East Midlands Housing Group Limited (202210779)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210779

East Midlands Housing Group Limited

24 October 2023

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about:
1. its contractor’s conduct.
2. repairs to her boiler and radiators.
3. repairs to her kitchen and bathroom.
4. Repairs to her toilet.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme notes as follows:

42. The Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:

c) were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.

The resident’s complaint regarding a contractor’s conduct relates to an incident in 2020 when she reported that a contractor who had attended her home to undertake works had been dismissive towards her. She raised this with the landlord as a complaint during a complaint panel meeting with the landlord held in May 2022. The landlord’s complaint response stated that it could not consider this complaint, in accordance with its policy, as more than six months had elapsed since the incident occurred.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme, the complaint about the conduct of the landlord’s contractors is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and cannot be considered as part of this investigation as it was not raised with the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period.
Additionally, paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme notes as follows:

42. The Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:

a) are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.

The resident did not raise the issue with her boiler or her radiators with the landlord as a formal complaint until after its internal complaints procedure had concluded. Consequently the landlord did not have an opportunity to investigate this issue and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service
After carefully considering the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, the complaint about repair issues with the resident’s boiler is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant at the property of the landlord. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a two bedroom house.
The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord must keep in good repair:
1. the structure and exterior of the property;
2. the installations provided for the supply of water, gas, electricity, and for sanitation (including basins, sinks, baths, and sanitary conveniences);
3. the installations for space heating and heating water.
The tenancy agreement also states that:
1. The resident must allow staff and contractors access to inspect the premises or carry out repairs and servicing of equipment. The landlord must normally give at least 24 hours’ notice.
2. The resident must keep appointments with the landlord or its contractors. If the resident does not and reasonable notice to cancel the appointment is not given, the resident will have to pay the call-out charge for the contractor.
The landlord’s repairs policy confirms that the landlord has three repair standards; emergency, appointed and programme. Emergency repairs should be attended to within 24 hours. There are no timescales in the policy for appointed repairs, which the landlord describes as repairs that, if left, could develop into a safety hazard or affect the enjoyment of the home. The policy states only that appointed repairs should be carried out at a time and date agreed with the tenant. The repairs that are the subject of this complaint would be categorised as appointed repairs. Programme repairs are non-urgent repairs which do not affect the safety or enjoyment of the property. The policy states that these repairs should be completed within a three month period.
The landlord’s complaints policy in force at the time had two stages. Stage one complaints were to be dealt with by an appropriate manager. Stage two complaints were to be heard by an internal panel to include a head of service or director plus a board member and/or tenant representative. No timescales for responses were included in the complaints policy.
The landlord has a compensation policy. This states that discretionary compensation of between £50 and £250 can be paid where there is service failure resulting in some impact on the resident. Awards of between £250 and £700 can be paid where there has been considerable service failure with no permanent impact on the resident. Compensation in excess of £700 can be paid where there has been maladministration that has had a severe long-term impact on the resident.

Summary of events

The resident first reported repairs to her bathroom and kitchen on 9 March 2021. She said that her kitchen tap was leaking and the worktop had become swollen and warped. She also reported that there was a problem with her bathroom sink and taps. The landlord’s repairs logs show that an inspection was arranged on 27 April 2021 and an appointment was raised for 19 May 2021; however, the resident subsequently requested that this appointment be rescheduled as it was not convenient for her.
A job was raised on 7 June 2021 for the works to be completed on 12 July 2021. When contractors attended on the 12 July 2021, the resident was not in. When they contacted her by phone she informed them that she had left the key and that the contractors could let themselves into the property. However, the landlord advised the contractors that the appointment should be rebooked for when the resident was at home.
The appointment was rebooked for 10 August 2021, when some of the works in the bathroom were completed. The contractors reported to the landlord that they would need to return to refit the bathroom sink, however, they had completed a temporary repair to the sink in the meantime.
Three appointments were arranged to undertake the works between August 2021 and September 2021. One of the appointments was cancelled by the resident as she felt that she had been given insufficient advance notice. Two other appointments were cancelled by the contractor. The resident was later informed by the landlord that the contractors had ceased trading following a bereavement and that the job had been passed back to the landlord to allocate to new contractors.
The resident raised a complaint via the landlord’s webpage on 23 September 2021 about the length of time it had taken for the landlord to complete repairs to her kitchen and bathroom. She referred to the missed appointments in August and September 2021 and she said that the property was not safe as the bathroom sink was not attached to the wall. She also felt that operatives who had attended did not take due care when undertaking works as they had not worn shoe coverings.
The landlord contacted the resident by telephone the same day to discuss the complaint. In addition to the issues raised in her earlier correspondence, the resident said that her kitchen worktop had not yet been replaced. The landlord sent the resident a follow up email that day to clarify what had been discussed. It also noted that it was recorded on the landlord’s IT systems that the resident had requested that repairs appointments be scheduled on a Wednesday only. The landlord asked the resident to clarify whether this remained the case so that it could update its systems.
On 27 September 2021, the resident emailed the landlord and provided further details in relation to her complaint:
1. She stated that her bathroom taps did not work.
2. The toilet did not flush unless she manually used the lever in the cistern.
The landlord responded on 29 September 2021 and informed the resident that her correspondence would be forwarded to the officer investigating her complaint.
On 6 October 2021, the landlord called the resident to report that works had been passed to the contractor and that it would ask that they be prioritised.
On 8 October 2021, the landlord issued its stage one complaint response:
1. It apologised for missed appointments in August and September 2021. It noted that an appointment did go ahead on the 10 August 2021.
2. Contractors would be attending on 21 October 2021.
3. £50 in compensation was offered to the resident because of the delays.
On 8 October 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to cancel the appointment for works on 21 October 2021. The contractors attended on that date to measure up, and it was agreed that the works would be completed on a separate date. The landlord’s repairs logs record the works as undertaken on 17 November 2021. The contractors had included a note that they had offered to return later that month to finish any outstanding works and complete a post-inspection but that the resident had said that she was not available as a family member was unwell. She told them that she would call in the New Year to arrange a new appointment.
The landlord’s internal correspondence shows that arrangements had been made to undertake the remaining works in January 2022, but the resident contacted it to cancel the appointment as she was unwell. She was offered an alternative date which she said she could not do. The resident had said that her circumstances had changed and she was now only available on a Saturday. As a result, the contractor was having difficulty finding operatives who were willing to work overtime on the weekend as they were only contracted to work on weekdays. However, it had provisionally booked an appointment with the resident for the last weekend in March 2022.
On 2 February 2022, the resident asked to escalate her complaint as she said that the works had not yet been completed. This was acknowledged by the landlord on 8 February 2022. The resident contacted the landlord for further information about its stage two complaints process on 10 February 2022. On 22 February 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident to let her know that a panel meeting would need to be convened as part of their stage two complaints process. The panel would include a head of service, a director and a board member or tenant representative. The resident raised further queries by email on 22 February 2022 and on 28 February 2022 she wrote to the landlord to express dissatisfaction that she had received no further information about the process. On 8 March 2022, she was informed by email that the landlord was waiting for the panel hearing to be scheduled and it would be in contact with her once this had been done.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 6 April 2022 to inform her that the panel meeting had been scheduled for Wednesday 20 April 2022 at 3pm. The resident replied that she was not available on that date and that an appointment would need to be arranged for a Thursday or Friday in the late afternoon.
The landlord replied on 13 April 2022 that it had had difficulties in scheduling the panel meeting given the resident’s limited availability. An alternative date of the 29 April 2022 was offered which the resident said was convenient. On the date of the panel meeting, however, the resident was unable to join the meeting remotely using the weblink provided. The meeting proceeded in her absence. The resident then contacted the landlord to object that the meeting went ahead without her and requested that it be rescheduled. The landlord agreed to this and a new meeting went ahead on 11 May 2022.
On 18 May 2022, the landlord issued its stage two complaint response:
1. It confirmed that the resident had asked to escalate her complaint because the following repairs were outstanding:
  1. There were loose taps to the bathroom wash hand basin.
  2. There was a dislodged kitchen sink overflow outlet.
  3. There was incomplete sealant around the kitchen worktop.
2. The landlord said that the repairs originally raised by the resident in March 2021 were not completed until November 2021. This was because its in-house team did not have capacity at the time to complete the repairs. This was then outsourced to a contractor but when the original contractor could not undertake the works due to operational difficulties, it then had to be passed to an alternative contractor.
3. The landlord apologised for the delays and offered £400 to compensate the resident for her inconvenience and distress.
4. The landlord’s contractor would be contacting the resident on her return from holiday to arrange an appointment to undertake the outstanding works.
On 18 May 2022, the resident responded to the landlord to express disappointment that the issue with her toilet had not been considered as part of the complaint and to request that the compensation be increased to £600. The landlord informed the resident on 24 May 2022 that the panel had agreed to increase her compensation.
The resident cancelled an appointment for works to be completed on 2 June 2022. On 7 June 2022, the landlord informed the resident that an amount of the compensation had been credited to her rent account and the balance had been paid into her bank account. She was also informed that the contractor would be contacting her to reschedule the cancelled appointment.
On 8 June 2022, the contractors sent a text message to the resident to arrange a new appointment. The resident responded that she was starting a new job the following day and that she would contact them to rearrange the appointment.
The landlord emailed the resident on 21 June 2022 to raise that the contractor had made several attempts to contact her to arrange a new time to undertake the outstanding works. It asked the resident to let it know some convenient dates so that this appointment could be rearranged.
On 24 June 2022, the landlord emailed the resident to let her know that a new appointment had been scheduled for 29 June 2022. The contractors had arranged to complete plumbing works on 9 July 2022.
The landlord had recorded the works as completed on the 11 July 2022, with post-inspection signed off on 13 July 2022.
The resident referred her complaint to this Service for investigation on 23 August 2022 on the basis that she had been unhappy with delays to repairs and that her kitchen waste pipe was still leaking.

Assessment and findings

With regards to the records provided by the landlord, it has not always been clear when repairs were raised, when they were completed, and the reasons for any delays. This has meant that further enquiries of the landlord have been necessary in order to complete the investigation. Good record keeping is vital in order to create an audit trail and to allow any issues with service delivery to be identified. This Service has therefore included a recommendation with this report that the landlord reviews its record keeping processes in line with the recommendations included in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023).

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to her kitchen and bathroom

The repairs to the bathroom and kitchen were reported by the resident on 9 March 2021 and raised in May 2021. The landlord had explained in its stage two complaint response that this initial delay of two months was due to the repairs having to be outsourced as the landlord’s in-house team did not have capacity to undertake the works.
It is not evident from the records provided, however, that a timely explanation for these delays was provided to the resident with an estimate of when works could commence. Better communication with the resident would have helped provide a clear picture of the actions that were being taken to address the issue and would have reassured the resident that matters were in hand. Instead, the resident was inconvenienced as she had to chase for updates regarding repairs.
After some of the works were started in August 2021, the contractors ceased to trade and the landlord needed to source an alternative contractor with capacity to undertake this work. This delay was unforeseen and outside of the landlord’s control. The landlord communicated the reasons for the delay to the resident.
The landlord’s contractors did have difficulty in accessing the property to undertake the works from May 2021 to July 2022. While the tenancy agreement stipulated that the resident must allow access to her property on 24 hours’ notice, the landlord took a flexible and customer-focused approach by agreeing to arrange appointments around the resident’s limited availability. The resident had initially said that appointments could only go ahead on a Wednesday because of her work commitments. This later changed to a Saturday. Consequently there were some delays in scheduling appointments as, in order for works to be undertaken on a Saturday, the contractors had to find operatives who were willing to work outside of their contracted working hours.
While it is acknowledged that there was a significant delay between the repairs being reported in March 2021 and the majority of the works being completed in July 2022, for much of this time the delays were due to issues with access to the property. This Service notes that some of the appointments were cancelled by the resident for unavoidable reasons such as illness or family commitments. The resident had also cancelled appointments where she considered that she had not been given adequate notice of them. This Service accepts that the resident may have had difficulties arranging time off work during the week, however, just as the landlord has obligations to undertake repairs within a reasonable time, under the terms of her tenancy, the resident was obligated to allow the landlord reasonable access to her home on 24 hours’ notice. While the landlord took a flexible approach to this by arranging appointments at the resident’s convenience, this inevitably caused delays to the works.
Where the delays were the fault of the landlord due to operational challenges, however, the reasons for these delays were not always communicated to the resident in a timely manner. Accordingly the resident’s expectations for service delivery were not met.
In the resident’s correspondence with the landlord she has asked to be compensated for loss of wages for having to be at home to allow contractors access to the property. This Service would not usually propose a remedy of compensation to reimburse a resident for loss of wages or loss of employment whilst repairs are carried out. Although such works will inevitably cause some inconvenience to residents, it is a contractual requirement under the terms of a tenancy agreement for a resident to allow reasonable access to their home for repairs to be carried out. It would not be fair or reasonable, therefore, for the Ombudsman to order a landlord to pay a resident reimbursement for loss of earnings for routine appointments. However, there may be circumstances where the Ombudsman decides that it is appropriate to make an order that a landlord pays compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused, for example, where repairs appointments are repeatedly missed or fail to resolve the repair issue.
In its stage two complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that the delays had caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. It offered an apology and compensation of £400 which was increased to £600 at the resident’s request. The landlord’s offer of redress was reasonable. Further, by reviewing its offer of compensation, it demonstrated that it was responsive to the resident in reconsidering the impact of its service failure on her. Overall, the landlord’s offer of compensation regarding this aspect of the complaint was fair and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
The resident reported to this Service in August 2022 that the problem with her kitchen sink overflow pipe was still ongoing. The landlord’s records state that the outstanding repairs, as listed in the stage two complaint response, were completed on 11 July 2022. The landlord’s repair logs do not evidence that this particular repair was raised again by the resident after July 2022, therefore, no finding has been made in relation to the overflow pipe. However, an order has been included with this report that this issue be investigated should it remain outstanding.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s toilet.

In the resident’s referral to this Service she said that the landlord had not investigated her reports of repairs to her toilet as part of her complaint. The landlord had responded to advise this Service that the resident had not included this, either as part of her original complaint or her escalation request. From the evidence provided to this Service, the resident did raise this issue at the time of her stage one complaint in an email dated 27 September 2021 and she was informed by the landlord that the email would be passed to the officer who was investigating her complaint. This Service has therefore considered the toilet repair as part of this investigation.
The landlord’s repair records show that works were raised to fix the toilet flush in August 2020, but closed in September 2020 following a no-access visit. Works were raised again in October 2020 and were marked as completed. It is unclear from the records provided whether the resident had reported the issue with the toilet as a new repair between October 2020 and her email dated 27 September 2021. If she had not, then it would have been reasonable for the landlord to raise the issue as a service request rather than a complaint in September 2021.
However, there is no record of the repair being raised, following either the resident’s email of 27 September 2021 or in her email of 18 May 2022. Instead, records show that the repair was raised in December 2022 and marked as completed on 17 January 2023. This was an unreasonable delay. No explanation has been provided by the landlord for the delay. The resident made further reports of repairs to her toilet in March and June 2023. It is unclear from the landlord’s records whether these repairs relate to the same issue, however, clearly the toilet repair was a source of distress and frustration to the resident.
After careful consideration, this Service makes a finding of maladministration in relation to this aspect of the complaint for which a further award of compensation is warranted.
In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, an award of from £100 can be made in instances where there was a failure by the landlord which adversely affected the resident. The resident had raised the issue with her toilet with the landlord on a number of occasions and it is evident that the delays to this repair had caused her considerable distress. In In view of the significant delays in repairing the resident’s toilet, the landlord is ordered to pay her £400 to resolve this aspect of the complaint.

The landlord’s complaints handling

Although there were no target timescales for response, according to its complaints policy in force at the time of the complaint, the landlord acted reasonably by notifying the resident that it intended to respond to her stage one complaint by 7 October 2021. This was within 10 working days of the complaint being made. When it anticipated that there would be a delay in its response, the landlord notified the resident of the delay in advance of the deadline and provided a new timescale for response, seven days thereafter. The landlord issued its stage one response in advance of the new deadline.
The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 2 February 2022 and this was acknowledged by the landlord on 8 February 2022. A panel meeting was not convened until 20 April 2022. The landlord’s initial communication in response to the resident’s request to escalate her complaint was lacking. She was not given information about the process or the timescales for a meeting. As a result the resident was put to time and effort chasing for further information.
It was not until 13 April 2022 that the landlord wrote to the resident to explain that there were difficulties scheduling the meeting as the notes on the landlord’s IT systems had recorded that the resident was only available on a Wednesday. The resident had responded that this information was inaccurate and then provided updated information about her availability. This Service notes that the resident had been asked previously by the landlord in email correspondence dated 23 September 2021 to confirm with it whether she was still only available for appointments on a Wednesday. It is not evident from the information provided to this Service that the resident had responded. However, given that seven months had elapsed since this contact, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have made further enquiries about the resident’s availability for the purposes of scheduling the panel meeting.
The landlord’s initial communication with the resident about the stage two complaints process was unsatisfactory, which could have led to some delays in scheduling the panel meeting. No finding has been made by this Service for the delays between April and May 2022 in arranging the meeting as this was due to technical difficulties which was not something that the landlord could have foreseen.
The landlord’s complaints procedure in place at the time of the resident’s complaint did not comply with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. However, the landlord has since updated its policy which is now compliant with the Code.
In the Ombudsman’s view, there were failings in the landlord’s complaints handling as its initial communication with the resident about her complaint escalation was lacking. This caused her detriment as she had to chase for information about the process and the panel meeting date had to be rescheduled. The Ombudsman therefore makes a finding of service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling and orders that the landlord make a payment of £75 to the resident.

Determination (decision)

As noted above, in accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme, the complaint about the conduct of the landlord’s contractors is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
Also as noted above, in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, the complaint about repair issues with the resident’s boiler is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint regarding its handling of the resident’s reports about repairs to her toilet.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its complaints handling.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to her kitchen and bathroom, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident prior to this investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s view, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

While there were delays to works being undertaken, some of these delays were for reasons outside of the landlord’s control. This included problems sourcing contractors and limited access to the property due to the resident’s work commitments. Where delays could be attributed to the landlord, however, the reasons for delays were not always communicated to the resident. The landlord accepted that there were service failures and offered an amount in compensation that was reasonable.
The toilet repairs were not raised in a timely manner and were subject to unreasonable delays which caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord‘s communication with the resident regarding the escalation of her complaint was lacking which may have led to delays in the panel meeting being convened.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £1075 comprising:
1. £600 previously offered to the resident by the landlord for service failures in relation to its handling of the repairs to the resident’s bathroom and kitchen;
2. £400 for distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its service failures in relation to its handling of the repairs to the resident’s toilet;
3. £75 for its complaints handling failures.
This replaces the landlord’s offer of £600. If the landlord had previously paid the resident the amount of £600, the balance of £475 is to be paid to the resident.
Within four weeks, the landlord is to provide this Service with confirmation of payment. The payment of compensation should not be set-off against any tenancy debt or arrears.
Within four weeks, the landlord is to contact the resident to make arrangements to inspect and repair her toilet and kitchen overflow pipe, should these repairs remain outstanding.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord review its record-keeping procedures in line with the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023).