ForHousing Limited (202206393)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202206393

ForHousing Limited

28 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

1. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a collapsed drain and its handling of the associated repairs.
   2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a fly infestation.
   3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

2. The resident had an assured tenancy agreement at the time the complaint was made. The tenancy was transferred to another person in July 2023. The property is a 2-bedroom house. There are no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident on the landlord’s records.
3. The resident reported a leak on the soil stack on 22 March 2021. He said the leak was underneath the kitchen floor and there was a horrible smell. The landlord attended on 25 March 2021 and completed a repair to the base of the soil stack. The resident contacted the landlord again on 29 March 2021. He said there was still an issue with the soil stack and flies were coming out of the hole that had been filled on the 25 March 2021.
4. The resident contacted the landlord on 5 July 2021 and said there were flies behind the kitchen cupboard. He also said the filler used to seal the hole around the soil stack was cracked. A job was raised to remove the kitchen units, disconnect the pipework and gas and renew a section of the soil stack underneath the kitchen floor. The job was subsequently rearranged to ensure all of the trades attended at the same time.
5. The resident complained on 18 August 2021. He said there were ongoing issues regarding the drains which had caused an infestation of flies. He also said operatives had attended but not together as stated on the repair ticket.
6. The landlord attended on 22 September 2021 and replaced the damaged drain. The kitchen cupboards were refitted on 24 September 2021 after the concrete on the kitchen floor had dried. The resident contacted the landlord on the same day. He said he was left without water for 6 hours and the plumber did not reconnect the earth wires. He also said the kitchen unit was badly refitted, another unit was damaged and a screw was left protruding out of the cupboard. The resident asked for these issues to be added to his complaint. The landlord visited the same day and reconnected the water. It also reattached the earth wires and loosened the protruding screw.
7. The resident’s complaint was acknowledged on 19 October 2021. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 8 February 2022. It apologised for the delay in responding and said this was due to the wrong telephone number being given to its planning team. It said the kitchen unit could not be refitted until 24 September 2021 because the concrete was still wet. It also said no issues were identified with the kitchen when it was inspected.
8. The resident asked for his complaint to be escalated on 24 February 2022. He said the landlord had taken too long to carry out the repairs and had ‘‘brushed this aside’’ in its complaint response. He also said it had been hard work to get the landlord to believe him and it had not learnt anything from the complaint. He noted some of the details in the complaint response were incorrect and the landlord had failed to offer an apology or compensation.
9. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 28 April 2022. It said the stage 1 complaint investigation had been thorough and covered all the issues raised by the resident. It offered the resident £100 compensation.
10. The resident’s complaint was accepted by this Service on 29 June 2022. He said the landlord had not acknowledged the problems or learnt from the mistakes it made. It also failed to follow its complaints procedure and its responses included inaccuracies. The resident said he wanted an apology and compensating for the inconvenience, stress and time wasted having to pursue the matter.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a collapsed drain and its handling of the associated repairs.

11. The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms the landlord is responsible for the structure of the building including drains. It also says the landlord will keep in repair and proper working order any installations provided for sanitation and the supply of water. The resident is responsible for reporting any repairs.
12. It was appropriate for the landlord to attend the property on 25 March 2021 following the report of a leak on the soil stack. This was in accordance with its repairs policy. This says the landlord will attend to urgent repairs within 3 working days. Whilst the landlord arranged for the base of the soil stack to be repaired, there is no evidence it carried out a drain survey at this point. This would have been appropriate given the resident’s reports of a leak and a horrible smell. This was a missed opportunity.
13. It is unclear from the housing records, what action was taken by the landlord following the resident’s further report on 29 March 2021. Neither is there any evidence the landlord kept the resident updated. It is important to note that accurate record keeping is essential and helps ensure landlords meet their repair obligations. As a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord also has an obligation to provide this Service with sufficient information to enable a thorough investigation to be undertaken. It failed to do so in this case.
14. It was appropriate for the landlord to arrange an inspection following the resident’s report on 5 July 2021 that the repair to the soil stack had not worked. It did not, however, treat the report as urgent, even though it classified repairs that affect health and safety as urgent repairs.
15. It was appropriate for the landlord to arrange for a section of the drain to be replaced following the inspection. There is, however, no evidence the planned works were treated as urgent even though the landlord knew at this point that the drain had collapsed. There is also no evidence it coordinated the work. This would have been appropriate given several trades were required. The landlord’s failure to do this led to abortive visits, confusion and delays in carrying out the required work. This caused the resident inconvenience and was not in accordance with the landlord’s repairs policy. This says the landlord takes a ‘right first time’ approach.
16. Although the drain was replaced on 22 September 2021, the landlord had to return on 24 September 2021 to refit the kitchen unit and reinstate the water meter. There is no evidence the resident was made aware it would take several days for the works to be completed. This caused the resident additional inconvenience. It was reasonable for the landlord to return on the same day to reconnect the water, reattach the earth wires and loosen the protruding screw.
17. In summary, the time taken to diagnose and fix the drain was unreasonable. The landlord did not coordinate the work effectively or keep the resident updated. This caused the resident inconvenience and distress. It is evident the resident did not feel listened to and believed the landlord did not believe him.
18. In determining whether there has been service failure or maladministration, we consider both the events that initially prompted the complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which the landlord has recognised any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. In this case, the landlord failed to recognise any delays or service failures. Neither did it offer an apology for this.  Given these failings, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of a collapsed drain and its handling of the associated repairs.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a fly infestation.

19. The resident’s tenancy agreement says the resident was responsible for taking reasonable steps to protect his home against damage caused by pest infestations. Whilst the tenancy agreement is silent on the landlord’s responsibilities and it does not have any specific policy regarding pest infestations, it is responsible for pest infestations where there is clear evidence the pests are entering via a building defect. This Service expects landlords to investigate and establish the source of any reported pest infestation. Landlords are also expected to monitor the situation and provide residents with a timescale for the completion of any required works, where appropriate.
20. The housing records confirm the resident first reported a fly infestation in March 2021. He also noted that the flies were coming out of the hole in the soil stack that was filled by the landlord. There is no evidence the landlord acted on this report or attempted to identify the source of the infestation. Neither is there any evidence it signposted the resident to the council’s environmental health team or took steps to monitor the situation. This was not appropriate. The resident made a further report on 5 July 2021. Whilst it was appropriate for the landlord to arrange for the soil stack to be repaired, the resident continued to experience problems with flies until the works were completed on 22 September 2021.
21. This Service acknowledges the fly infestation caused the resident distress and impacted on his daily living for several months. It is also evident he reported his concerns to the landlord on numerous occasions and spent time pursuing the matter even though he felt the landlord was not listening to him. Given the failings identified, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of this element of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

22. Whilst the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint, it did not do this until 19 October 2021; some 2 months after the complaint was raised. This was not appropriate or in accordance with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code. This says landlords must acknowledge and log a complaint within five days of receipt. The landlord said it would provide the resident with a response by 2 November 2021. This was in line with its complaints policy.
23. The landlord did not issue its stage 1 complaint response until 8 February 2021. Whilst it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for the delay, it did not fully address the resident’s complaint. In particular, the landlord did not provide an explanation for the delay in diagnosing and carrying out the work. Neither did it address his complaint about the fly infestation. This was not in accordance with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code. This says landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate. The response also included an inaccuracy in relation to the resident’s comments about the damaged kitchen unit.
24. The landlord did not apologise for the delay in carrying out the required works or offer compensation in accordance with its compensation guidance. This says it will consider offering compensation where there has been significant inconvenience, distress or detriment as a result of its actions or inaction. Awards between £250 and £600 are considered for short term, moderate inconvenience, distress or detriment. The landlord’s failure to offer compensation or an apology for the delays in carrying out the work in its stage 1 complaint response was a missed opportunity to put things right for the resident.
25. The landlord’s final complaint response was not issued until April 2022; some 8 months after the initial complaint was made. This was not appropriate and caused further distress for the resident. There is no evidence the landlord told the resident there would be a delay or sought to understand his concerns or the outcomes he was seeking. Again, it failed to fully address the resident’s complaint. This was a missed opportunity to put things right for the resident.
26. When considering how a landlord has responded to a complaint, this Service considers not just what has gone wrong, but also what the landlord has done to put things right in response to the complaint. This includes the steps the landlord has taken to address the shortcoming and prevent a reoccurrence, as well as any compensation offered. In this case, the landlord has failed to satisfy this Service that it carried out a thorough and meaningful investigation into the resident’s complaint. Whilst the landlord offered £100 compensation, it is unclear what this was offered for and there is no evidence it took any learning from the complaint. This Service’s dispute resolution principles encourage landlords to not just resolve the immediate complaint, but to learn from outcomes in order to improve its wider service delivery. Considering these failings, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

27. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of a collapsed drain and its handling of the associated repairs.
28. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of a fly infestation.
29. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

30. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to offer the resident an apology for the failings set out in this report.
31. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay £550 compensation directly to the resident, made up as follows:
    1. £150 in recognition for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident for the delays in diagnosing and repairing the broken drain and its handling of the associated repairs.
    2. £150 in recognition for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in its handling of his reports of a fly infestation.
    3. £150 in recognition for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of his complaint.
    4. £100 previously offered to the resident, if this has not already been paid.

Recommendations

32. Review its record keeping practices, with particular reference to the Ombudsman’s spotlight review on knowledge and information management.