GreenSquareAccord Limited (202126969)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202126969

GreenSquareAccord Limited

17 September 2022

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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak, and the subsequent repairs.

Background

2. The resident, who is an assured tenant, first reported a leak on 6 September 2021. Following this, another call was made on 8 September 2021 in which the resident explained that the leak was an emergency due to the presence of nearby electrical wires. The landlord did not classify the leak as an emergency and instead, gave a 10-day repair timeframe. Later that evening, the leak caused the living room ceiling to partially collapse. The landlord attended the property that evening as part of an out of hours emergency repair. The valves from the bathroom sink had to be disconnected in order to stop the leak. On 13 September 2021, the landlord inspected the property to determine what work was needed. At this point, several jobs were raised: Repair the bathroom sink valves; repair boxing in for the downstairs sink; repair the bathroom flooring, and; repair the living room ceiling.
3. The resident submitted his formal complaint between 9 and 13 September 2021, in which he advised that he was dissatisfied with how his reports of the leak had been handled, as he believed that had it been treated as an emergency when first reported, the further damage could have been prevented. The landlord gave its stage one response on 27 September 2021 in which it apologised for the level of service the resident had received. It also offered £41.69 compensation, which had been calculated as 10% of the monthly rent. This was in recognition of the partial loss of the bathroom.
4. The resident escalated his complaint as repairs remained outstanding and he was not satisfied with the offer of compensation. The landlord gave its stage two response on 11 October 2021, acknowledging that the repairs remained outstanding. It advised that these had now been scheduled for 13 October 2021, and increased its offer of compensation to £133.38. This was calculated as twice the original offer, and a further £50 as a goodwill gesture.
5. On 22 October 2021 the resident further expressed his dissatisfaction with how the issue had been handled. He advised that he had been without a bathroom sink for almost eight weeks. He also noted that he was not happy that the landlord had not stuck to the repair timeframes set out in its policies. The landlord gave its final response on 28 October 2021, and apologised that the resident was dissatisfied. It advised that the bathroom sink repair had been scheduled for 27 October 2021 (the landlord confirmed that this had been completed in correspondence with this Service), and also advised that operatives were in contact with the resident to address the outstanding repairs. The landlord increased its compensation offer to £178.86, advising that this offer included £20.48 for partial use of the bathroom for the additional period of time, and a further £25 as a goodwill gesture in recognition of the inconvenience caused.
6. The landlord said that the ceiling repair was completed on 2 November 2021 with the painting to the ceiling being completed on 17 November 2021. Additionally, the boxing in of the bathroom sink was completed on 26 November 2021, and the repair to the bathroom flooring was completed on 10 December 2021.

Assessment and findings

Policies & Procedures

7. The landlord’s Repairs & Maintenance policy sets out that routine repairs are to be fixed within ’28 working days’. It also states that ‘[the landlord prioritises] attending to emergency repairs that put [the resident] or the building at risk within four hours and completing the repair within 24 hours…Sometimes in an emergency, [the landlord] can only carry out a temporary repair to ensure [the resident] is safe and [the landlord will] come back to do the permanent repair’.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about a leak in the property and the subsequent repairs

8. The resident has stated that he is unhappy with both the way the initial report of the leak was dealt with, as well  as the subsequent repairs. He has said that the failure to treat his initial report as an emergency resulted in ‘catastrophic damage’ and put him and his family at risk. He states that the subsequent repairs that were required were not completed until three months later, and explains that he had no bathroom sink for two months, plastering on ceiling had to be done twice as it was not carried out correctly the first time, and the hole in the living room ceiling caused by the leak took ten weeks to repair. The resident has said, ‘The way this was handled caused me stress and anxiety…’
9. When the resident first reported the leak to the landlord, it is not disputed that he had stressed concern that there were live electrical wires near to the leak itself. The presence of electrical wires near to a leak could reasonably have been viewed as an emergency repair due to the potential health and safety risks that such a situation could pose. The landlord’s Repairs & Maintenance policy states that ‘[the landlord prioritises] attending to emergency repairs that put [the resident] or the building at risk within four hours and completing the repair within 24 hours’. However, the resident’s report was not treated as an emergency and was instead treated as ‘urgent’, and given a ten-day timeframe for repair.
10. In its stage one response of 27 September 2021, the landlord acknowledged that it had gotten the classification of the repair wrong. It advised that it had reviewed the phone call that the resident had made on 8 September 2021 regarding the leak and that ‘when [the resident] mentioned the electrics were directly below where the water was leaking which [the resident] could not stop, the repair should have been upgraded to an emergency’.
11. It was appropriate for the landlord to have reviewed the phone call made in order to determine that it had made a mistake. However, although it had acknowledged the mistake, the failure to correctly identify an emergency repair was a service failure which led to an adverse effect to the resident, and would warrant an offer of compensation. Whilst the landlord did offer compensation for the partial loss of the bathroom following the stopping of the leak, it failed to offer compensation for its failure to correctly designate the repair as an emergency, and the distress and inconvenience that this led to for the resident when the situation worsened, causing damage to the property. As such, the landlord did not take sufficient action to ‘put things right’ for the resident.
12. The landlord has not provided its compensation procedure, nor is it readily available to find online, but this Service’s remedies guidance suggests that for instances of a ‘failure to meet service standards for actions and responses’, compensation of £50 to £250 can be considered. An order for increased compensation is made below in line with this.
13. Further, the complaint process offers landlord’s an opportunity to ‘learn from outcomes’ and take action in cases where it has identified a failing in its service. In this case, while the landlord did not notify the incorrect classification of the leak, it has not detailed any learning or action it has taken from this. The landlord should ensure that all of its staff members are fully aware of how to identify potential hazards and to correctly classify reported issues in terms of whether they are emergency or routine repairs, and an order is made in relation to this below.
14. Following the stoppage of the leak, there were several repairs needed to the property, such as repairs to the ceiling and repairs to the bathroom floor. Additionally, in stopping the leak, the bathroom sink valves had to be turned off and replaced. This meant that the resident was without a working sink in the bathroom, and therefore, partial loss of the bathroom (as acknowledged by the landlord). The landlord’s Repairs & Maintenance policy identifies two classifications of repairs: Emergency and routine. Given that the immediate threat to the resident and the property had been stopped, the outstanding repairs would be considered ‘routine’ under the landlord’s policy. The landlord’s Repairs & Maintenance policy states that routine repairs are to be fixed within ’28 working days’. However, the repairs to the living room ceiling, the bathroom floor, and the bathroom sink all exceeded this repair timeframe.
15. In correspondence with this Service, the landlord confirmed that the ceiling was repaired on 2 November 2021 and the painting of the ceiling on 17 November 2021, the repairs to the bathroom sink were completed on 27 October 2021, and the repairs to the bathroom flooring were completed on 10 December 2021. Each of these repairs were finalised well after the 28 working day timeframe set out in the landlord’s policies. The failure to adhere to the repair timeframes was a service failure by the landlord. It had also failed to manage the resident’s expectations, as the resident noted that he had been informed of the 28 working day period in which the repairs were due to be done. Failure to manage expectations by not working within given timeframes is potentially very detrimental to the landlord/tenant relationship as it can cause trust between the two parties to deteriorate. Additionally, the landlord should be expected to act within accordance of its own policies and procedures.
16. The landlord acknowledged the delay in repairing the sink, and the resulting partial loss of use of the bathroom. In recognition of this, the landlord offered 10% of the monthly rent (£41.96) for the period in which there was no sink as compensation. By the final response, this resulted in a total of £104.40 for the delay in repairing the bathroom sink. This offer of compensation was reasonable: There was no indication that the resident had no other means of accessing tap water in the property, and additionally, the resident had not lost full use of the bathroom. This was in line with this Service’s remedies guidance which suggests that offers of £50 to £250 can be considered in such circumstances. Whilst this offer of compensation was reasonable in terms of addressing the bathroom sink, no compensation was offered for the delay in other repairs The landlord should pay compensation for the additional frustration, time and trouble that the delay in completing the repairs to the ceiling and the bathroom floor caused the resident.
17. In correspondence with this Service, the landlord acknowledged that there had been a missed appointment during the repair process. However, the landlord has not made it clear what appointment this was regarding, and when the appointment was due. The landlord offered no compensation for the missed appointment. As above, the landlord has not provided its compensation procedure. As such, the calculation of compensation to be offered for a missed appointment should be calculated by considering what is generally appropriate. The standard amount for landlords to offer following a missed appointment is around £20. With this in mind, this amount will be added to the total offer of compensation to be ordered.
18. Additionally, the landlord did not detail why the repairs took the time that they did to be resolved, or what it would do to prevent a recurrence of this failing in the future. No notes from contractor visits were provided, and repair logs don’t give sufficient detail. This suggests an issue with the landlord’s record keeping. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contacts and repairs, yet the evidence has not been comprehensive in this case. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail, and so that it can satisfy itself that repairs have been handled correctly. If the Ombudsman investigates a complaint, it will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, this Service may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
19. The landlord did note that on 11 October 2021, an operative attended to carry out repairs, but was unable to as two operatives were needed. This highlights a communication issue on the part of the landlord. The landlord should have ensured that the correct amount of people were booked to carry out the work that was needed, and that the nature of the work required was communicated to the operative before attending. Its failure to do so caused further delay in the repairs being completed to the property. This in turn caused further stress and inconvenience to the resident.
20. The collective service failures in the landlord’s handling of the leak, and subsequent repairs, amount to maladministration. Whilst the landlord’s final offer of compensation (£178.86) acknowledged the partial loss of bathroom, and general inconvenience, it did not take into account the failure to correctly classify the seriousness of the initial leak and the impact this had, the subsequent delays to the repairs following the leak, and the frustration this caused the resident, as well as the inconvenience, time and trouble in pursuing the matter. With this in mind, the landlord should pay the resident an increased amount of compensation in recognition of the adverse affect that these collective service failures caused.
21. Further, there is little indication that the landlord has ‘learnt from outcomes’ in this case and taken action to prevent a recurrence of the failings identified.

Determination

22. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports about a leak, and the subsequent repairs.

Orders

23. Within one month of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Pay the resident a total of £448.86 broken down as follows:
       1. The £178.86 originally offered (if this has been paid already, it can be deducted from the £448.86).
       2. £150 for the adverse affect caused by the failure to correctly identify the leak as an emergency.
       3. £100 for the adverse affect caused by the delay in completing the subsequent repairs.
       4. £20 for the missed appointment.
    2. Carry out a review of the handling of the repairs in this case, to determine the cause of the delays in these being completed, and what action has been/will be taken to prevent such delays in the future.
    3. If it has not done so already in the last 12 months, conduct a training exercise to ensure that operatives are able to correctly classify repairs.

Recommendations

24. It is recommended that the landlord conducts a review of its record keeping process in order to ensure that a detailed audit trail can be provided that outlines all property visits, repair logs, and contractor notes if such evidence should be needed in the future.