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

ForHousing Limited (202215701)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215701

ForHousing Limited

18 January 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 handling of shed, pointing, glazing, and electrical repairs at the resident’s property.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord of a house.
  2. The resident began reporting to the landlord from October 2021 that his property’s shed’s doors and frame were rotten and needed to be replaced. He subsequently told it in November 2021 that he was unhappy with its proposal to repair instead of replace the shed doors, as he was concerned that these would then need to be repaired again, like his neighbour’s. The landlord then told the resident in December 2021 that it would renew his shed doors by April 2022. Although he informed it at that time that its contractor had left rubbish at his property from their previous pointing works there.
  3. The resident subsequently attempted to make a stage 1 complaint to the landlord in January 2022 about its contractor’s rubbish having still not been removed from his property. He added that he felt that the property’s exterior pointing was poor, was potentially letting rainwater in, and had led to some damp on an interior wall. The landlord then carried out pointing works to his property’s exterior wall in February 2022, but the resident subsequently chased it to complete follow on works for this. He went on to report to it in March 2022 that the follow on works were still outstanding, there was water between the panes of his side kitchen window, and his kitchen cooker switch was buzzing.
  4. The landlord then carried out the follow on works for the pointing at the resident’s property in April 2022. However, he then queried the fact that it had still left up the scaffolding that it used for these repairs at the property. The landlord subsequently replaced the kitchen electrical socket at the resident’s property in May 2022, as well as renewing his shed’s doors and frame and his side kitchen window’s glazing bead. However, he also chased it for stage 1 complaint responses about its handling of the repairs at his property.
  5. The landlord then responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint about its handling of his shed repairs in May 2022 by apologising for the delays in its gate repairs and in its complaint investigation. It explained that he had reported these repairs in December 2021, but that its supervisor did not raise the works needed to allow it to complete these within the 21-day timescale that it had given him. The landlord subsequently raised the repairs for April 2022, but a national shortage of the materials required for these meant that the works were not completed until May 2022. It had therefore raised the matter with its supervisor and offered £25 compensation for the delayed repair.
  6. The landlord also responded separately to the resident’s stage 1 complaint about its handling of his side kitchen window and electrical socket repairs in May 2022. Although it dated its response as May 2021. The landlord apologised for delaying the electrical repair from April to May 2022, as well as that it missed an appointment for the window repair because its operative arrived late without telling the resident. It therefore explained that his feedback had been added to its repairs process journey map to improve its future communication about this, acknowledging that its service had been below the expected standard.
  7. The resident nevertheless asked the landlord to escalate both of his complaints to the final stage of its complaints procedure in May 2022, which he chased a response for in June 2022. He complained that his stage 1 complaint had been about shed and not gate repairs, and that he had reported these in October 2021 and not in December 2021. The resident added that the landlord’s repairs app had given him a different reference numbers and target dates to it, and that he had to chase it to remove the scaffolding for its pointing works at his property for it to repair the shed in May 2022. He was also dissatisfied that the shed doors were not secure and were bowed after its works, that it had taken until June 2022 to remove the rubbish that it had left at the property, and that it had given incorrect dates for his side kitchen window repair.
  8. The landlord’s subsequent final stage complaint response in August 2022 therefore acknowledged and apologised for the inaccurate information in its stage 1 complaint responses. It also agreed to re-inspect and carry out any further works that were identified for the shed. The landlord additionally agreed to investigate its rubbish removal, so that this occurred after repairs in a timely manner. It apologised that this did not occur for the resident, and it gave feedback to its contractor about arriving late without notice for his side kitchen window repair. Moreover, the landlord agreed to ensure that its repairs app was accurate and easy to understand, and to require the next available appointment to be given for follow on and multi-trade works before its operatives left. It agreed for its customer journey mapping to consider its communication and it offered the resident £100 compensation for his frustration and its inaccuracies.
  9. The resident then complained to the Ombudsman that the landlord had delayed and not communicated with him about the repairs to his property. He described having to complete its complaints procedure for these, but that he was still unhappy with the quality of the shed repairs that he considered to be poor and wanted to be inspected and redone. However, the resident reported that the landlord had still not done so, despite agreeing to in its final stage complaint response and subsequently being chased by him for this. It went on to note that it eased and adjusted the swollen shed doors in February 2023, but that he still wanted these to be renewed due to his concerns about their quality, and that it then overhauled the doors in May 2023.

Assessment and findings

Shed, Pointing, Glazing, and Electrical Repairs

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement obliges the landlord to keep his property’s structure and exterior in repair, including external walls and windows. It is also required to keep the property’s electrical installations in repair and working order, including sockets. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy requires it to arrange a further appointment before its operative leaves the property if it cannot complete a repair on the first visit and follow on works are required. It is also obliged to communicate its revised repair timescales to residents if repairs cannot be completed within the stated timescale. The landlord’s website states that it will carry out routine repairs within 30 working days.
  2. The landlord responded to the resident’s report of 11 October 2021 that his shed’s doors and frame were rotten and needed replacing by inspecting and raising works for these by 12 December 2021. It then set target dates for it to complete these shed repairs by 13 and 22 April 2022, but it subsequently carried out the works on 19 May 2022. The landlord attributed this repair delay to its supervisor initially not raising the works needed to repair the shed within the 21-day timescale that it first gave the resident. It explained that it was then further delayed by a national shortage of the materials required to complete the works in April 2022.
  3. However, the resident was also dissatisfied with the standard of the landlord’s shed door repairs, which he reported was poor and had left the doors unsecure and bowed. It therefore responded to his reports of this from 24 June 2022 by agreeing on 5 August 2022 to re-inspect the shed and carry out any further works to this that were identified. The resident nevertheless had to chase the landlord about this on 7 October 2022 before it eased and adjusted his shed doors on 20 February 2023, although he still sought for these to be redone. However, it was only after he chased it again on 14 March 2023, and the Ombudsman subsequently contacted it on 2 April 2023, that it overhauled the shed doors on 20 May 2023.
  4. It is therefore of concern that the landlord delayed completing the resident’s shed door and frame repairs. This is because it did not carry this out within the 21-day timescale that it gave him and its website’s 30-working-day routine repair timescale. The landlord instead took 152 working days from the resident’s report of the works in October 2021 to do these repairs in May 2022. He also considered that it only did so after he chased it to remove the scaffolding from his property on 29 April 2022 to allow this. Furthermore, the landlord failed to follow its repairs and maintenance policy’s requirement for it to communicate its revised repair timescale to the resident in May 2022, as its repairs could not be completed within the stated timescale in April 2022. Its repairs app had also previously given him different timescales and reference numbers for this, which would have added to his confusion.
  5. It is additionally concerning that the landlord was then responsible for more shed repair delays. This was when it took another 167 working days from June 2022 to re-inspect, ease, and adjust the resident’s shed doors in February 2023, and then a further 60 working days to overhaul these in May 2023. This was despite the landlord being chased by him to do so and subsequently being contacted the Ombudsman. This was inappropriate and would have caused the resident unnecessary extra time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience to get these works done. Moreover, the landlord was responsible for its supervisor’s failure to initially raise his shed repairs. Also, while it could not control the national shortage of materials to complete the works in April 2022, there is no evidence that it told the resident this at the time, which was unreasonable.
  6. The resident additionally contacted the landlord about the rubbish that its contractor’s pointing works had left at his property on 17 December 2021. However, despite the fact that he chased it to remove this on 6 January 2022, it did not do so until 1 June 2022. This was another inappropriately excessive delay by the landlord in the resident’s case, as it took 112 working days to remove the rubbish from the property after his initial report about this, instead of within the 30 working days required by its website for such routine repairs. This is particularly because he had to chase it to do so, and it once more did not follow its repairs and maintenance policy’s requirement to communicate its revised timescale to him for this when it did not remove the rubbish within its published timescale.
  7. The resident also reported pointing repairs to his property’s exterior wall’s brickwork to the landlord on 4 January 2022, which it attended within the above 30-working-day repair timescale on 9 February 2022. However, this additionally required follow on works that could not be completed at the time, which it initially marked as complete until he chased it for these on 14 February and 23 March 2022. The landlord then carried out the follow on works for the resident’s pointing on 16 April 2022, which was 46 working days after its initial pointing repairs and 72 working days after he first reported these works to it.
  8. This was a further unreasonably lengthy repair delay by the landlord in the resident’s case, which he had to chase it to complete. This was additionally contrary to its repairs and maintenance policy requirement for it to arrange a further appointment before its operative left the property when it could not complete the repair on the first visit and follow on works were required. Moreover, the landlord again failed communicate its revised repair timescale to the resident when the works could not be completed within the stated timescale, contrary to the policy.
  9. The resident’s reports to the landlord on 22 March and 5 April 2022 that his property’s side kitchen window had condensation between the panes of glass was nevertheless attended by it on 25 April 2022. This was within its website’s 30-working-day routine repair timescale. Although the landlord was unable to gain access to renew the defective glazing beading on that date, and it subsequently failed to complete these works on 3 May 2022. This was after its operative missed its appointment to do so because they were running late and did not inform the resident.
  10. The resident’s side kitchen window repair was therefore completed by the landlord on 25 May 2022. This was 43 working days after his initial report of these works to it in March 2022, which was another repair delay by it in his case that exceeded its website’s above 30-working-day timescale. However, the landlord did initially attend these works within the required timescale in April 2022, and it was not responsible for the fact that it could not gain access to the resident’s property to complete the repair at that time. Although it was responsible for subsequently missing its next appointment to do so in May 2022, and for failing to communicate this to him contrary to its repairs and maintenance policy again. This is as well as failing to rearrange works until after the policy’s timescale to do so, which was inappropriate.
  11. The resident also reported to the landlord on 29 March 2022 that his kitchen’s main cooker switch was buzzing, which it told him that it would complete by 14 April 2022. It nevertheless did not complete works to test his property’s electrics and replace this electrical socket until 4 May 2022. This was 11 working days after the landlord had told the resident that it would carry out this electrical repair, and there is no evidence that it told him that it could not complete these works within its stated timescale. This was once more contrary to its repairs and maintenance policy’s requirement for it to do so. Although in this instance the landlord still carried out the repair within its website’s 30-working-day routine repair timescale.
  12. The resident therefore experienced total repair delays from the landlord in his case of 437 working days. This is because it delayed his shed repairs by 122, 137, and 30 working days later than its website’s above timescale, rubbish removal by 82 working days, pointing by 42 working days, and his side kitchen window by 13 working days. This is together with the above 11-working-day delay between the timescale that the landlord gave the resident for his electrical repair and its completion of this. This was unreasonable and was worsened by its above failures to communicate these delays to him, and the fact that he had to chase it to carry out the above works on at least 6 occasions on the above dates.
  13. The landlord was not responsible for all of the above delays, due to the shortage of shed materials and its inability to access the resident’s side kitchen window in April 2022. However, the very excessive length of the delays that it was otherwise responsible for meant that it was suitable that it apologised to him for these. The landlord also offered the resident a total of £125 compensation to reflect the first of its above shed repair delays and his frustration from its planning and delivery of this and his other repairs. This showed that it sought to try and put things right in his case, in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle for it to do so. This is also because the landlord agreed to re-inspect and repair the shed again, as the resident had asked it to.
  14. The landlord additionally demonstrated that it was seeking to learn from the outcome of the resident’s case, in accordance with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle requiring it to do so. This is because it raised the fact that its supervisor had not initially raised his shed repairs with the supervisor, and it added his feedback to its repairs process journey map to improve its future communication. The landlord also agreed to investigate its rubbish removal to ensure that this occurred in a timely manner after repairs were completed. It additionally gave feedback to its contractor about its operative missing the resident’s side kitchen window repair appointment without notice. Moreover, the landlord stated that its repairs process review and customer journey mapping would make its repairs app accurate and easy to understand, schedule the next available appointment for follow on works before its operative left, and improve its communication.
  15. The landlord therefore took some appropriate practical steps to try and put things right and learn from the outcome of the resident’s repair delays, his chasing of these, and its lack of communication. However, its above agreement to re-inspect and repair his shed led to even longer delays and further chasing by him, and contact from the Ombudsman, before this was overhauled. The landlord nevertheless did not provide the resident with a remedy for these further delays. Moreover, its above compensation offer was not proportionate to recognise this or all of the other repair delays that it was responsible for in his case.
  16. The landlord’s discretionary compensation guidance recommends that it award compensation from £250 for prolonged distress and inconvenience. This is within the range of compensation recommended by the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for failures that adversely affected the resident, which the landlord’s attempt to put things right was not proportionate to. It nevertheless offered him a total of half of this amount of compensation for the effect of the prolonged repair delays in his case before he experienced even more shed repair delays from it. The landlord has therefore been ordered below to pay the resident the compensation that it previously offered him, if he has not received this already, another £125 compensation for its initial repair delays to reflect the above guidance, and £250 further compensation for its subsequent delays.
  17. The landlord has also been ordered below to write to the resident to acknowledge and apologise for the further failings in its handling of his repairs that have been identified by this investigation. It has additionally been ordered to contact him to confirm whether there are any outstanding works to his shed, and to arrange for it to inspect and complete these if so. Moreover, the landlord has been recommended below to review its staff’s and contractors’ training needs in relation to their application of its repairs and maintenance policy, website, and discretionary compensation guidance. This is in order to ensure that it provides appropriate and timely responses, communication, and remedies for reports of repairs in the future.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s redress policy and procedure require it to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to final stage complaints within 21 working days. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) obliges the landlord to keep a full record of the resident’s complaint, any review, and the outcomes at each stage. This must include the original complaint, dates, all correspondence, and any reports.
  2. The resident attempted to make stage 1 complaints to the landlord in his case from 6 January 2022 onwards, but it only responded to these complaints on 24 and 25 May 2022 after he chased it for a response. This was an unreasonably excessive delay to its redress policy and procedure’s 10-working-day stage 1 complaint response timescale, as it took 95 to 96 working days to respond to him. There is also no evidence that the landlord informed the resident about this delay, which was inappropriate.
  3. The landlord then responded to the resident’s subsequent final stage complaint of 26 May 2022 on 5 August 2022, which was 26 working days later. It therefore again exceeded its redress policy and procedure’s response timescale, which was 21 working days for such final stage complaints. Although in this instance the landlord informed the resident on 12 July 2022 that it would respond to his final stage complaint by 9 August 2022. This meant that the landlord accurately informed the resident of the length of time that it would take to respond to the complaint in advance, which was a not very excessive 5 working days later than its policy and procedure.
  4. The resident nevertheless experienced a total of 90 to 91 working days of complaint handling delays from the landlord in his case. Its stage 1 complaint response of 24 May 2022 also inaccurately described his October 2021 shed complaint as being about a gate reported in December 2021. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 25 May 2022 additionally wrongly gave its date as 2021, and the resident’s side kitchen window repair as being completed on 3 May 2022 instead of 25 May 2022. Moreover, its final stage complaint response agreed that it would re-inspect and repair his shed, which it subsequently excessively delayed, as outlined above.
  5. It was therefore suitable that the landlord apologised to the resident for the delay in its complaint investigation, and that it acknowledged the above inaccuracies in its complaint responses. It also sought to put its complaint handling failures in his case right by explaining that the £100 compensation that it had offered him in its final stage complaint response was also for the inaccurate information in its stage 1 complaint responses.
  6. However, as described above, the landlord’s compensation offer was not proportionate to recognise the resident’s distress and inconvenience from its prolonged complaint handling delays in his case. This is because the offer was not in accordance with the compensation from £250 recommended by its discretionary compensation guidance for this, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. This is additionally as a result of the landlord’s above complaint handling failings suggesting that it did not comply with its obligation under the Code to fully record resident’s complaint, its final response and outcome, and his original complaint, dates, correspondence, and reports. This is due to its inaccuracies and excessively delayed responses and outcome.
  7. The landlord has therefore been ordered below to pay the resident another £150 compensation in recognition of its poor complaint handling in his case. This is in line with its above discretionary compensation guidance and the Ombudsman’s above remedies guidance. It has also been ordered to write to him to acknowledge and apologise for the further complaint handling failings in his case that have been identified by this investigation. The landlord has additionally been recommended below to review its staff’s training needs regarding their application of its redress policy and procedure and the Code. This is in order to ensure that it fully records and provides timely responses to complaints in the future.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its:
    1. Handling of shed, pointing, glazing, and electrical repairs at the resident’s property.
    2. Complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident compensation totalling £650 within 4 weeks, which is broken down into:
      1. £125 compensation that it previously offered him, if he has not received this already.
      2. £125 further compensation for its initial repair delays in his case.
      3. £250 further compensation for its subsequent delays in repairing his shed.
      4. £150 further compensation for its poor complaint handling in his case.
    2. Write to the resident within 4 weeks to acknowledge and apologise for the further failings in its handling of his repairs, and the further complaint handling failings in his case, that have been identified by this investigation.
    3. Contact the resident within 4 weeks to confirm whether there are any outstanding works to his shed, and to arrange for it to inspect and complete these if so.
    4. The landlord shall contact the Ombudsman within 4 weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above orders and whether it will follow the below recommendations.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Review its staff’s and contractors’ training needs in relation to their application of its repairs and maintenance policy, website, and discretionary compensation guidance. This is in order to ensure that it provides appropriate and timely responses, communication, and remedies for reports of repairs in the future.
    2. Review its staff’s training needs regarding their application of its redress policy and procedure and the Code. This is in order to ensure that it fully records and provides timely responses to complaints in the future.