ForHousing Limited (202006822)

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202006822

ForHousing Limited

12 January 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 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.

Our approach

1. 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.
2. 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

3. The complaint is about:
   1. the landlord’s handling of roof repairs.
   2. The complaint is also about the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

Background and policies

4. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, at the property, initially commencing a tenancy agreement on 14 September 1999.
5. The landlord’s ‘Repairs and Maintenance’ procedural guidance and policy documents set out how the landlord will classify and respond to repairs, including target timeframes in which it aims to respond.  The landlord will attend ‘emergency repairs’ within 24 hours, ‘urgent repairs’ within three working days, ‘routine repairs’ within 10 working days, ‘planned repairs’ within 21 working days and ‘batch repairs’ within 100 working days.  Where a repair cannot be carried out within the articulated timeframe, the landlord will let the resident know and provide a revised timescale within which they can expect works to be completed.
6. The landlord has adopted a two-stage formal complaints procedure; at stage one, the landlord aims to ‘get it sorted’ prior to any formal investigation.  What is meant by this is that the landlord will try to resolve the problem within five working days, usually by having a telephone discussion with the complainant.
7. Where a complainant is dissatisfied with the landlord’s early attempt to resolve the issue, they can request the landlord move to its ‘investigate it’ phase of the stage one complaints procedure.  The landlord will investigate the matter and provide a written response within 10 working days.
8. Where a complainant remains dissatisfied with the outcome of their complaint at stage one, they may request that it is ‘reviewed’ at stage two of the landlord’s complaints procedure.  The landlord will provide a response at stage two, within 15 working days. Where the landlord is unable to meet its articulated timescales for responding to a complaint, it will advise the complainant of this, explain why and let them know by when they can expect to receive a response.

Summary of events

9. The landlord’s records indicate issues with the roof leaking, specifically, the ceiling bubbling and plasterboards being more prominent, being first reported on 30 May 2018.  In response, the landlord attended a month later, on 27 June 2018 and carried out an inspection. There is no further information as to what specific repairs or action the landlord did or did not take at this time, however, no further reports were made until over a year later, when on 16 August 2019, the landlord attended the property following the resident reporting the roof leaking, earlier that day.  The outcome of the inspection was that further investigation, as well as repair works, were needed.
10. The landlord’s records indicate that six days later, on 22 August 2019, the resident reported the issue with the leaking roof again.
11. On 24 September 2019, works to repair the roof at the property were marked as ‘closed as delivered’ on the landlord’s systems, as a date had been agreed for them to go ahead. The resident was given a target timeframe of 5 March 2020 for the works to be completed.
12. The landlord’s records indicate that the landlord attended to inspect the roof again on both 11 October and 7 and 12 November 2019 and then again on 14 January 2020.
13. On 4 March 2020, the resident made a complaint to the landlord about the delay in carrying out repairs to the roof. In a telephone call, the landlord discussed the matter with the resident, apologising for the delay.  It advised her that it had arranged for a surveyor to attend the property and scheduled the works to be completed on 24 March 2020.  The documentation provided to this Service indicate that it was discussed how the roof was not actively leaking at this time.
14. On 24 March 2020, the works could not be completed because when the roofer arrived, the scaffolding had not been erected.
15. The works were then delayed thereafter due to the country entering a national lockdown due to the global pandemic; restrictions were placed on landlords, prohibiting all non-urgent works.
16. On 26 March 2020, the landlord telephoned the resident to apologise that the works had not gone ahead and explain why.  It said that once the national lock-down was over, it would reschedule.
17. On 2 June 2020, the landlord telephoned the resident and advised that roof works had been booked to go ahead on 24 June 2020.
18. On 24 June 2020 the works did not go ahead, however, but instead an inspection took place and the repair works were scheduled for 22 July 2020; the landlord let the resident know this on 26 June 2020.
19. On 22 July 2020, the works again did not go ahead, which was again due to the required scaffolding having not been installed. On the same date, the landlord contacted the resident to discuss the delay and during this call she expressed that she wanted her complaint escalated through the landlord’s complaints process and this was done the following day.
20. On 27 July 2020, the landlord responded to the complaint at stage one of its complaints process.  It apologised for the two failed appointments and said that the contractors had been spoken with and the matter had been “dealt with internally”.  It said that the works had now been rescheduled for 7 August 2020.
21. On 7 August 2020, the repair did not go ahead again.  The landlord stated that this was due to no access, although the resident was at the property at the time.
22. On 11 September 2020, the complaint was escalated to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process, following the resident’s request for it to do so.
23. On 22 September 2020 the works to the roof were completed and a week later, the landlord responded to the complaint at stage two of its complaints process (although the resident has said she did not receive the response). The landlord found that there was “unacceptable delay” in carrying out the works and that this has caused the resident “significant distress and upset”, for which it apologised.  It acknowledged that in its earlier response to the complaint had failed to address the history of the situation or acknowledge the impact on the resident.
24. The landlord explained that it would use the complaint as learning to help prevent a future recurrence and offered the resident £200 compensation in recognition of the distress and upset caused by the delay.  It asked her to provide an itemised list of possessions she said had been damaged as a result of the delay to the repair, in order for it to pass this into its insurance team. The landlord has provided this Service a copy of its learning log from September 2020 which confirms that its contractor had appointed a new supervisor to oversee the multi trade jobs.  The log also confirms that the landlord sought to work alongside the manager at the contractor with overall responsibility for the planning works to establish whether it could change the way of working for the planning team, insofar as all planners were responsible for a certain trade and where multi elements were involved this could fall down if works not planned effectively.

Post complaint

25. The resident submitted the requested list of items, amounting to a total of £670, which the landlord agreed to pay.  It advised that it needed the resident’s bank details in order to pay her both this amount and the compensation amount of £200, stating that it was unable to send a cheque due to Covid-19 and home working. The resident was uncomfortable with providing her bank details and wanted to wait for the outcome of the Ombudsman’s investigation before accepting any financial payment.
26. Although the roofing works were completed in September 2020, the resident has stated that there were continued issues with interrelated works, including inspection of the roofing insulation, which continued to cause difficulties, with the landlord not arriving when planned, causing further inconvenience, stress and delay.

Assessment and findings

27. Once on notice, the landlord was required to carry out the repairs it was responsible for, within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with its obligations under the terms of the tenancy and in law; specifically, Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
28. Having appropriately attended and inspected the issue, early on, in accordance with the timescales set out in its repairs policy and procedural guidance, it then delayed in carrying out the repair works, which were not completed until September 2020; over a year from the issue being reported. Even taking into account the national lockdown and restrictions on repair, the time it took the landlord to complete the required repairs was inappropriate. It was inappropriate because the works were not completed within the landlord’s specified timeframes for completion or within what would be considered to be a reasonable period of time.
29. Not only were the repair works significantly delayed, but they were delayed because of failings on the part of the landlord to ensure that they could go ahead, namely, by ensuring the installation of scaffolding.  Sometimes mistakes do happen; human error and infallibility can mean that delays can and do occur. What is important, however, is that the landlord seeks to understand what went wrong and why and takes steps to put things right and prevent a recurrence of the issue. In this case, the landlord unacceptably forgot to install the scaffolding on a further occasion.  The works did then not go ahead on a third occasion, for a reason unknown; whilst the landlord has said this was due to the resident being out, she was at the property and moreover, there is no indication as to the roof repair works being reliant on access to the resident’s property. The landlord appears to have accepted in its correspondence that the failed appointment was not due to lack of access, however no explanation for this has been given.
30. Additionally, the resident’s expectations were not managed in respect of timeframe for repair; the initial timeframe of 5 March 2020 was missed with no explanation or update and the landlord’s communication that repairs would go ahead on 24 June 2020, was in fact a further inspection, rather than repair.
31. The frustration and upset experienced by the resident due to the delay was exacerbated by the lack of expectation management as well as a lack of explanation for the delay and repeated further delays, which gave rise to the resident losing faith and trust in the landlord and becoming detrimental to the landlord-tenant relationship, which the landlord did not take steps to repair. The landlord’s handling of the situation overall, did not indicate that it was taking the matter sufficiently seriously.
32. There is a lack of information as to the actual temporary repair works being carried out, although there undoubtedly were intermediate actions taken, which prevented the roof from continuously leaking for over a year.  Whilst the landlord’s records note that there was agreement the roof was not leaking at a particular point in time, this did not negate the landlord’s responsibility to carry out the repairs it was required to do.
33. A severe leak would move the repair into an emergency category, however, the landlord remained obligated to carry out non-emergency repair works in good time; the fact the roof was not continuously severely leaking did not mean that the situation was necessarily less stressful or upsetting as an urgent one. It is clear that there was damage to possessions due to the leak and there was an unnecessarily enduring unresolved problem, which was causing not only inconvenience but distress.
34. The landlord has acknowledged that there were long delays involved in the roof repairs, contrary to its policy standards. It investigated these delays, providing evidence in the form of its complaint log for the incident, which confirms that a new supervisor had been appointed on “multi-trade jobs” and it was considering making planning changes. It was appropriate that the landlord stated in its complaint response that it had spoken with the contractor, so as to prevent further failed appointments, and was dealing with the matter internally. It has provided evidence of this as well as of the learnings that arose from the complaint.

 

35. The landlord’s offer of £200, in conjunction with the apology offered for the unacceptable delay, was appropriate in reflecting the distress and inconvenience caused as a result of the delays. In reaching this decision the Ombudsman has considered its guidance on remedies for service failure and finds that this sum reflects the level of service failure demonstrated by the landlord for its failure to repair the roof within its policy timescales. The amount the landlord offered was in line with what would be considered the upper end of service failure.

 

36. In terms of damage to possessions, the landlord assisted the resident in making a claim. It is ordinary practice for a landlord to ask a resident to provide it with a list of items in order for it to process through its insurance team and this is what the landlord did. Its subsequent request for bank details was also reasonable and is common practice; the landlord missed an opportunity to reassure the resident of this, however, and to allay her security concerns. The landlord could not send a cheque due to home working during the pandemic and the Ombudsman finds this to be an acceptable explanation.

 

37. The resident has expressed her dissatisfaction that issues related to the roof continued thereafter including the landlord failing to turn up to carry out inspections when it was due to.  Whilst this was not part of the initial complaint, it has further added to the resident’s experience of the landlord not doing the things it says it will do and within good time.  No evidence has been provided to support or refute this; therefore, the Ombudsman is unable to find service failure on the basis of these reported residual issues. In any event, the Ombudsman would expect that the repairs are fully and satisfactorily resolved as quickly as possible, and a recommendation has been made in this regard.
38. In terms of complaint handling, the landlord responded to the complaint within the timescales set out in its complaints policy, although its responses were unsatisfactory in a number of ways.  The landlord did not use the opportunity early on, to convey its understanding and empathy in respect of the impact on the resident.  However, this was expressed in its stage two response, where the landlord acknowledged the distress and inconvenience the resident had been caused as a result of the delays. It also made clear that it was implementing service improvements, as discussed above.

37.The requirement to carry out repairs to the roof did not commence when the resident made her complaint on 4 March 2020, but from when the repairs to the roof were initially identified. Though the stage one response also did not refer to the history of the complaint, the landlord appropriately acknowledged this in its stage two response, in which it also apologised for the “series of failures” and distress caused to the resident. This Service considers that it would also have been appropriate to offer a small amount of compensation for the shortcomings in the stage one response and for the inconvenience caused and the added time and trouble incurred by the resident in pursuing the complaint; it is vital to the maintenance of the landlord / resident relationship for the landlord to respond appropriately to residents’ complaints. Offering compensation is one of the ways in which it can evidence that it is doing so. An investigation into the issue of a further failed appointment which the landlord had said was due to no access would also have demonstrated the landlord’s willingness to consider the full circumstances of the resident’s complaint and may have contributed to maintaining the landlord / resident relationship.

39.For completeness, in respect of the point about the resident not having received the stage two complaint response, it is not possible to ascertain why this is the case; the landlord wrote the response and states that it sent it to her; once a letter has been posted, the landlord has discharged its responsibility in this regard.  It is unfortunate that the response was not received by her, but the Ombudsman cannot find fault with the landlord in respect of this.

Determination (decision)

38. In accordance with paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made reasonable redress for the identified service failures in its handling of the roof repairs.
39. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

40. The landlord offered reasonable redress for the failures in its handling of the roof repairs, insofar it apologised to the resident for the distress and upset caused to her as a result of these delays, as well as offering compensation and assistance with the claim for damage to her possessions. The award of £200 was appropriate in reflecting the distress and inconvenience caused as a result of the delays. The landlord has also investigated the reasons for the delay and acted on them to make service improvements.
41. There was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaints handling, insofar as it did not, in its stage one response, convey its understanding or empathy towards the resident and the distress she expressed the situation had caused her. The stage one response did not consider or refer to the history of the substantive matters complained about. This was a further shortcoming.

Orders and recommendations

Order

42. The landlord is ordered, within four weeks of the date of this letter, to pay £50 to the resident for the acknowledged shortcomings in the landlord’s stage one response.

Recommendations

43. It is recommended that the landlord ensures that all outstanding repair works required to the roof are completed within three weeks from the date of the review and confirmed in writing to this Service.

 

44. It is recommended that the landlord pays the resident the £895 compensation and sum for her damaged possessions offered by it in resolution of her complaint, if it has not done so already.

 

45.  The landlord is recommended, within two months from the date of this letter, to review its repair procedures and acknowledged learnings from this complaint to ensure that similar failings do not occur in future.