GreenSquareAccord Limited (202124467)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202124467

GreenSquareAccord Limited

12 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:
1. Response to the resident’s concerns about repairs to the property.
2. Complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy of a first floor flat since August 1996. The present landlord was formed as a result of a merger between two landlords which took place on 1 April 2021.
The tenancy agreement says that the landlord is responsible for keeping the property in good repair including the heating. The resident agrees to report any disrepair promptly and allow the landlord access to carry out the repairs.
Following a request from this Service, the landlord provided information regarding the policies under which it operated following the merger. This Service concluded that the previous landlord’s policies applied to the timeline of this complaint, except for the complaint policy, which was reviewed prior to the resident starting the landlord’s internal complaint process.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says that:
1. Emergency repairs will be attended within two hours.
2. Non-emergency works that require the landlord’s attention can be completed at a time that is convenient to the resident.
3. Repairs that require a more complex diagnosis, such as damp will be subject to a pre-inspection. “Property MOTs” are also used where properties require a comprehensive package of repairs.
4. The landlord operates a “fast and flexible” appointments system. It will tell the resident when the work will be carried out and by whom. It aims to “deliver repairs right” on the first time of asking.
5. The landlord has a planned maintenance programme.
The landlord’s repair procedure says the landlord is responsible for keeping the windows and the heating in good working order. This is inclusive of basins, sinks, bath, waste pipes, and electric wiring.
The landlord operates a three stage complaint policy, it justified this in its self-assessment against the Ombudsman’s Complaint handling Code. Its complaint procedure says:
1. Stage one is informal with matters resolved immediately or within two working days.
2. Stage two responses are provided within 10 working days.
3. The resident can request an escalation to stage three. A response should follow within five working days.
The landlord operates a compensation policy. It says that:
1. Compensation is aimed at making right something that went wrong and may not be in the form of a financial payment.
2. The landlord may pay compensation for service failures. It will consider paying compensation if repairs that it is responsible for and aware of were not completed within a realistic time frame.
3. It will not pay compensation when there were unavoidable delays such as ordering of parts and the resident was kept informed.
4. It will make a goodwill gesture payment at its discretion in situations which do not fall into the above categories. This will apply when it decides that the specific circumstances warrant some form of gesture.

Summary of events

The resident told the landlord she reported an issue with her window seals in June 2020, March 2021, and June 2021. She said three of the seals had perished, which had caused water ingress between the windowpanes.
The landlord’s repair request log noted that a request to repair the windows was made on 18 September 2020, and 28 September 2021. These were also recorded on the landlord’s calls logs.
The resident emailed the landlord on 28 September 2020 and said an inspection had taken place without her knowledge. The resident did not provide the exact date of the inspection but indicated that it was in August 2020. She said the landlord inspected her first floor windows from outside the ground floor, from another resident’s property and as a result the landlord determined that no repair was required. The resident told the landlord on 28 September 2020 she was unhappy that her windows had not been inspected from the inside.
The resident was unhappy about the repairs service and raised a stage one complaint with the landlord on 4 November 2021. The landlord noted the complaint in its call logs on 18 November 2021. The resident’s complaint was about:
1. The outstanding repair to her windows. She said she initially raised the repair in June 2020, then again in March 2021 and was told the repair was on the system. She said she received no further contact from the landlord. She then raised the repair a third time in June 2021, and was told that no previous repair request was showing on the system. She reported that no further contact took place after this.
2. Several repairs required in the property. These included:
  1. Leaking windows.
  2. Extractor fans not working properly.
  3. No heating in the kitchen and the bathroom.
  4. Damp in the north facing external bedroom, which required “constantly” wiping mould from her furniture and her bed.
  5. Leaking pipe from the bath.
3. No fire risk assessment for the property.
The resident chased an update to her complaint on at least 3 occasions in November 2021. She asked for an escalation to her complaint, which was acknowledged on 19 November 2021. The landlord said that it proposed to respond by 22 December 2021, which was outside of its complaint timeframe. The resident challenged this timescale and the landlord said it would respond by 3 December 2021
Following the resident’s complaint, internals emails for the landlord showed that:
1. It had asked the repair team to attend the property to assess at the bathroom.
2. It would update the resident of its electrical domestic testing programme, which was due to be completed by March 2023.
3. It has raised repairs to install smoke detectors on 24 November 2021.
4. It had raised repairs to carry out an asbestos survey.
The resident emailed the landlord on 7 December 2021. She said she felt ignored and that the landlord did not learn from past failings. She gave examples of the landlord failing to keep its promises:
1. The landlord did not acknowledge her complaint within 2 days at stage 1.
2. She did not get a stage 2 response within 10 working days of making her complaint or on the 3 December 2021 as agreed.
3. The installation of the smoke detector was unable to proceed on 24 November because the asbestos survey had not been completed. She had not received a confirmation of when the asbestos survey would be completed.
4. The bathroom inspection had not been booked.
The landlord apologised to the resident for not issuing its response on 3 December 2021 as agreed, and admitted it overlooked the deadline. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 10 December 2021. It said:
1. The issue with the windows were raised in a previous complaint in September 2020. In the stage 2 response on 21 October 2020, it was agreed that the resident would contact the contractor directly to arrange an appointment to resolve the matter. This was because the resident had informed it, she did not want it to share her contact details with the contractor. Its records indicated that the resident had not contacted the contractor.
2. Due to the number of issues raised regarding the conditions of the property, it offered for a surveyor to attend the property. When it emailed the resident on 23 November 2021 asking for dates when the resident was available, she did not respond, so an appointment was arranged for 14 December 2021.
3. It agreed to write to the resident on 17 December 2021, to update her on its findings following the inspection of the property.
4. The Regulator of Social Housing had issued it with a regulatory notice for failing to meet statutory health and safety requirements in relation to fire, electrical and asbestos safety. It apologised that the resident’s property had had not met its statutory requirements. It confirmed that it had agreed a programme of works to rectify the issues and would contact the resident in due course.
5. It attended the property on 24 November 2021, to install smoke alarms. The resident told the operative that there was asbestos in the ceiling and therefore it was unable to complete the work.
6. Its specialist asbestos contractor tried to contact the resident to arrange an appointment to complete the asbestos survey. It had been unable to arrange an appointment with the resident. It asked the resident to contact the contractor directly to arrange the survey.
7. It acknowledged that the service provided fell short of what it would expect and apologised. It said it wanted to work with the resident to rebuild the relationship and restore her faith in the landlord.
The resident responded to the landlord’s stage 2 response on 10 December 2021. She said that on 24 November 2021 she had responded to the landlord to arrange the property inspection. She said she had not received a response to her email. She added that due to work commitments she had to cancel the appointment of 14 December 2021. She requested escalation of her complaint to stage 3, the landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 14 December 2021.
Between 14 December 2021 and 21 December 2021, the landlord contacted the resident 3 times asking for convenient dates to book the inspection. On 21 December 2021, the resident asked the landlord to give her “dates 2 weeks in advance” for any visit. She explained that this would enable her to book time off work. She also pointed out that she had lost a day of leave when she booked a day off for the installation of the smoke detectors, which was cancelled as the asbestos survey had not been completed. The resident said the landlord had failed to act on her repair requests. The landlord explained that it was ready to address the repairs but was unable to do so without accessing the property. It urged the resident to provide a contact number or dates to move forward with the inspection and repairs.
The landlord provided its stage 3 response on 21 December 2021. It concluded that the stage 2 investigation was conducted in an appropriate way and it agreed with its findings. It reiterated that the service the resident received from the landlord had fallen below the level expected and it apologised for the shortcomings. The landlord added to the stage 2 response that:
1. It had received the resident’s email on 24 November 2021 and apologised for not responding. It explained that it booked the inspection on 14 December 2021, which the resident cancelled because insufficient notice was given to allow her to book a day off. It asked the resident for a more suitable date for the inspection to take place, but the resident failed to provide any dates. The landlord asked the resident to make contact to arrange a date for the inspection to take place.
2. The repairs to the windows were on hold until the inspection was completed.
3. Its record keeping had been poor and it had no record of asbestos at the property. Once reported by the resident, the landlord raised a job to carry out a survey. The landlord explained that the specialist contractor had written to the resident and was waiting for a reply from the resident to move forward. The landlord asked the resident to contact the contractor and provided its details.
4. It had noted that the resident’s preferred method of communication was via email and not telephone. However, it urged the resident to accept telephone calls to avoid delays especially when organising appointments. Once she had provided suitable dates for the outstanding appointments, they would be booked and the work would be moved forward.
On the 7January 2022, the landlord booked for the asbestos survey, surveyor inspection, and electric checks to be completed on 17 January 2022. It asked the resident to confirm the date was convenient. The resident reminded the landlord that she asked for 2 weeks’ notice. The landlord rearranged the repairs for 26 January 2022, the resident confirmed this was a suitable date and the inspections were all completed.
Following the property inspection, the landlord provided a report to the resident on 4 February 2022:
1. it agreed to complete:
  1. repairs to a window in the living room and one in the kitchen, both of which had misted panes.
  2. installation of 2 heaters, one in the kitchen and one in the bathroom.
  3. replacing the leaking pipe coming from the bath and fix the toilet by fitting extra screws inside toilet cistern.
  4. Upgrading of the smoke/heat detectors to meet current regulations following the asbestos survey being completed
2. It clarified its position on other issues raised by the resident:
  1. The electrician checked the extractors fans and confirmed that they were working as they should.
  2. It did not identify any structural issues that may contribute to damp in the north facing external bedroom wall. It confirmed that it discussed the importance of adequately heating and ventilating the home to manage damp issues. It also mentioned that it offered to install an air brick to help with the ventilation but the resident was unsure if she wanted to go ahead with this.
The resident responded to the landlord on the same day and told the landlord that it had missed several issues in its report, in particular:
1. It failed to mention that all windows seals were ‘rotting’.
2. She did not have a reliable and affordable heating system, which contributed to the issue of damp. The air bricks, while helping the damp, would contribute to the lack of heating.
3. The bathroom basin was not attached to the floor and only held onto the wall with one screw. In relation to the toilet, she said putting an extra screw into the toilet would break the cistern due to the toilet being fitting at an angle to the wall.
4. The extractor fans could not be used during the nighttime due to the noise.
The repair log showed that some repairs and inspection of the windows were booked for 4 February 2022 and 15 February 2022, but the resident had not been aware that the appointments had been booked and the work was postponed.
On 10 February 2022, the complaint investigator and the surveyor discussed the issues raised by the resident. They compiled an answer to each of the points. The evidence showed that the landlord concluded that condensation was an issue at the property.
On 16 February 2022, the landlord provided a response to the resident regarding the issues she raised following the inspection report. It said:
1. The windows seals were not rotten. There were 2 misted units that needed replacing but this was the only work required to the windows, therefore nothing further would be carried out.
2. The current electrical storage heaters are energy efficient heaters suitable for heating the home. It agreed to fit extra heaters, one in the kitchen and one in the bathroom.
3. It installed a new toilet pan and toilet cistern. It acknowledged that the toilet cistern was not fitted flush to the wall and explained that the work to re-fix the toilet will include ensuring it was flush to the wall. It was unaware of an issue with the bathroom basin and asked the resident for clarification.
4. The extractor fan was in good working order.
5. If the property was heated adequately, any airflow from the air brick would be unnoticeable.
The resident responded to the landlord the same day. She expressed her disagreement with the landlord’s response, and said the landlord was aware that:
1. The windows seals were over 21 years old and failing.
2. The storage heaters were expensive to run and the landlord should investigate central heating. The condensation was caused by inadequate heating and ventilation. She had told the landlord that she had suitable ventilation but no adequate heating.
3. It should be aware of the issue with the basin as the surveyor took photos of the issue.
4. The extractor fan in the bathroom only works when the light is on. The extractor fan in the kitchen can only be switched off by removing the fuse.
5. No date had been provided for the installation of the smoke/heat detectors or the completion of the electrical checks.
The landlord responded to the resident on 25 February 2022. It reiterated what it said on 16 February 2022 and added that:
1. The bathroom fan is usually linked to the light and it agreed to have electrician inspect both fans again.
2. The toilet would be repositioned.
3. It was booking the appointments for the outstanding repairs with 2 weeks’ notice.
In March 2022, the resident and the landlord discussed replacing the windows and installing gas central heating at the property. The resident asked the landlord to explain why it had refused to replace the windows as she believed they were past their life expectancy. She also asked why gas central heating was no longer an option for her. The landlord explained to the resident that:
1. As a guide, it would expect items such windows to last approximately 30 years. However, this was an estimate and any concerns were looked at on an individual basis. A replacement may not be required and its policy was to repair rather than replace wherever possible. It said that following an inspection of her windows, it was satisfied that they did not need to be replaced.
2. She was offered central heating previously and she had chosen not to accept the offer. It explained how the major improvement plan worked, how budgets are set and plans implemented. It also explained why it would not be economical to install central heating in her property.
3. It asked the resident to provide suitable dates for the outstanding work to be completed.
The resident asked the landlord to provide her with dates for the work to be completed with a minimum of 2 weeks’ notice. The landlord confirmed on 17 March 2022, that all outstanding appointments would be booked giving the resident 2 weeks’ notice. The resident emailed the landlord on 23 March 2022 chasing dates for the outstanding repairs to be done.
The resident emailed the landlord on 28 March 2022. She said:
1. The landlord had not provided her with an appointment for the outstanding repairs to be done.
2. She had not received the full asbestos report.
3. The smoke/heat detectors were not installed. The heating was not working and another window was leaking.
4. She said she was “tired of making all the efforts to resolve the issue”.
On the 14 April 2022, the landlord attended the property as agreed to carry out the repairs. The resident provided an update to the landlord on what was done on the day:
1. Completed repairs:
  1. The smoke/heat detectors were installed.
  2. The leak from the bath was fixed.
  3. The extractor fan in the kitchen was fixed and had initially been installed incorrectly.
  4. The toilet and basin were fixed.
2. Outstanding repairs:
  1. The window panes were not ordered and therefore could not be changed.
  2. The new heaters were installed but will require her to get up at 1.30 AM to switch them on.
  3. She also reiterated to the landlord the repairs that she felt were needed and it had refused to complete such as the mould.
The resident told this Service in February 2022 that as a resolution to her complaint, she wanted:
1. The landlord to complete all the repairs.
2. The landlord to be clear on when the windows are to be replaced.
3. An explanation for the delays in completing the repairs and handling her complaint.
4. Compensation to reflect the amount of time the repairs and her complaint have taken to be resolved.
The resident reported on 15 April 2022, that the new heaters were not working and her windows were leaking. She pointed out that she had taken a day off work the previous day, for the heater to be replaced and the windows to be changed and neither repairs were completed. The landlord apologised for the issue with the new heaters and advised the resident to report the issue to the out of hours service to raise an emergency repair. The resident told the landlord that she attempted to do this and was on hold for an hour before she gave up. It is unclear at the time of this report whether the repairs have been completed.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

This assessment is based on the landlord’s response to the resident’s most recent formal complaint, which is broadly reflected in the above timeline. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord relating to the windows in 2020. The landlord responded to that complaint and the resident did not contact this Service at the time. It may help to explain the scope of an Ombudsman investigation can be time-limited by the availability of evidence. Given the time that has passed, we cannot fairly assess records that relate to previous complaints raised by the resident in 2020. This assessment is therefore focussed on the events from March 2021 onwards.

Repairs

The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 4th November 2022. Within the complaint, she listed several repairs issues and the landlord offered to carry out an inspection. This was a reasonable offer and in line with its repair policy to carry out a “property MOT” when several repairs issues arise.
The landlord’s repairs policy, in effect at the time of the complaint, did not provide a time scale for the completion of non-emergency repairs. However, all repairs should be completed within a reasonable time. In this case, there were failings on the part of the landlord to respond to the residents’ repairs requests in a timely manner:
1. Most of the repairs were reported on 4 November 2021, but were not inspected until 5 months later and repairs did not start until 2 and half months after that. The landlord offered no explanation for the 7 month gap between the repairs being reported and the repairs starting. Those were unreasonable delays and caused distress and inconvenience to the resident, who was left with unresolved repairs at her property.
2. The resident and the landlord provided different accounts of when the windows disrepair was reported. On 23 November 2021, it offered to carry out an inspection to assess the disrepair but gave no explanation of why it took so long to arrange an inspection. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to contact the resident when it became aware of the repair request. As a result, there were delays in fixing the resident’s windows.
3. The resident also informed the landlord that she had an issue with damp at her property and was “constantly wiping mould of her furniture”. The landlord inspected her property on the 26 January 2022, which was appropriate and in accordance with its policy. However, the landlord failed to meet the resident’s requests for appointments 2 weeks in advance, so that she could book time off work. As a result of this, there were delays of 5 months to carry out the inspection. This delay seems excessive and avoidable , especially as the landlord completed the inspection itself.
4. The resident reported that the extractor fans in her kitchen and bathroom were not working properly on 4 November 2021. The fans were inspected on 26 January 2022. It was unreasonable for the landlord to wait 2 and half months to inspect the fans. It was a considerable amount of time to assess the issue, especially as the resident had reported issues with mould. This caused frustration and inconvenience to the resident who felt ignored.
The landlord’s responsive repair policy says that it will attend to emergency repairs within 2 hours. The evidence shows that in this case, it did not discuss the disrepair with the resident before the inspection. It failed to determine whether any of the disrepair required a rapid response. For instance, when the resident reported having no heating on 4 November 2021, the landlord should have treated this as an emergency repair according to its policy. However, it did not inspect until 26 January 2022. As it had not visited the property prior to the inspection, it had no way of knowing if the heating was working and adequate. This delay of over two months was unreasonable and inconsistent with their policy.
On the day of the inspection, the landlord concluded that the issue of damp was due to condensation. It is unclear how the landlord came to this conclusion. Damp and mould are potential health hazards to either be avoided or minimised in line with the Government’s Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSR and are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified. In this case, the landlord did not show that it carried out a full investigation. It did not provide evidence of any testing carried out to assess the issue. It did not show that it examined neighbouring properties as suggested by the Ombudsman’s damp and mould report from October 2021. This raises concerns that the landlord failed to fully investigate and take seriously the resident’s concerns, which is inappropriate.
The landlord said the condensation and mould was caused by the resident’s lifestyle. It advised the resident on how to control this and offered to install an air brick. It checked the extractor fans and heaters, and concluded both were in working order. It also agreed to install 2 extra heaters. It said the resident was not adequately heating and ventilating the home, which she disputed. It inferred blame on the resident without having carried out any further investigative work. For instance, it did not show that it monitored and measured the humidity or looked at the building and the neighbouring properties. It was not appropriate for the landlord to conclude the issue was due to lifestyle without fully investigating.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould says that the landlord should make sure to take all reasonable steps to help in cases where structural interventions are not appropriate. It is expected to evaluate what mitigations it can put in place. In this case the landlord took some steps to help the resident, which was appropriate. Nonetheless, it failed to carry those steps through, which it would have been reasonable for the landlord to do:
1. The resident said she did not have a reliable and affordable heating system, which contributed to the issue of damp. The landlord installed 2 extra heaters and told the resident on 16 February 2022, that her heaters were energy efficient. It failed to address the resident’s concerns about the cost and affordability to run the heaters. No evidence seen shows that the landlord discussed the resident’s financial health. It did not consider whether she required support such as budgeting advice or access to grants. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to discuss this with the resident and consider what it could do.
2. The resident said she was wiping mould off her furniture. The landlord did not show that it offered remedies such as a mould wash to help resolve the issue.
The landlord indicated in an email on 19 November 2021, that it would attend to inspect the bathroom. The resident told the landlord on 7 December 2021, that the bathroom inspection had not happened as promised. The landlord did not explain why this did not happen. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to apologise to the resident and explain why it had not kept to its promise. This level of poor communication and inability to keep promises made, eroded the trust the resident had in the landlord.
The resident reported that she had no smoke detectors on 4 November 2021. The landlord attended the property on 24 November to install the smoke/heat detectors. It could not proceed as the asbestos survey had not been completed. However, the landlord had raised an order for the asbestos survey on 22 November 2021. It is unclear why it attended the property to install smoke/heat detectors prior to the asbestos survey being done. This shows poor internal communication and planning. This caused the resident inconvenience as she had taken a day off work. It also further impacted the landlord and resident relationship.
On 21 December 2021, the resident informed the landlord, that she required 2 weeks’ notice before any visit to her property. This was a reasonable request from the resident. The landlord failed to meet this request by the resident between December 2021 and January 2022. It also arrived at the property unannounced twice in February 2022. As a result of how the landlord managed its appointments, there were considerable delays in carrying out the inspection and the repairs. This was unreasonable, avoidable and caused frustration and inconvenience to the resident.
There was confusion as to the condition of the extractor fans. The landlord tested the fans in January 2022 and said they were working, but later fixed the fans 3 months later. It is unclear how the landlord missed the issue when it inspected the fan in January 2022. It would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to identify the problem at the first inspection. This would have prevented the resident spending time and effort to reiterate that it was not working and needed to be look at. This also caused the resident to lose trust in the landlord’s ability to identify and resolve repairs.
The landlord carried out an asbestos survey on 26 January 2022. The report says that low risk asbestos materials were identified at the property. No evidence seen shows that the report was discussed with the resident. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to discuss the findings with the resident and advise her on how to manage the risks.
On 4 March 2022, the resident asked the landlord to explain some of the decisions it had made. She asked the landlord to explain:
1. Its decision for not considering installing central heating at her property. The landlord explained that the resident was offered central heating as part of an improvement plan previously but she had refused the offer. It also explained that the budget available at the time was no longer available. This was a reasonable answer from the landlord.
2. Its decision for not replacing the windows, which she believed had reached the end of their life cycle. The landlord explained how it assessed whether items needed to be replaced and it concluded following an inspection that the windows needed repairing but not replacing. This was a reasonable and appropriate response from the landlord. It was also reasonable for the landlord to agree to carry out the repairs to improve the windows condition.
The landlord attempted to fix the windows on the 14 April 2022. It could not complete the repairs as it had not ordered the parts required for the job. Delays in procuring parts can happen, but it is crucial for the landlord to communicate this to the resident. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to update the resident and in accordance with its policy. The evidence did not show such communication. Instead, the landlord informed the resident that it did not have the parts when it attended the property to repair the windows. This was inefficient, unreasonable and left the resident with outstanding repairs no resolution date and additional time off work required to accommodate a further appointment.
The Ombudsman’s Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) report says that good records are essential. It assists landlords to deliver efficient and effective services by ensuring that decisions and actions are taken based on good quality information. The evidence seen raised concerns about the landlord’s record keeping. For instance, the landlord carried out an inspection on 26 January 2022. It had several email conversations with the resident in February 2022, discussing its findings and agreeing what repairs would be done. Some of the repairs were carried out on 14 April 2022. However, the landlord’s logs do not show any records of those conversations and actions on their housing management systems. It is reasonable to expect the landlord to keep accurate and easily accessible records. This promotes transparency, accountability, improves communications and decision making.
Overall, there is maladministration on the part of the landlord in its handling of the repairs. The landlord failed to work in accordance with its policy and failed to acknowledge and address the repairs within a reasonable time frame. The evidence seen shows poor record keeping, poor communication, and a lack of planning and co-ordination. As a result of the failings, there were delays in conducting a more in-depth survey and addressing the disrepair. The landlord failed to show that it fully investigated the issue of damp or consider everything it could do to resolve the issue. The accumulative effect of the failings caused the resident distress, inconvenience, frustration and time between March 2021 and April 2022.
The landlord acknowledged in its complaint’s response that the service provided fell short of what it would expect. It apologised to the resident for the shortcomings, which was reasonable. The landlord had a compensation policy which says that it may pay compensation for service failures. However, it did not offer compensation to the resident in recognition of the failings and their impact. After considering all circumstances of the case, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider paying compensation to the resident. It would have acknowledged the failings and the inconvenience, distress, and time caused to the resident.
In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidelines, which are published on its website, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £400. This reflects the inconvenience, distress, time and trouble the landlord’s failings caused the resident between March 2021 and April 2022.

Complaints handling

The landlord’s complaint policy has a 3 stage process and a clear time frame by which the landlord will respond to complaints. In this case, the landlord failed to respond within its published time frame at every stage of the complaint process, which was unreasonable. The landlord also failed to learn from the mistakes made at previous stages. The reflection and learning would have prevented the landlord repeating the same failings and improved its response time. The evidence shows that:
1. The landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s stage 1 complaint and resolve it within 2 days, as per its policy. She then requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint 11 days later, but only after the resident asked for a response. The landlord did not apologise or explain the delays. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to do this.
2. The landlord emailed the resident on 19 November and discussed a time frame for responding to the stage 2 complaint. The landlord provided an explanation for the extension request and considered the resident’s response before agreeing a date. This was appropriate from the landlord and in accordance with its complaint policy.
3. The landlord provided its stage 2 response 5 working days after the agreed date. It would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to respond when it said it would. This would have showed that it had learnt from previously failing to respond at the agreed time. The landlord did not show that it discussed a new time frame with the resident. This would have been appropriate for the landlord to do this. It would have prevented the resident to have to contact the landlord for a response. The landlord apologised for the delay responding in its stage 2 response, which was appropriate.
4. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her complaint and escalated her complaint to stage 3. The landlord’s policy says that it will respond to stage 3 within 5 working days. In this case, the landlord responded 2 days outside its published time frame. It did not apologise or offer an explanation for the delay, which would have been appropriate.
Overall, there was service failure of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. The landlord failed to acknowledge and respond to the complaint within its policy published time frame. This caused the resident some inconvenience, time and trouble as she had to contact the landlord for a response to her complaint. Whilst the delays and the impact on the resident were minimal, it still prolonged an outcome to her complaint. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidelines, it is appropriate for the landlord to pay £75 to the resident in compensation. This reflects its failings in the handling of the complaint and the inconvenience caused to the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns about repairs to the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaints handling.

Reasons

The landlord failed to work in accordance with its repairs policy and did not carry out the repairs within a reasonable time frame. The delays were due to poor record keeping, poor communication and a lack of planning and co-ordination. The landlord also failed to carry out an in-depth investigation of the damp and consider what it could do to resolve the issue. The accumulative effect of the failings caused the resident distress, inconvenience, frustration and time between March 2021 and April 2022.
The landlord’s delays in responding to the resident’s complaint resulted in the resident having to contact the landlord for a response. This caused the resident inconvenience, time and trouble. However, the delays were short and the impact on the resident was minimal and did not affect the overall outcome for the resident.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £475, comprising:
1. £400 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its poor handling of the repairs.
2. £75 for its ineffective complaints handling.
The landlord is ordered to take the following actions:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Complete the repairs to the windows as agreed with the resident on 4 February 2022, if it hasn’t already.
3. Test the new heaters and provide advice to the resident on how to use them efficiently, if it hasn’t already.
4. Discuss the findings from the asbestos survey with the resident and advise how she should manage any risks.
5. Arrange a date for a specialist survey into the damp at the property and carry out any works to remedy the issue that are recommended in the report.
These orders must be complied with within four weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord review its record keeping system and self-assess itself against the KIM report. The report can be accessed at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/KIM-report-v2-100523.pdf.
The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord self-assess itself against the Ombudsman damp and mould’s reports from October 2021 and February 2023. https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Spotlight-report-Damp-and-mould-final.pdf. https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Damp-and-mould-follow-up-report-final-2.2.23.pdf. The Ombudsman also recommends that the landlord consider the government guidance which can be viewed at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/damp-and-mould-understanding-and-addressing-the-health-risks-for-rented-housing-providers.