evidence of an unreasonable delay by the landlord in progressing the complaint to stage two.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), there was a reasonable offer of redress by the landlord which, in the Ombudsman opinion resolved the complaint about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the soffit and fascia boards, guttering and alteration work to the property’s roof.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Scheme, there was a reasonable offer of redress by the landlord which resolved the complaint its handling of complaints raised about service standards of contractors when attending repairs.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord with regard to a delay in holding the stage two panel hearing.

Reasons

  1. The landlord failed to provide agreed repairs/works to the resident’s soffit and fascia boards, guttering and roof in accordance with the three-month timeframe stated in its repair policy or when agreed, taking up to at least eleven months to provide some of these repairs. Government guidance on the Covid-19 pandemic was the cause of the delay between April 2020 and August 2020 for which the landlord is not responsible. However, the significant and unreasonable delays prior to this, is evidence of service failure by the landlord when handling these repairs. However, it acknowledged and apologised for the delays in its stage two response, offered compensation and agreed to follow up on outstanding issues which demonstrates that the landlord offered redress that resolved the complaint satisfactorily.
  2. The landlord acknowledged in its stage two response that the service provided by its contractors was not always to a reasonable standard whilst carrying out work at the resident’s property and that appointments were missed. However, it apologised to the resident for the stress, inconvenience and embarrassment this caused him and his family and offered dictionary payments of £100 plus £50 for his car to be cleaned. It also confirmed the complaint raised would be dealt with through contractor management arrangements to ensure that it is formally recorded. This shows that the landlord offered redress that resolved the complaint satisfactorily.
  3. The landlord booked in the stage two complaint panel hearing for March 2020 after the resident requested escalation of his complaint to stage two in late February 2020, however, this was postponed by the landlord due to Covid-19 pandemic. This was reasonable and in accordance with Government guidance as this was a face-to-face panel meeting. This was later re-arranged to take place remotely for 17 September 2020. As the main delay in escalation to stage two of its Complaints procedure was due to Covid-19 pandemic, there is no evidence of an unreasonable delay by the landlord in progressing the complaint to stage two.

Orders and Recommendations

Recommendation

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord should:
    1. Pay the resident the £250 compensation offered in its complaint procedure if it has not already done so.