GreenSquareAccord Limited (202128291)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202128291

GreenSquareAccord Limited

31 August 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 handling of:
1. Repairs to the stairs.
2. Repairs to the bathroom flooring.
3. Repairs to the living room ceiling.
4. The associated complaints.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy, which began on 8 October 2018. The property is a two bedroom house.
The landlord’s records show that the resident was listed from March 2020 as having a disability due to mobility issues.
Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, the landlord must keep in good condition the structure and exterior of the home, including floors and ceilings, which includes stairs.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that emergency repairs will be made safe within 24 hours of the repair being reported and non-emergency repairs will be completed within 28 calendar days of the report. The policy states that if an inspection is needed, this will be completed within the first seven days, leaving 21 days for the repair to be completed. The policy states that the landlord is not responsible for floor coverings, apart from floor coverings fitted by the landlord in kitchens and bathrooms.
Under the Housing Act 2004, the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is the main system used by local authority environmental health officers for assessing and enforcing housing standards in residential housing. The HHSRS is used to assess hazards to the health and safety of occupants or visitors. Hazards fall into two categories: category 1 hazards are the most serious and require the local authority to take enforcement action, such as serving an Improvement Notice. All other hazards are category 2 hazards, which may also be subject to enforcement action by a local authority, but each case is individually assessed. Failure by a landlord to carry out the required works in an Improvement Notice is a criminal offence.
The Regulator of Social Housing requires social housing providers to ensure their homes meet the Government’s Decent Homes Standard and in order to meet the standard, dwellings must be free of category 1 hazards (as assessed through the HHSRS).

Summary of events

The resident phoned the landlord on 22 September 2020 to report that the stair handrail was loose and the bathroom floor covering was worn and had become very slippery. The landlord raised orders on the same day to repair the handrail on the stairs and to inspect the bathroom flooring.
The landlord phoned the resident on 14 October 2020 regarding the bathroom flooring and the resident agreed to send photos to the landlord. The resident mentioned that she had a three-year old daughter.
The landlord’s repairs log indicates that an operative attended the property on 15 October 2020 and carried out temporary repairs to the newel post attached to the stairs, but noted that the post was not fixed to the floor and the banister was loose. The operative stated that a carpenter was required.
On 15 October 2020, the landlord raised a repair order to stick back a small tear on the bathroom vinyl flooring under the wash basin.
Between 19 and 22 October 2020 the landlord and resident were in contact to arrange an appointment to repair the stairs. An operative attended the property on 23 October 2020 and carried out further repairs to secure the handrail and stairs. The operative noted that the base of the newel post did not appear to be fixed to the floor and therefore it would require the possible removal of the post and re-fitting to create a fixing.
On 6 November 2020, the landlord raised a job to repair the bathroom floor covering. The resident phoned the landlord on 16 November 2020 to report that the bathroom flooring was a trip hazard and could not be glued down because it was “soaking wet”. The resident phoned the landlord again on 9 December 2020 to enquire about the job to repair the bathroom floor covering. In response, the landlord raised an order to fit new Polysafe vinyl flooring in the bathroom.
The landlord raised an order on 11 January 2021 to investigate a leak that had caused damage to the living room ceiling (this Service has not seen any information to confirm the outcome of this job).
The resident contacted the landlord on 15 February 2021 regarding the stairs. She explained that she had previously been informed that the newel post would be fixed to the floor. She advised the landlord that her daughter had hurt herself on the stair gate because it could not be properly secured to the newel post.
The landlord’s records indicate that the resident contacted the landlord in April 2021 to chase the repairs to the stairs. The records state that the previous job was closed in October 2020 and there were no notes to indicate that follow-on works were required. The landlord raised a new repair order for the stairs on 21 April 2021 and agreed an appointment with the resident.
On 10 May 2021, the resident phoned the landlord to request an update regarding the bathroom flooring. She stated that the floor covering was dangerous for her daughter to walk on.
On 27 May 2021, the landlord booked a video inspection of the bathroom flooring, to take place on 22 June 2021.
The resident phoned the landlord on 8 June 2021 regarding the repairs to the stairs and the bathroom floor. She stated that they had both been inspected previously. On 22 June 2021, the landlord inspected the bathroom floor, the stairs and the living room ceiling by a video call.
On 22 June 2021, the landlord placed an order with a contractor to replace the bathroom flooring with Polysafe vinyl bathroom flooring.
On 30 June 2021, the resident phoned the landlord to report that the bathroom flooring had caused her daughter to have an accident. The landlord’s ‘out of hours’ team attended on the same day and taped over the section of damaged vinyl floor covering under the wash basin to make it safe.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 30 June 2021 and stated the following:
1. She had reported the damaged floor covering in the bathroom during the previous year and it had been inspected in person and by video call (during the video call the living room ceiling was also inspected). The operative who had examined the bathroom flooring had advised her that a new floor covering was required.
2. The floor covering had deteriorated to such an extent that her three-year old daughter had tripped over it and hit her face against the bath. The resident said she would be making a personal injury claim.
3. The resident reported that the stairs were, in her view, dangerous because her 15-month old son might climb up them.
On 1 July 2021, the landlord raised a repair order to renew the staircase and renew the bathroom floor covering. The order also included filling and decorating the living room ceiling. The landlord phoned the resident to advise her that the order had been sent to an external contractor.
The contractor visited the property on 5 August 2021 and said it would need to discuss the work with the landlord. The landlord chased the contractor on 15 August 2021 as the landlord had not received feedback following the contractor’s visit.
The resident phoned the landlord on 23 September 2021 requesting an update regarding the bathroom floor covering. The landlord’s repairs log indicates that as of 15 October 2021 the landlord was still awaiting a quote for the works from the external contractor.
On 4 November 2021, the resident phoned the landlord to request an update regarding the stairs and the bathroom floor covering. The resident reported that her son had fallen down the stairs on that day and that the resident herself had previously fallen down the stairs. The resident also phoned the landlord on 16 November 2021 to say that the damaged bathroom flooring had become too slippery to stick down.
The landlord raised a new repair order on 9 December 2021 to renew the Polysafe vinyl floor covering in the bathroom.
The resident phoned the landlord on 11 January 2022 to ask about the status of the job to renew the bathroom floor covering and she phoned on 19 January 2022 about the stairs.
The landlord’s repairs log indicates that the resident was advised on 15 February 2022 that the repairs (to the stairs, bathroom and living room ceiling) were on hold at that stage until the lockdown had been lifted. The resident was advised that she would be contacted in due course.
The resident phoned the landlord on 15 March 2022 and stated that, in her view, the defects were dangerous.
The landlord’s contact records show that between 25 March 2022 and 12 April 2022, the resident and landlord had various conversations about the repairs to the stairs, bathroom floor and living room ceiling. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction that the repairs were still outstanding and was advised by the landlord on 12 April 2022 to email her complaint. The resident and landlord discussed the need for the resident to be temporarily decanted in order to allow the work to be carried out. According to the landlord, the resident had refused to be decanted because she stated that the landlord had not given her a date when she would be able to return to the property. The resident accused one of the landlord’s staff of being rude during a conversation.
On 21 April 2022, the local authority served a notice on the landlord under section 239 of the Housing Act 2004 stating that the council had received a complaint about the housing conditions within the property and therefore it would inspect the property on 26 April 2022.
The resident phoned the landlord on 3 and 9 May 2022 to make a formal complaint about the outstanding repairs. She also advised the landlord on 9 May 2022 that she was unavailable for an appointment that had been booked for 10 May 2022. She requested the landlord to reschedule the appointment.
The landlord’s surveyor carried out a ‘disrepair’ inspection on 10 May 2022 (from the information seen by this Service, the outcome of this inspection is unclear).
The resident phoned the landlord on 11 May 2022 to advise the landlord that she was awaiting an acknowledgement of her complaint. The resident explained that her complaint was about the outstanding repairs to the bathroom floor, the stairs and the living room ceiling and about the conduct of one of the landlord’s staff. The landlord wrote to the resident on the same day to confirm that it had logged a formal complaint and the resident would receive a reply by 25 May 2022.
On 20 May 2022, the local authority served an Improvement Notice on the landlord under sections 11 and 12 of the Housing Act 2004. The notice required the landlord to carry out the specified repairs by 9 August 2022, with work starting no later than 14 June 2022 . The list of category 1 and category 2 hazards within the property included the following:
1. Category 1 hazards:
  1. The banister on the right side of the stairs was broken and not fixed properly to the wall at the top of the stairs or the floor at the bottom, causing it to give way when used.
  2. The handrail on the left side of the stairs was loose from the wall fixings, “so there is no effective way to assist with balance when going up or downstairs”.

Category 2 hazards:
1. There were damp patches and cracks on the ceiling in the lounge from the first floor bathroom.
2. The lino in the bathroom around the wash hand basin was broken allowing water to penetrate to the ground floor lounge ceiling.
3. The broken lino in the bathroom was making it difficult for the resident to keep the floor clean.

The resident phoned the landlord on 23 May 2022 about the repairs. She had been visited by the landlord’s contractor and had been told that the contractor would contact her.
On 25 May 2022, the landlord sent its stage one complaint reply, in which it stated the following:
1. The landlord confirmed that the resident had first reported the issues with the stairs and bathroom floor covering on 22 September 2020.
2. An operative had attended on 15 October 2020 and identified that a carpenter was needed to repair the stairs. A carpenter attended on 23 October 2020 and carried out work to support the newel post.
3. An operative attended on 23 November 2020 and reported to the landlord that a new floor covering was required in the bathroom. The operative had carried out temporary repairs. The follow-up work was raised but the landlord stated that it had been put on hold due to the Covid-19 lockdowns.
4. The resident had reported a leak that was coming through the living room ceiling on 11 January 2021. An operative had attended on the same day and established that the leak was coming from the bath, which he repaired.
5. An appointment was made on 4 June 2021 for an operative to attend regarding the stairs, however, the operative reported back to the landlord that no further repairs could be done to the newel post and therefore requested a surveyor to inspect it.
6. A surveyor carried out a video inspection of the property on 22 June 2021 and identified a number of repairs, including renewing the staircase, renewing the bathroom floor covering and repairing the living room ceiling.
7. The landlord acknowledged there had been an unacceptable delay in authorising the work on 11 May 2021 and that its chosen contractor had been slow to progress the works.
8. The landlord stated that the resident would need to be decanted for one night to allow the work to proceed.
The resident wrote to the landlord on the same day (25 May 2022) to ask for her complaint to be escalated. The resident stated the following:
1. The landlord’s reply contained incorrect information.
2. A carpenter had not attended to repair the stairs as the landlord had sent out the wrong tradesperson.
3. The bath was not the source of the leak affecting the living room ceiling.
4. The resident had spoken to the landlord in March 2022 and was told she would be moved to a hotel to allow the repairs to proceed. She said she had been unable to fit a stair gate securely to the newel post because it was loose and this was a danger because of her two young children.
5. The resident had been advised by the operative who attended regarding the stairs that the newel post needed to be removed and securely re-fixed. She had therefore waited for an appointment date for the landlord to carry out this work.
6. The resident had fallen down the stairs after they had been repaired and was now in constant pain as a result.
7. The operative who attended on 23 November 2020 regarding the bathroom floor covering had not carried out temporary repairs (this had been done weeks afterwards).
8. The resident’s daughter had slipped on the bathroom floor covering and had struck her eye against the bath. The resident was now making alternative arrangements to bathe elsewhere because of safety concerns.
9. The resident stated that she had mental health conditions and was taking medication.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 27 May 2022 to confirm that her complaint would be escalated to the executive review stage of its complaints process and the resident would receive a reply by 14 June 2022.
On 16 June 2022, the landlord sent its executive review stage reply, in which it stated the following:
1. The landlord had placed an order with a contractor to replace the bathroom floor covering. The contractor had arranged to carry out the work on 20 September 2021, but had not attended. The landlord had addressed this with the contractor separately.
2. The landlord had tried to inspect the property on 10 May 2022, but the resident had been unwilling to allow access.
3. The landlord’s contractor had visited the property, taken measurements and was awaiting materials.
4. The landlord had attended the property on 16 June 2022 to carry out a pre-inspection and to assess how long the work would take.
5. The landlord advised the resident of a named point of contact regarding the repairs.
6. The resident would have to move out of the property overnight unless the work could be completed in one day.
7. The landlord accepted that it should have contacted the resident to hear her version of events before sending its stage one reply and had now reminded its staff of the importance of speaking to complainants.
8. The landlord accepted that the resident had phoned on 30 March 2022 and asked to make a formal complaint. The landlord apologised that it had not logged this as a formal complaint.
9. The landlord accepted that the delays and stress experienced by the resident as a result of the ongoing situation were unacceptable, however, it would ensure that the repairs were completed by the end of July 2022.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 21 June 2022 to increase its offer of compensation to £500 (£250 for reimbursement of costs and £250 compensation, which would be paid into the residents rent account to cover rent arrears). The resident replied on the same day to accept the landlord’s offer.
The resident moved out of the property on 31 July 2022 to allow the works to proceed (the information seen suggests that she wanted to delay moving out until the start of the school summer holidays). She stayed with her mother rather than in temporary accommodation and had provided the landlord with a set of keys to the property.
The landlord’s records indicate that from 29 July 2022 to 4 August 2022, the landlord was in contact with the contractor regarding a start date for the works and the landlord had been advised that the stairs were being manufactured. The landlord agreed with the resident that she should remain with her mother until 20 August 2022.
On 8 August 2022, the resident phoned the landlord to make a new complaint that the work to her property had not yet started, and on 12 August 2022 the resident contacted this Service to also report that the landlord had not yet started the work.
On 31 August 2022, the landlord sent a stage one complaint reply to the resident and apologised for the continued delays in carrying out the work. The landlord confirmed that it had discussed the complaint with the resident on 16 August 2022 and it accepted that the work had not yet started. The landlord therefore offered the resident £422.34 as financial redress for the period between 31 July 2022 and 16 August 2022 when the resident had been away from her home and the landlord had not carried out the works.
Following a request from the resident for her complaint to be escalated (the date of her request is unclear from the information seen), the landlord escalated the complaint to its executive review stage.
On 6 September 2022, the landlord sent its executive review letter to the resident regarding her complaint. The letter confirmed that its decision to pay the £250 goodwill payment (offered on 21 June 2022) into the resident’s rent account to cover rent arrears was in line with its policy.
The resident advised this Service on 9 September 2022 that she had stayed with her mother from 31 July 2022 until 17 August 2022 and that no work had been carried out when she returned to the property.
On 9 November 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident with a follow-up to its executive review letter. The landlord confirmed that it had agreed on 13 September 2022 to pay the resident £360 to reimburse her for the period from 16 August 2022 to 20 September 2022 for the ongoing costs she was experiencing as a result of the repairs not being completed. The landlord now offered the resident £1,110 to reimburse her for the period from 20 September 2022 to 8 January 2023.
This Service understands that the resident had agreed in November 2022 that the work should begin after Christmas in order to avoid disruption during the Christmas period.
On 11 August 2023, the landlord advised the Ombudsman that the works had started on 9 January 2023 and had been completed on 19 January 2023. The work included repairs to the stair parts (the landlord decided that the staircase did not need to be renewed), renewal of the bathroom floor covering, repairs and decorations to the living room ceiling and other repairs to the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident wrote to the landlord to report that she and her son had fallen down the stairs and that her daughter had slipped on the bathroom floor and struck her face on the bath. Also, the resident stated in her letter dated 25 May 2022 to the landlord that she was in constant pain as a result of falling down the stairs. This Service is not doubting the resident’s statements, however, the Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for injuries. This would be better dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. This is consistent with paragraph 42(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman will not consider matters where it is quicker, fairer or more reasonable to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure. The resident may wish to consider taking independent legal advice if she wishes to pursue a personal injury claim through the courts. Although the Ombudsman has not investigated the injuries reported by the resident, it has investigated the landlord’s response after it was advised of the injuries by the resident.

Repairs to the stairs

The resident phoned the landlord on 22 September 2020 to report that the stair handrail was loose. The landlord’s contractor attended on 15 October 2020 and carried out temporary repairs to secure the newel post. As the repair was not an emergency, the landlord’s initial response was appropriate as it had arranged for the contractor to attend within its 28 calendar day target timescale for non-emergency repairs. A contractor also attended on 23 October 2020 and carried out further repairs to secure the handrail and the stairs. The operative noted that the newel post did not appear to be fixed to the floor and therefore would possibly need to be removed and refitted to create a fixing. The landlord’s later notes indicate that the landlord did not raise a follow-on job to refix the newel post, despite the operative’s observations that the post was not fixed to the floor. This was inappropriate as the operative had carried out initial repairs and noted that follow-on work was required to properly secure the newel post. The landlord’s failure to raise a follow-on job meant that the landlord had not permanently secured the newel post (and therefore also the handrail) and the resident had to contact the landlord subsequently to request for the post to be properly secured.
The resident phoned the landlord on 15 February 2021 to report the need for further repairs to secure the newel post to the floor. She advised the landlord that her daughter had been hurt on a stair gate because it could not be properly secured to the newel post, which was loose. The resident then chased the landlord regarding the stairs in April 2021 and on 8 June 2021. On 22 June 2021, the landlord carried out a video inspection of the stairs. It had therefore taken over four months for the landlord to inspect the stairs following the resident’s call on 15 February 2021 and eight months since the operative had identified the need for more permanent repairs to the newel post on 23 October 2020. The delay in the landlord inspecting the stairs was unacceptable as the landlord was aware that the resident had young children and had been informed by the resident that her daughter had been injured as a stair gate could not be securely fixed to the newel post. The landlord was also aware that the resident had a disability in relation to her mobility.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 30 June 2021 to report that in her view the situation with the stairs was dangerous because her 15-month old son might climb them as there was no stair gate fitted. The landlord raised an order on 1 July 2021 to renew the staircase. Although the landlord had placed the order, it does not appear to have taken meaningful action to ensure the works were progressed in a timely manner and On 4 November 2021, the resident phoned the landlord and reported that her son had fallen down the stairs and that she had previously also fallen down the stairs. The resident phoned again on 11 January 2022 to enquire about the renewal of the stairs and on 15 February 2022 the resident was advised by the landlord that the repairs were on hold until the lockdown was lifted. At the time of her conversation with the landlord on 15 February 2022, it had therefore been over seven months since the landlord had placed the order on 1 July 2021 to renew the stairs and three months since the resident had advised the landlord on 4 November 2021 that she and her son had fallen down the stairs. These delays were unacceptable and indicate a complete disregard by the landlord of the risks posed to the resident and her family by the insecure stairs.
The Ombudsman has noted that the landlord appears to have experienced difficulties with the contractor’s performance. However, the landlord had a duty of care towards the resident and remained responsible for ensuring that the repairs were carried out within an appropriate timescale. This Service also recognises that, at the time, the landlord believed the stairs had to be renewed and therefore the new staircase had to be manufactured, which would have introduced a delay. Nevertheless, the delays and lack of communication with the resident were unacceptable given the risks involved to the resident and her family. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord properly considered the risks to the young children and to the resident, who was listed by the landlord as having a disability due to mobility issues.
It is unclear to this Service why the resident was advised by the landlord on 15 February 2022 that repairs were on hold until the lockdown had been lifted. The first Covid-19 lockdown started on 23 March 2020 and between this date and 31 May 2020, most landlords were only carrying out emergency repairs. However, on 1 June 2020, the Government had issued guidance to social landlords to say that they could resume wider repairs as long as they were carried out in line with public health advice. The second lockdown was from 5 November 2020 to 2 December 2020. However, the national guidance at the time stated that landlords could still carry out repairs and safety inspections if in line with public health advice. This advice did not change during the third lockdown, which started on 6 January 2021. Therefore, the advice given by the landlord regarding the lockdowns was inappropriate, particularly given the urgency of the repair.
Although there were conversations between the landlord and resident during March to April 2022 regarding the repairs, the repairs to the stairs remained outstanding and prompted the resident to formally complain to the landlord about the outstanding work. The defects to the stairs were identified by the local authority as a category 1 hazard when it inspected the property and, as a consequence, on 20 May 2022 the local authority served an Improvement Notice on the landlord under the Housing Act 2004. The notice identified various defects in relation to the stairs.
The Ombudsman has noted that, according to the landlord, the resident had refused to leave the property during conversations in March to April 2022, because she had not been given a date for her return to the property. The Ombudsman’s view is that the resident’s request for details about the timing of the repairs was understandable and therefore the landlord should have provided the information in order to facilitate the resident’s temporary decant to allow the work to proceed. The landlord’s failure to provide clear information about the timescales for carrying out the work was in the Ombudsman’s opinion, an indication of poor communication by the landlord.
The resident chased the landlord about the repairs on 23 May 2022 as the contractor had not contacted her, despite agreeing to do so after attending the property. The landlord acknowledged in its stage one complaint reply on 25 May 2022 that there had been an unacceptable delay in authorising the repairs and the contractor had been slow in progressing the work. Also, the landlord accepted in its executive review stage reply on 16 June 2022 that the delays and stress experienced by the resident as a result of the defects were unacceptable. However, despite the landlord acknowledging these failings, at the time of the landlord’s executive review letter on 16 June 2022, the work had still not commenced. The landlord had therefore failed to comply with the local authority’s Improvement Notice stipulating that the work should start no later than 14 June 2022. This again indicated a lack of urgency on the landlord’s part and was unreasonable given that it was aware of the risks posed by the stairs as outlined in the Improvement Notice.
The resident moved out of the property on 31 July 2022 to allow the work to be carried out but found that the work had not yet started when she returned to the property on 17 August 2022. The landlord’s records indicate that there were communication problems with the contractor during this period. However, it was unreasonable that the work had not started despite the Improvement Notice giving the landlord until 9 August 2022 to complete the work to the stairs. Even taking into account the resident’s request for work to begin after the start of the school holidays, the delay in commencing and completing the repairs to the stairs was unreasonable, particularly as the landlord had been served with an Improvement Notice confirming that the stairs were a category 1 hazard. The landlord should, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, have ensured that its contractor was using the time before the start of the school holidays to manufacture the new staircase so it could be fitted without further delay after the resident had moved out.
The Ombudsman has been advised by the landlord that the work to the stairs was completed from 9 -19 January 2023 and that it was decided that the stairs did not require renewal but instead could be repaired. Therefore, there was a further five-month delay in repairing the stairs after the resident had returned to the property on 17 August 2022. Even taking into account the resident’s request for the landlord not to start the work in December 2022 in order to avoid disruption at Christmas, the period of delay was still unreasonable.
In summary, the defects to the stairs represented a serious hazard to the resident and her family, as reflected in the local authority’s Improvement Notice. This Service has not seen any information showing that the landlord took the resident’s disability and the presence of young children into account when responding to the resident’s requests for the stairs to be properly repaired.

Repairs to the bathroom flooring.

The resident reported to the landlord on 22 September 2020 that the bathroom vinyl floor covering was worn and had become slippery. On 14 October 2020, the resident agreed to send photos of the floor covering and advised the landlord that she had a three-year old daughter. The landlord raised an order on 15 October 2020 to stick back a small tear in the floor covering around the wash basin pedestal in the bathroom. The landlord’s request for the resident to send photos of the floor covering was reasonable as an alternative to carrying out a physical inspection of the property given that the coronavirus was still prevalent. However, it was a shortcoming on the landlord’s part that it had taken three weeks to request the photos given that its policy is to carry out inspections within seven calendar days.
This Service has not seen any information to indicate that repairs were carried out by the landlord’s contractor in response to the order raised on 15 October 2020. The landlord raised a further order on 6 November 2020 to repair the floor covering, and again the Ombudsman has not seen any information to show that repairs were carried out in relation to this job. The resident phoned the landlord on 16 November 2020 to report that the floor covering was a trip hazard. The landlord stated in its stage one complaint reply that its contractor had attended on 23 November 2020 and carried out temporary repairs to the flooring. This is disputed by the resident who stated in her letter dated 25 May 2022 that the operative had attended but had not carried out any temporary repairs. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to determine whether any temporary repairs were carried out on 23 November 2020 based on the information seen. However, it had taken 62 calendar days from the resident’s initial report of the unsafe bathroom flooring on 22 September 2020 to the contractor’s visit on 23 November 2020. This was inappropriate as the landlord’s repairs policy states that non-emergency repairs will be completed within 28 calendar days and the resident had expressed safety concerns about the floor covering. Also, at this stage the landlord was aware that the resident had a disability in terms of her mobility.
The resident phoned the landlord on 9 December 2020 about the floor covering and, in response, the landlord raised an order to renew the floor covering. The landlord stated in its stage one reply that an order for follow-on works to the flooring had been raised after the contractor’s visit on 23 November 2020, but that this had been put on hold due to the Covid 19 lockdowns. As stated earlier, the lockdown restrictions in relation to landlords carrying out repairs ended on 1 June 2020. It is therefore unclear to this service why the works should have been put on hold, given the urgency and the resident’s known disability. Therefore, in the absence of information from the landlord explaining why the repair had been placed on hold, the Ombudsman’s conclusion is that it had been inappropriate for the landlord to place the repair on hold given the resident’s circumstances.
Based on the information seen by this Service, the landlord does not appear to have taken any effective action between December 2020 and May 2021 to progress the repairs to the bathroom flooring. The resident phoned the landlord on 10 May 2021 and 8 June 2021 for an update regarding the bathroom floor covering. She advised the landlord that the floor covering represented a danger to her daughter. The landlord carried out a video inspection of the floor on 22 June 2021 and placed an order with a contractor to replace the bathroom floor covering with Polysafe non-slip vinyl flooring. It had therefore taken a further seven months after the contractor’s visit on 23 November 2020 for the landlord to inspect the floor and raise an order to renew it with a safer non-slip floor covering. This delay was unacceptable given the safety concerns that had been reported by the resident and the family’s circumstances in terms of the resident’s disability and the resident having young children.
On 30 June 2021, the resident reported to the landlord that her daughter had struck her eye on the bath after slipping on the vinyl floor covering. The landlord’s ‘out of hours’ team responded on the same day and applied duct tape around the damaged vinyl under the wash hand basin. The landlord’s response in carrying out temporary repairs on the same day was appropriate given that the resident had reported the accident involving her daughter.
The landlord again raised an order on 1 July 2021 for the floor covering to be renewed. The resident phoned the landlord on 23 September 2021, 4 November 2021 and 16 November 2021 to request updates. On 9 December 2021, the landlord raised a new order to renew the floor covering. However, it is not clear from the information seen by the Ombudsman why the landlord had raised a new order and not actioned the previous order that had been raised on 1 July 2021. Nevertheless, there had once again been an unacceptable delay since the resident reported to the landlord on 30 June 2021 that her daughter had suffered an injury because of the flooring and the landlord’s contractor had carried out a temporary repair.
The resident phoned the landlord on 11 January 2022 regarding the bathroom flooring and the resident was advised on 15 February 2022 that the job was on hold due to the lockdown. As stated earlier, it was inappropriate for the landlord to have advised the resident that the repair was on hold because of lockdowns, particularly given the urgency of the job.
As was the case with the stairs, at the time of the landlord’s executive review letter on 16 June 2022, the work to renew the bathroom floor covering had still not commenced. The landlord had therefore failed to comply with the local authority’s Improvement Notice stipulating that the work should start no later than 14 June 2022. This again indicated a lack of urgency on the landlord’s part and was unreasonable given that it was aware of the risks posed by the bathroom floor as outlined in the Improvement Notice.
As mentioned earlier, the resident moved out of the property on 31 July 2022 to allow the work to be carried out but found that the work had not yet started when she returned to the property on 17 August 2022. It was therefore unreasonable that the work had not started, despite the Improvement Notice giving the landlord until 9 August 2022 to complete the work to the bathroom flooring.
The work to the bathroom floor was completed from 9 -19 January 2023. Therefore, there was a further five months delay in renewing the floor covering after the resident had returned to the property on 17 August 2022. This was unreasonable as it meant the resident and her family members were still living with potentially unsafe floor covering in the bathroom.
In summary, the landlord took an excessively long period to progress the repairs (over two years). Even after the resident had reported an accident involving her daughter slipping on the floor and that she was having to bathe the children (and herself) elsewhere because of safety fears, the landlord failed to carry out the repairs in a timely manner. Also, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord properly considered the risks of the defective floor covering to the young children and to the resident, who was listed by the landlord as having a disability due to mobility issues. Unlike with the stairs, the new vinyl floor covering would not have required special manufacturing for the landlord and therefore the work should have been completed without delay. In addition, the landlord’s communication with the resident was poor and relied on the resident chasing the landlord for updates, rather than the landlord proactively progressing the repairs.

Repairs to the living room ceiling.

The landlord raised an order on 11 January 2021 to investigate a leak that had caused damage to the living room ceiling. The landlord states that the leak was from the bath, although the resident disputes this as she stated that no work was carried out to the bath. However, based on the information seen by the Ombudsman, there were no further reports of leaks coming through to the living room ceiling and the only work needed in relation to this matter was to make good the damage to the ceiling. The landlord inspected the damage to the living room ceiling during a video call on 22 June 2021 and raised an order on 1 July 2021 to fill and redecorate the living room ceiling. This was reasonable as the landlord had raised the order shortly after the inspection of the ceiling.
Although an order had been placed with a contractor, the work was not carried out within a reasonable period of time. The landlord advised the resident on 15 February 2022 that the repair to the ceiling (and other repairs) were on hold due to lockdowns and, as has already been stated earlier, this advice was inappropriate.
The resident chased the landlord regarding the repair to the ceiling between March and April 2022, and on 20 May 2022 the local authority served an Improvement Notice on the landlord, which identified the living room ceiling defects as a category 2 hazard. The notice stated that there were damp patches and cracks in the ceiling. As was the case with the stairs and the bathroom floor covering, the landlord did not comply with the local authority’s Improvement Notice for the ceiling repairs to start no later than 14 June 2022 and to be completed by 9 August 2022. This was unreasonable, particularly as the resident had been waiting for approximately a year for the ceiling repairs to be carried out.
The information seen by the Ombudsman does not indicate that the repairs to the living ceiling were a health and safety matter, however, based on the resident’s correspondence it was unsightly and unpleasant for the resident to be left with the ceiling in a defective condition for such a lengthy period. Also, the Improvement Notice had identified the presence of damp patches on the ceiling and it is important to deal with the presence of damp at the earliest opportunity.
The work to the ceiling was completed during from 9 -19 January 2023 and therefore there was a further five months delay in carrying out the repairs after the resident had returned to the property on 17 August 2022. This delay was unreasonable.

The associated complaints.

The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf…”.
At the time of this complaint, the landlord’s complaints procedure had three complaint stages. The first stage was for the landlord to resolve the complaint (where possible) within two working days. If this was not possible, then the complaint would be escalated to the first formal investigation stage of the complaints process and the landlord would reply within 10 working days. If the resident remained dissatisfied then the landlord would escalate the complaint to the executive review stage and again would reply within 10 working days.
The landlord accepted and apologised in its executive review letter of 16 June 2022 that the resident had complained to the landlord on 30 March 2022 and it had failed to log the complaint. The landlord’s oversight in not logging the complaint meant that the resident experienced a delay in her complaint being investigated by the landlord and meant she had to contact the landlord again to raise her concerns. It was therefore right for the landlord to apologise for this failing. However, the landlord did not acknowledge that the resident had also phoned on 12 April 2022 to complain and had been advised by its staff to email the landlord with her complaint. This was inappropriate as the landlord’s complaints policy states that it will accept complaints in a range of ways including by phone. The landlord therefore should have taken the details by phone and logged the complaint.
The resident phoned on 3 and 9 May 2022 to make a formal complaint and phoned on 11 May 2022 to chase the landlord for an acknowledgement to her complaint. The landlord then acknowledged the complaint on 11 May 2022 and stated that a response would be sent by 25 May 2022. It was a shortcoming on the landlord’s part that it had not acknowledged the resident’s complaint earlier as its complaints procedure states that it will acknowledge complaints within two working days. The landlord’s failure to acknowledge the resident’s complaint made on 3 May 2022 meant that she had to contact the landlord again on 9 and 11 May 2022. The landlord sent its complaint response on 25 May 2022 and therefore replied within a reasonable timescale.
The resident contacted the landlord on 25 May 2022 to ask for her complaint to be escalated. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the request on 27 May 2022 and the landlord sent its executive review letter on 16 June 2022. The landlord therefore acknowledged and replied to the resident’s escalated complaint within the appropriate timescales.
The resident made a further complaint on 8 August 2022 that the landlord had not yet commenced the work to her property. The landlord sent its stage one reply on 31 August 2022, which was 17 working days after the resident’s phone call. However, the landlord’s reply indicated that it had spoken to the resident on 16 August 2022. Therefore, given that the landlord had contacted the resident to discuss the complaint, the time taken for the landlord to reply was reasonable. The resident then requested the landlord to escalate her complaint and, although this Service has not seen the resident’s escalation request, the landlord replied promptly with its executive review reply on 6 September 2022.
In considering the landlord’s complaints handling, the Ombudsman has taken into account the cumulative impact of each of the repairs on the resident and the landlord’s failure to use the complaints process in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, which are:
1. Be fair.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.
Firstly, this Service has not seen evidence demonstrating that the landlord used the complaints process to take account of the resident’s individual circumstances, which is an essential part of treating residents fairly. The landlord does not appear to have identified the increased risks faced by the resident and her household due to the resident’s disability and the age of her children. Secondly, although the landlord had acknowledged in its executive review letter of 16 June 2022 that the resident had experienced unacceptable delays in relation to the repairs, it did not, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, put things right by offering appropriate financial redress. Lastly, although there was some evidence of learning during the complaints process, the resident still experienced subsequent delays in getting the outstanding repairs completed.

Conclusion

There were excessive delays in carrying out the repairs to the property. The repairs to the stairs and the bathroom flooring each took over two years to complete and the repairs to the living room ceiling took about 18 months following the landlord’s inspection in June 2021. The impact and risks associated with these delays were exacerbated because of the resident’s disability and because she had young children. Even after the local authority had identified the hazards and risks in its Improvement Notice dated 20 May 2022, the landlord failed to act with an appropriate level of urgency.
This case has also highlighted the lack of communication by the landlord in relation to repairs and its failure to correctly record the need for follow-up repairs when temporary repairs are carried out. In the case of each repair, it was left to the resident to chase the landlord for updates and to prompt the landlord to take the necessary action.
The resident reported to the landlord that she was incurring additional expenses, such as travelling costs, while the repairs were outstanding. For example, she advised the landlord on 25 May 2022 that she was having to make alternative bathing arrangements because she felt the bathroom flooring was unsafe. The landlord accepted that the resident was incurring additional costs and offered to reimburse her as follows:
1. On 21 June 2022, the landlord offered £500 to the resident (£250 was for reimbursement of costs and £250 was a goodwill gesture).
2. On 31 August 2022, the landlord offered £422.34 to recognise that the resident had vacated the property from 31 July 2022 to 16 August 2022 and the landlord had failed to carry out repairs during this period (£272.34 was for reimbursement of costs and £150 was a goodwill gesture).
3. On 13 September 2022, the landlord offered £360 for ongoing costs during the period 16 August 2022 to 20 September 2022 while the repairs were outstanding.
4. On 9 November 2022, the landlord offered £1,110 for reimbursement of ongoing costs while the repairs were outstanding during the period 16 August 2022 to 8 January 2023.
Therefore, the landlord offered a total of £2,392.34 (£1,192.34 for reimbursement of costs and £400 as goodwill gestures). Given that the resident was incurring additional costs due to the delays in the landlord carrying out the repairs, it was appropriate for the landlord to reimburse the resident for these costs. The landlord’s compensation policy states: “We may pay compensation for…actual, proven financial loss sustained as a direct result of our service failure (otherwise known as a refund or reimbursement)”.
Although the landlord reimbursed the resident for the additional costs she incurred, the landlord has not, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, offered proportionate financial redress to recognise the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident while the repairs were outstanding. The goodwill gestures of £250 offered by the landlord on 21 June 2022 and £150 offered on 31 August 2022 (i.e. £400 in total) were not adequate to put things right. The Ombudsman has therefore made an order of compensation set out below, taking in to account the specific circumstances of this complaint, the resident’s rent payments, and the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance. The order takes into account that the resident’s current rent is £112.97 per week and that the property comprises two bedrooms, one bathroom/WC combined, one living room and a kitchen.
The Ombudsman considers the landlord should pay the following percentages of the rent to address the impact that the outstanding repairs had on the family:
1. 10% of the rent for the period the repairs to the stairs were outstanding.
2. 10% of the rent for the period the work to the bathroom floor covering was outstanding (the figure of 10% has been used, rather than 20% of the liveable rooms in the property, because the bathroom is combined with a WC and the evidence suggests that it was partially used by the resident and her family).
3. 5% of the rent for the period the repairs to the living room ceiling were outstanding (a lower percentage has been used to reflect that the living room was still in use by the resident).
The periods that the Ombudsman considers should be used in the calculations are:
1. Stairs: from 21 October 2020 (i.e. 28 days after the resident reported the defects) to 8 January 2023 (the day before the repairs started) = 809 calendar days.
2. Bathroom: from 21 October 2020 (i.e. 28 days after the resident reported the defects) to 8 January 2023 (the day before the repairs started) = 809 calendar days.
3. Living room ceiling: from 21 July 2021 (i.e. 28 calendar days after the landlord’s inspection of the ceiling) to 8 January 2023 (the day before the repairs started) = 536 calendar days.
The amounts of financial redress ordered are therefore:
1. Stairs: 809 days x £16.14 (daily proportion of the rent) x 10% = £1,305
2. Bathroom: 809 days x £16.14 (daily proportion of the rent) x 10% = £1,305
3. Living room: 536 days x £16.14 (daily proportion of the rent) x 5% = £432

Total £3,042

In addition to the above, the Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay £500 in relation to its complaints handling (this is inclusive of the offer of £400 previously made by the landlord as goodwill gestures). The figure of £500 is within the range shown in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for cases of maladministration where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the stairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the bathroom flooring.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the living room ceiling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaints.

Reasons

The landlord took over two years to carry out the repairs to the stairs, even though the resident had a disability affecting her mobility and had young children. She was unable to take the precaution of fitting a stair gate because it could not be properly secured to the newel post. The landlord failed to comply with the local authority’s Improvement Notice within the stipulated timescales, even though it identified the defects to the stairs as a category 1 hazard. The landlord was not proactive in terms of communicating with the resident about the repairs, nor did it issue appropriate orders for follow-on works after carrying out temporary repairs.
The landlord took over two years to renew the bathroom floor covering, even though the landlord was aware that the resident had a disability, had young children and she expressed safety concerns about the existing floor covering. Even after the landlord had reported an accident involving her daughter slipping on the floor, the landlord took over six months to renew the floor covering. The landlord also failed to comply with the local authority’s Improvement Notice, which had identified the floor as a category 2 hazard and failed to communicate adequately with the resident.
Although it was not a health and safety matter, it took the landlord approximately 18 months after inspecting the living room ceiling on 22 June 2021 to repair the ceiling. The defects to the ceiling were included in the local authority’s Improvement Notice and the landlord failed to complete the repairs within the timescale stipulated in the notice.
The landlord had failed to log the resident’s phone calls on 30 March 2022 and 12 April 2022 as a formal complaint. Also, the landlord had failed to use its complaints process as a means to resolve the dispute using the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.

Orders

The landlord is ordered within four weeks of this report to:
1. Pay the resident a total of £3,542 (inclusive of the offer of £400 previously made), comprising:
  1. £1,305 in relation to its handling of repairs to the stairs.
  2. £1,305 in relation to its handling of repairs to the bathroom flooring.
  3. £432 in relation to its handling of repairs to the living room ceiling.
  4. £500 in relation to its handling of the associated complaints.
2. Write to the resident to apologise for the handling of her repairs.
3. Share this report with its board.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the landlord reviews how it responds to Improvement Notices served under the Housing Act 2004, identifies other notices where a response may be outstanding, and takes appropriate action to comply with these notices.