GreenSquareAccord Limited (202212832)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212832

GreenSquare Group Limited

26 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 response to the resident’s reports about requiring repair works at the property.
As part of this investigation, the Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.
As part of this investigation, the Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s recordkeeping.

Background and summary of events

The resident’s complaint exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process in September 2022. For context, this report also refers to some events after that date.

Legal and policy framework

The Code and the landlord’s complaint’s policy

The Housing Ombudsman Complaints Handling Code, (“the Code”), issued in July 2020, sets out requirements for landlords who are members of the Scheme. Compliance with the Code forms part of the membership’s obligations. Of particular relevance to this investigation, the Code says, among other things:
1. Landlords should make their complaints policy available in a clear and accessible format. This will detail the number of stages involved, what will happen at each stage and the timeframes for responding. (section 2.3)
2. The Ombudsman does not believe a third stage is necessary as part of a complaints process but if a landlord believes strongly it requires one, it should set out its reasons as part of the self-assessment. A process with more than 3 stages is not acceptable under any circumstances in the Ombudsman’s view. (section 3.8)
3. Landlords should use a 2-stage process, with stage 1 taking 10 working days and stage 2 taking 20 working days. Exceptionally, landlords can provide an explanation if they need an extension to those timeframes. (section 3.11)
4. It is not appropriate to have extra named stages (such as ‘stage 0’ or ‘pre-complaint stage’) as this causes unnecessary confusion for residents. (section 4.1)
5. Where residents raise additional complaints during the investigation, these should be incorporated into the stage 1 response if they are relevant and the stage 1 response has not been issued. Where the stage 1 response has been issued, or it would unreasonably delay the response, the complaint should be logged as a new complaint. (section 5.7)
The complaints policy the landlord had in place at the beginning of the period under investigation was issued in April 2021 and approved in May 2022. It did not set out any timescales but noted that the Code said it should have a maximum of 2 stages and clear timeframes for response.
A new complaints procedure (“the procedure”) was approved in May 2022, which also covers the period this Service is investigating. It included amendments which it said reflected the revised July 2020 Code.
In the procedure, the landlord refers to a 4 – step ‘customer process’. At step 1, the landlord will seek to resolve the issue within 2 working days. At step 2 a customer care specialist will call the resident to fully understand the issues, investigate what has happened and to personally manage the complaint until it is fully resolved. This step should be completed in 10 working days. If the matter is not resolved, the complaint moves to step 3, and is passed to a director to review whether the case was handled fairly and reasonably. Again, this step should be completed within 10 working days. Step 4 refers to the tenant’s right to escalate the complaint to this Service.

The landlord’s compensation policy

One of the stated aims of its policy, agreed in July 2018, is to provide guidelines for compensating customers who experience loss or inconvenience due to a service failure. It says, among other things:
1. As far as possible, compensation payments will be decided and offered with the aim of returning a customer to the same position they would have been in if the failure had not taken place.
2. It can provide ‘gestures of goodwill’ which are discretionary or voluntary payments that might not be financial. It provides an example of where the landlord had taken repeated attempts to resolve an issue; the customer didn’t experience a loss but it was frustrating and inconvenient for them. It says its goodwill gestures are usually gift vouchers or items such as flowers or fruit baskets and are usually up to the value of £30.
3. It says it may offer compensation where a customer suffers loss due to a failure to deal satisfactorily with repairs. It gives the example of damaged belongings.
4. It says that any payments made under the Compensation Policy will be in “full and final settlement of the issue”. It stresses that “…by accepting a payment the customer is acknowledging that the matter is resolved and will take no further action.”
The landlord’s discretionary policy, issued in July 2021 and approved in June 2022, says that an example of the types of discretionary payments it may offer include payments for loss of belongings, which may apply when items have been damaged and it is responsible. When considering payment for belongings, applications should be supported by evidence of purchase and/or customer provided valuation together with evidence of loss or damage.

The landlord’s repairs policy

The landlord has provided this service with its Responsive Repairs Policy, approved in December 2022, which is after the dates we have considered in this case. However, this Service considers it is illustrative of the approach the landlord considers appropriate.
It sets out its response times to address repair issues. These range from 4 hours to deal with an emergency repair to 7 days for urgent repairs, 28 days for routine repairs and 84 days for planned routine work. It says it recognises vulnerabilities and takes these into account when making decisions on what type of repair it needs to carry out and how quickly it should respond.
It lists a number of repairs that it does not consider to be its responsibility. It said, in respect of reports of condensation, it expects residents to “…make simple lifestyle changes to resolve issues such as condensation. Where condensation is the cause of any reported dampness you will be advised of the action you need to take to deal with and prevent the problem reoccurring.”

Background and summary of events

The resident is a tenant of the landlord under an assured shorthold tenancy agreement. She entered into the agreement in March 2012. She is disabled and the landlord was aware of this at all material times.
On 23 July 2021, the resident requested an inspection of the property. The note on the landlord’s systems about her request said, “[The resident] needs [it] sorted. She is disabled and has [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease].” The inspection notes reported that, among other things, the resident’s worktops were in a “very poor” condition and there was evidence of wood worm in the pantry floor, that required further inspection.

Complaint 1

On the 27 July 2021 the landlord sent a Complaint Stage 1 Acknowledgment to the resident in relation to her complaint. This Service has not seen a copy of the original complaint document, but the records indicate it was made on 23 July 2021. There are a number of complaint threads in this case and so, for readability, this Service will refer to this complaint, as Complaint 1. The acknowledgement said that the resident raised the following issues:
1. Damaged flooring in the resident’s bathroom. She said a surveyor had told her that the flooring would be replaced.
2. Mould in the bathroom.
3. The floor in the pantry was rotten.
4. The resident was told she would have a kitchen replacement a few years ago but this had not been completed.
5. The resident reported a repair to her son’s bedroom which had not been completed.
The resident was provided with the name of the investigator who would be looking into the issues she raised. It said that the landlord usually expected to respond to complaints within 10 working days of the date of the letter. However, due to annual leave, the landlord instead expected to respond by 17 August 2021.
A landlord surveyor inspected the property on 29 July 2021. He considered the landlord’s area supervisor should inspect the works and ask the contractor to return to “complete the job”, raising the following issues:
1. the floor had been relayed but not completely resealed. The surveyor said if the flooring could not be re-laid, new vinyl flooring should be fitted.
2. the bath panel had been damaged on the corner and filled with clear silicon.
It appears from the available evidence that the resident then emailed the landlord again on 30 July 2021. This Service has not seen a copy of that email but the landlord referred to it in a later response. In it, the resident, added several other issues to her complaint. This email does not seem to have been recorded by the landlord at the time of its next response; although it did refer to the extra complaint issues at a later stage.
On 11 August 2021 the records show the resident called the landlord chasing a response to the outstanding repairs. She said she could not walk on the floor as she was disabled and was concerned she could fall over.
On 17 August 2021 the landlord provided its stage 1 resolution letter for Complaint 1. It dealt with the issues raised on 23 July 2021 in turn as set out in the following paragraphs.

Damaged flooring in the resident’s bathroom: the resident said a surveyor told her that the flooring would be replaced.

The landlord said notes taken at a March 2020 inspection reported that the bathroom flooring should be removed and set aside. The notes said that “…if it could not be re-laid, then fit new vinyl flooring.”
The landlord indicated that, in line with the above statement, the floor had been re-laid, but not replaced. It felt this was in line with what had been suggested by the March 2020 surveyor and said that therefore the resident’s complaint had not been upheld.
However, it went on to refer to a more recent inspection on 29 July 2021. It confirmed the surveyor requested a contractor to re-attend and complete the job.
The surveyor had noted that the floor had been re-laid but not completely resealed. It said that as the area surveyor did not take any photos of the work, the landlord’s repairs team would contact her to arrange a suitable time to attend and arrange a visit with the contractor.

Mould in the bathroom.

The landlord said that the surveyor that attended on 23 July 2021 had said that the existing fan in the bathroom should be replaced. However, the landlord said that, as it could not find any evidence that the resident had complained about mould in the bathroom before 23 July 2021, it did not uphold her complaint about its failure to respond to that issue.

Rotten floor in pantry

The landlord said a job had been raised on 23 July 2020 to repair the pantry floor. The job had been re-raised on 27 May 2021 and again on 18 June 2021 when it was noted that the area supervisor needed to visit. It said this had happened on 29 July 2021 and an inspection had been arranged on 23 August 2021 to determine how invasive the wood worm was before carrying out works. The landlord upheld this element of the resident’s complaint because of the time taken to address the issue.

The resident was told she would have a kitchen replacement a few years ago but this had not been completed.

The landlord said it had no record of telling the resident that it would replace the kitchen. It said generally kitchens were replaced every 25 years but this kitchen was only 17 years old. However, it also noted that, at the survey on 29 July 2021, the surveyor had listed a number of issues with the kitchen. It said that once the inspection into wood worm in the pantry had been completed, it would be able to determine the works that would be required and senior management could review the possibility of replacing the kitchen on a programme of planned works.

Uncompleted repair to son’s bedroom

The landlord said that a repair had been scheduled for 23 July 2020. The records showed that the resident returned a missed call to book in this repair but she was not called back. The repair was cancelled. It said it had re-scheduled the repair. It said this element of her complaint was upheld.
In summary, the landlord said her complaint was partially upheld. It apologised that its service had fallen below the standard it would expect.
The resident responded, (it is not clear on which date but soon after the above landlord response), that she was not happy with its response. The records are unclear but it appears the landlord also apologised at this stage for having failed to add certain items to her stage 1 complaint, that the resident said she had emailed the landlord about on 30 July 2021. The landlord arranged to speak with the resident and discuss those items.
On 25 August 2021 the landlord sent the resident a further response. This was entitled Complaint Stage 1 Acknowledgment. (Although the landlord had already sent a document with the same title on 27 July 2021 this response was still about Complaint 1 as it had the same complaint reference number.)
The landlord said that as the resident was unhappy with the response she received, her complaint had been reviewed by a senior officer. It said this was as per Step 3 of its Complaint Procedure. It referred to a survey that the landlord had completed at the property on 24 August 2021 in response to the resident’s concerns.
The landlord said it had addressed the 13 points the resident had raised. Some of these were additional to the points acknowledged at the start of the complaint. It appears they must have been drawn from the email of 30 July 2021 although it is not clear from the response. This Service has separated these items into lists showing those items which had been responded to at the outset of Complaint 1 on 23 July 2021, those items which were raised after the first Complaint Stage 1 Acknowledgment on 27 July 2021 and those items that the landlord said were new repair issues that arose following the survey on 24 August 2021.

Items responded to at the outset of Complaint 1 on 23 July 2021:

The landlord agreed to replace the bathroom floor.
The landlord agreed to address the wood rot in the pantry.
The landlord said it would replace the kitchen when the flooring had been replaced.
The resident’s son’s bedroom door had been addressed.
Mould in front and back bedroom (it is not clear which of these bedrooms was the resident’s bedroom, which was the subject of the initial complaint). The landlord said it would treat the mould.
Mould in bathroom – the landlord said an extractor fan would be fitted and the mould would be treated once this was done.

Some of the items raised after the stage one acknowledgment response to Complaint 1 (presumably on 30 July 2021)

2 other bedroom doors and the dining room door were hanging off. The landlord agreed to check these and repair as necessary to ensure the doors were hanging correctly.

The gas fire had never been replaced even though it had been condemned. The landlord said an appointment had been made to attend the property on 9 September 2019 however no access was available. It said that texts were sent to the resident’s mobile on 3 separate occasions asking for contact and when the landlord did not receive a response, it cancelled the job. It said it had no records of the resident contacting the landlord after that time and since it no longer fitted gas/electric fires, it was no longer able to arrange this. It said it would make arrangements for the gas fire to be removed and a heat loss calculation completed to ensure the radiator in the room provided sufficient heat.
Damp around kitchen window – the landlord said a repair had been raised to treat mould and stain block around “…all windows.”

Those items that the landlord said were new repair issues

The resident had raised a number of new issues at the survey on 24 August 2021, which the landlord listed and said would address. They included renewing the steps by her back door and the patio door.
It said that “apart from the exceptions” repairs would commence during the week commencing 20 September 2021. The letter did not say what the exceptions were.
The landlord added that it accepted there were a number of repairs that the resident had to “chase up” and had not received updates or timely communications for. However, it said that there were also a number of repairs, that it had no record of receiving a report for. It provided her with contact details for requesting emergency or routine repairs.
The landlord apologised for the fact that the resident had not been contacted during the complaint investigation and said it had reviewed its team procedures to understand why this had not happened and what it could do to ensure this was managed correctly in the future.
The landlord provided the resident with contact details for the Ombudsman.
It is not clear from the records if the works went ahead during the week commencing 20 September 2021, but on 30 September 2021 the resident signed a “without prejudice” standard letter saying she agreed to accept the sum of £75 as a goodwill payment and that Complaint 1 was now closed. It appears from the records that the payment was to allow the resident to replace a hearth that contractors had taken away in 2019. The records also show that the landlord later agreed to replace the gas fire with an electric fire suite as it had originally arranged to do.
On 17 November 2021 the records show a list of repairs were scheduled to go ahead at the property on 18 and 19 November 2021. These included renewing the steps by the back door and patio, mould and stain works around all windows, checking all the internal doors to make sure they were swinging and closing correctly, replacing the bathroom flooring, bath panels, window handle and replacing an extractor fan in the kitchen.
The records show that, on 18 November 2021, some works were completed. Among other things, the rubber shorts were replaced on the resident’s windows, a mould wash was completed on the windows and a bath panel was noted as being due to be fitted. Other works may have gone ahead on 19 November 2021 but this Service has not seen the records to confirm that.
An order was also raised to replace the resident’s kitchen. It was noted that this was completed on 15 December 2021 but it is not clear that the works were in fact completed on that date.
On 10 May 2022 the resident contacted the landlord about its failure to replace external handrails at the property when completing major works. She also said that, although she had made arrangements for carpet to be fitted on the stairs, because the stairs had not been fixed, her appointment could not go ahead.
Internally, a landlord complaints operative said these issues should be logged as a new complaint. She said that although the landlord had investigated the resident’s concerns previously, this was a new issue and needed to be logged separately at step 2 of its procedure. She stressed that while this was a new case it was connected to the previous one as new issues had arisen since the work was carried out.
On 17 May 2022 a landlord internal email referred to major works having been undertaken at the property. It is not clear on what date the works were actually completed but they were cited as being:
1. A kitchen upgrade.
2. Ground floor wooden floors replaced due to wood worm.
3. Stair carpet removed to enable inspection of staircase.

Complaint 2

On 25 May 2022 the landlord sent the resident a Customer Care Step 2 Complaint response. This referred to a separate complaint number and this Service will refer to this complaint as Complaint 2.
In this response, the landlord said it understood the resident’s complaint to be about:
1. The landlord’s delay in arranging repairs to the stairs and the problems this caused in making arrangements for carpet to be fitted.
2. The removal of the resident’s external handrail during recent repairs.
3. Reimbursement for damage caused to the resident’s furniture when in storage (or during transfer) when recent repairs were carried out at the property.
In relation to the stairs and carpet fitting, the landlord said it had arranged for a repairs team to attend on 16 May 2022 and understood the carpet fitting then went ahead on 17 May 2022. It apologised that the resident had found it necessary to chase that up.
The landlord said it understood the resident remained unhappy with the stair repairs as she considered they were still creaking. It said it had passed on the resident’s concerns to its area supervisor who would contact her within 7 days.
In relation to the external handrails, the landlord said it had been necessary to remove the handrails to complete the repair work at her property. It said it could not re-install the handrails without an occupational therapist’s assessment. It understood the assessment went ahead on 20 May 2022. It said that, when it received this, it would arrange for the handrails to be fitted.
In relation to the damage to the resident’s furniture, it said that it understood the resident would accept repairs of a leather armchair and dining chair as a resolution to her complaint. However, it said it did not have the specialist contractors available to arrange this. It asked her to obtain a quote for the repairs.
In conclusion, it said her complaint had been partly upheld because of the lack of clarity around the arrangements for the stair repair.
It said if she was unhappy with the response, she could ask for an executive review, which this Service understands to be what the landlord otherwise refers to as Step 3 of its complaints process.
On 6 August 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to ask why she was still waiting for repair works to be completed. She said she had been promised the external handrails – which she said she made clear she needed for her safety – would be replaced by March 2022. However, this still had not been done, 4 months later.
She made a number of points about what she considered were the issues with the recent repairs:
1. She said the surveyor had missed the wood rot in her flooring.
2. The surveyor had tried to put cheap carpet in the property to replace plush carpeting even though she had been told the replacement would be like for like.
3. The surveyor had told the occupational therapist that they had to supply and fit the railings, which the occupational therapist could not do.
4. The cupboards that had been replaced in her kitchen were “stupidly high” and, as a disabled person, she said she could not reach them. She said she had spondylitis in her neck and shoulders and was not supposed to stretch.

Complaint 3

The landlord contacted the resident by phone on 10 August 2022. It followed this up on 11 August 2022 with a letter entitled Customer Care Step 2 Acknowledgement. This again seems to have bypassed the Step 1 Resolve stage. It had a separate complaint reference so this Service will refer to it as Complaint 3 in this report.
The landlord said the resident had told it of her frustrations with repairs that were still outstanding; which were:
1. Replacement of steps to front and rear external doors (removed by the repairs team when doing the works).
2. The sink unit – complete with drainer and double doors.
3. Beading to the hallway flooring, and
4. Sealing of the kitchen floor.
The landlord said it might not be able to alter the height of the kitchen units although it would investigate possible solutions.
The records show that the resident also contacted the landlord on 11 August 2022. She said she had been “chasing and chasing” for all her outstanding repairs and that she could not walk on the floor as she could easily fall over. She said she was disabled.
The landlord responded with a letter entitled Customer Care Step 2 Complaint on 26 August 2022. Although this response dealt with some of the issues referred to above in Complaint 2, (for example the stairs and the handrails) it also addressed the issues raised or referred to under the Complaint 3 reference.
While the landlord did not identify these issues as being part of Complaint 2 in its response, its response to those older issues was as follows:
1. External handrails: the landlord said it was sorry for the length of time it was taking to replace the handrails.
2. The resident’s stairs: the landlord said that it had arranged a visit with its Capital Programme Manager on 1 September 2022. It said she would assess if further repairs were required.
Addressing the issues the resident raised in her 6 August 2022 response, the landlord said the following:
1. Outstanding repairs: It had contacted its Planned Works team, who had arranged to replace the sink base unit, seal the flooring in the kitchen and re-fix the beading to the hallway floor on 17 August 2022. It said it was sorry she had needed to contact the landlord again about those repairs and they should have been scheduled by the area supervisor when they were first identified. The complaints officer said she had fed back the need to ensure all outstanding repairs were followed up promptly.
2. Sink drainer: The complaints officer said the resident had said the sink drainer was not draining water properly. The complaints officer said she had been told by their repairs team that it was correctly fitted. She said she could take no further action.
3. Height of the kitchen wall units: The landlord said that the replacement kitchen was a standard kitchen. There was no occupational therapy involvement. If any adjustments were now required, these would need to be completed via a disabled facilities grant through the local authority.
The landlord concluded by saying the complaint had been partially upheld. It did not say on what basis.
The resident responded on the same day. She said, among other things, that:
1. The sink did not drain properly.
2. The kitchen fitting and sealing was not done correctly, meaning that the MDF had been exposed to wastewater from the sink and had become waterlogged and expanded.
3. The flooring in the kitchen had not been laid.
4. Her front window had not been repaired.
5. The mould in her bedroom had not been dealt with.
6. Her front lounge window had not been sealed meaning that there were gaps around the glass which let drafts in. She expressed concern that winter was near and her energy bills would be high.
7. The dining room door was still hanging off the hinges.
8. Her health was suffering due to the landlord’s “slow approach” to completing works.
On 30 August 2022 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s response as a request for an escalation of Complaint 3 to its Step 3 review process. It said it would provide her with a response within 10 working days; by 13 September 2022.
Internally, the landlord complaint’s advisor made enquiries about the works undertaken. The reviewer was told that the floor had been sealed and that there were no damaged worktops. She asked if there was any photographic evidence and it appears this was provided.
On 12 September 2022 the landlord contacted the resident by phone to arrange to carry out some works on 29 and 30 September 2022.
On the same date, it arranged for the:
1. Windows to be overhauled.
2. Bath panel to be refixed.
3. Sealant to be applied around bath panel to floor and skirting.
4. Kitchen worktop to be replaced.
On 13 September 2022 the landlord sent its Customer Care Step 3 Executive review response. It split its assessment of the points raised by the resident into those it considered had been raised as part of Complaint 3 and other issues that had not been raised as part of this complaint. Its response, in relation to the issues connected to the Complaint 3 complaint was, in summary that:
1. The landlord had arranged an inspection of the sink on 8 September 2022. It had determined that the sink had been fitted correctly but there was damage to the worktop and the section around the sink would be replaced. It said the sink would not be replaced as this was a standard sink used in all the landlord’s properties.
2. The works supervisor had confirmed that the kitchen flooring had been sealed with clear sealant. However, this had not been checked yet. It said it had arranged for this to happen along with other repairs at the property on 29 and 30 September 2022.
In relation to the other issues the resident had raised, the reviewer said these had not been raised as part of the complaint. However, the landlord had asked that these should be inspected and addressed as a new step 1 complaint. It said that, although they did not form a part of this review, it could confirm that the window repairs and a mould wash to the resident’s bedroom had been requested and arranged for 29 and 30 September 2022.
The review confirmed that the landlord was happy with the partial uphold that had been determined at Step 2 of the process and provided this Service’s details if the resident remained unhappy.
One of the landlord’s records, the date of which is unclear, says that an operative spoke to the resident at some point around this time. He reported that the resident said she was unavailable for “…the dates in the letter”. The job was to “overhaul upvc windows” among other works. It said it had been rearranged for 13 and 14 October 2022.
The landlord’s letter dated 13 September 2022 was its final response to the complaint, confirming that it had exhausted its internal complaints process.
On 15 September 2022, the resident responded to the landlord. She said she was not satisfied with the final response provided as she did not consider it reflected the complaint she had made. She listed a number of points that she considered were still outstanding, including:
1. The wood rot in the pantry.
2. Windows not being replaced.
3. Mould in the bathroom.
4. Gas fire which had been condemned.
5. Furniture had been damaged.
On 26 September 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident. It repeated that the kitchen flooring would be checked at the repairs visit on 29 and 30 September 2022. It said the resident’s lounge window would be overhauled at that visit. It repeated that the sink had been fitted correctly and, as the resident had said she could insert a knife under the edge of the sink, advised her not to do so as this could damage the gasket and cause future leaks.
The landlord apologised for failing to mention the issue of the stairs in its last email. However, it said that the surveyor on 8 September 2022 had checked the stairs and confirmed that, while they creaked, they did not require any further repairs.
The landlord also confirmed that a list of other repairs that were not part of the review were scheduled in to be addressed at the forthcoming repairs visit. These were a mould wash to be applied to the bedroom, the bath panel to be checked and the landing window hinges to be changed.
The landlord added that the repairs to the internal doors were the resident’s responsibility and would not be completed unless the damage was caused by the landlord’s operatives during repairs. It said this was not recorded as being the case.
On 3 October 2022 the resident sent a copy of her 26 September 2022 response to the landlord to this Service. The main points were that:
1. She said she had provided pictures showing the issue with the sink. She said the landlord’s operatives had put a screw in her stairs to stop them creaking in June 2022. It is not clear what the resident’s meaning was here.
2. In relation to the dining room door, the resident said that it had not shut correctly following the landlord’s operatives putting new flooring in. She asked why she should have to pay to put it right when it was their mistake. She said, “I am disabled and you are expecting me to repair your operatives mistakes.” She said she could prove that the landlord had initially said it would make good these repairs but had either half done the jobs or not done them at all.
The records indicate some of these works were completed on 14 October 2022 with the operator also providing photographs of the works done. It is not clear from the photographs if the windows were sealed. The resident said they were not. The resident says that she has been told the windows are “beyond repair”. On 7 June 2023, the resident told this Service that:
1. She still had mould in her bedroom, which had now moved to the ceiling.
2. She had now been told that her windows would not be replaced this year even though she had been told they were beyond repair.
3. The furniture in her lounge had not been repaired.
4. The kitchen units were not fitted properly so the sides had blown and the work tops were also not fitted correctly.
5. The landlord had told her it would replace the wood around the frame in the dining room but had instead put the existing screws back into the frame.
A note on the landlord’s records entered on 6 September 2023 stated that the resident had refused works unless her windows were replaced on 30 November 2022 and on 5 July 2023.
Another note, entered in January 2023, reports that the resident was willing to accept other works being done but did not want her windows addressed until she was given assurances about a date for replacement.
Whilst the dates are unclear from the evidence provided to this Service the resident was decanted to another property for some of the period during which the landlord was carrying out the works at the property.

Assessment and findings

The resident has expressed that her most material concerns are the issues concerning the request for her windows to be replaced and in relation to the property’s doors. It should be noted that both these issues are ongoing and this Service, while looking at more recent evidence for context, has not made findings on events after the issuing of the landlord’s final response on 13 September 2022.

Windows

This Service has not seen any evidence that the resident was told her windows would be replaced up until the date she approached this Service in September 2022. But this Service notes that the planned window sealing did not go ahead in September 2022. This Service has not seen a record of the operative’s visit but the resident said it was because she was told her windows were beyond repair. It is a service failure that the repairs were not made within 28 days of her report, which was on 6 August 2022. It was reasonable for the landlord to consider using temporary measures to try and alleviate any impact on the resident while it found a more permanent solution, but the evidence suggests the resident was given conflicting messages about whether and when her windows would be repaired or replaced.
If it is not the case that her windows are beyond repair and a temporary measure was a viable option, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have taken steps, such as providing her with a survey report which could have set out what was wrong with her windows, what could be done temporarily and when (within a reasonable range of time), she could have expected resolution of the issue. This Service has made an order to try and bring about some resolution to this issue.

Doors

In its 24 August 2021 survey, the landlord noted that 2 other bedroom doors and the dining room door were hanging off. It said it would check these and repair them to ensure they were hanging correctly. This job was meant to be completed on 18 and 19 November 2021. The records do not confirm that it was completed then. However, the resident did not raise an issue about the doors again until after the major works had been completed at the property. In an email in August 2022, she said the dining room door was still hanging off its hinges. Later, when she raised the issue with the Ombudsman she said that the door had not shut properly since the landlord’s operatives put new flooring in, which indicates that some repairs may have been carried out before the major works began on the ground floor. In any event, the landlord has not provided sufficient records to show what if any repairs were made before the major works were undertaken. Further, although it was asked to, it has not provided sufficient evidence to indicate whether operatives recorded any issues with the door when laying the flooring. The landlord told the resident that the doors were her responsibility unless the issue had been caused by its operative. It would have been reasonable for the landlord, considering it had previously accepted responsibility, to make a full assessment of the state of the resident’s doors and see what repairs were appropriate. This Service has made an order that it should do that.

Wood rot in the pantry

The landlord’s response to the resident accepted this had been raised as a repair issue as far back as 23 July 2020. However, despite several visits, it had still not been attended to by the time it was raised again in the resident’s July 2021 complaint. Although the landlord did not mention this in its complaint response, the repair was noted as being an ‘urgent’ request on the landlord’s records when it was raised in May 2021. It was also noted that there was a ‘risk of falling’. Given this information, it was unreasonable of the landlord not to have responded much sooner, especially knowing of the resident’s disability.
The landlord later arranged for an inspection on 23 August 2021 to determine the seriousness of the issue and address it. However, as the resident had already waited over a year for the landlord to address an issue which is known to become progressively worse if left unattended, this delay was inappropriate.
The landlord did not meet the timeframe set out in its repairs policy and this was inappropriate. This Service is not clear from the available records whether the pantry floor has yet been repaired. It was an issue that the resident raised when she brought her complaint to this Service and an order has been made below concerning outstanding works at the property.

Flooring replacement in the bathroom

The landlord accepted that an inspection in March 2020 said that the flooring needed to be re-laid or replaced. It indicated that this had gone ahead but that a recent inspection had shown that it had not been resealed properly. The available evidence indicates that this was the first time the resident had reported the issue. It is concerning that the landlord did not have robust measures in place to record what works had actually been carried out to the floor.
As will be referenced later, the complaint response to the resident, was unsympathetic.
The landlord said, on 17 August 2021, that it would arrange an appointment for the works to be photographed and the issue corrected. On the 26 August 2021 it said instead that it would replace the flooring on the week commencing 20 September 2021. However, the records show that the replacement was then scheduled in for the 18 and 19 November 2021. It is not clear from the records if this job was completed then as it is not included in the list provided by the landlord of works completed on 18 November 2021. In any event, as the repair was raised, initially in March 2020 and again on 23 July 2021 and this was still not completed by 18 November 2021, which is 118 days late; this was an inappropriate delay.

Mould in the bathroom

The resident first raised this as an issue in July 2021. The landlord offered to install an extractor fan. It repeated this offer after its survey on 24 August 2021. As it had been raised as an issue a month before, it was unreasonable that it had still not arranged to install the fan. This Service’s spotlight report on damp and mould, published in October 2021, says that damp and mould should be a high priority for landlords and they should take a zero-tolerance approach; be proactive in identifying potential problems; and clearly communicate to residents about actions. The spotlight report was published after the landlord’s first complaint response. However, it is relevant to this complaint as the spotlight report was a consolidation of some of the good practice expected of landlords in any event for such issues.
It appears that the installation of the fan may have remedied the problem, at least temporarily, because when the resident raised her outstanding issues in August 2022, she did not include mould in the bathroom on the list.
However, in September 2022, the resident said that she still had mould in her bathroom. She raised this issue along with a number of issues that she had not raised for some time, such as the issue of her gas fire. It would be understandable, as the resident had not raised it for some time, if the landlord thought that problem had been dealt with by the installation of an extractor fan in the bathroom. However, when the resident raised it again in September 2022, the landlord failed to respond to this in its 26 September 2022 response. This was inappropriate and the resident said the mould was still a problem when she complained to this Service.

Other issues with mould at the property

As set out in this Service’s Spotlight on Damp and Mould report referred to above, landlords should have a zero tolerance to damp and mould. In this case, following a survey in August 2021, the landlord identified that there was damp around the kitchen window. The landlord said it would treat the mould and stain the block around the window during the week commencing 20 September 2021. A number of rubber shorts were replaced on the resident’s windows and a mould wash was completed on 18 November 2021. This was outside the 28 days policy timeframe, which was inappropriate.
At the survey on 24 August 2021, the landlord’s surveyor recorded mould in the front and back bedrooms. On 26 August 2021 the landlord said it would treat the mould. It also said a repair had been raised to mould and stain block around all the windows and to fit an extractor fan in the bathroom. The records show a mould wash was performed on the windows on 18 November 2021.
However, on 6 August 2022, the resident complained that there was still mould in her bedroom. The landlord arranged for a mould wash to be undertaken by the end of the month to address the issue, which was appropriate as an intermediate step, but the landlord did not go far enough to investigate why the mould kept returning. It should have taken a more proactive zero tolerance approach to mould in August 2021 when an issue with mould in a number of rooms at the property was reported. More recently, the resident has reported that the issues have deteriorated. As the landlord has not provided this Service with a copy of any damp and mould policy prior to July 2023 this Service is unable to identify what process it had in place in relation to those issues.
However, damp and mould growth is listed as a hazard in the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). As set out in this Service’s Spotlight report on the issue, landlords should be on the front foot when identifying potential issues and effective diagnosis is critical. A timely response is imperative to ensure residents do not live with the issues for an extended period of time. This Service has made an order to require the landlord to undertake a damp and mould survey at the earliest opportunity.

The condemnation of the resident’s gas fire

This issue was addressed sufficiently in the landlord’s 25 August 2021 response to the resident. It explained that it had attempted to replace the fire in 2019. If the resident had considered this to be a significant issue, she could have disputed the facts as set out in that response. However, she did not raise that issue again until over a year later in September 2022. There is no maladministration in relation to this issue.

Damage to resident’s furniture

Items of the resident’s furniture were damaged during major works. The landlord’s policy says that in such circumstances, it will ask for valuations and evidence of damage before paying compensation. Its response was therefore appropriate.

External handrails replacement

In relation to the replacement of the resident’s external handrails, the landlord’s response was inappropriate. The records are unclear about when the rails were replaced. The resident has told this Service they were replaced in July 2023. The records show that by August 2022 they had still not been replaced, when the landlord apologised the issue was taking so long to address. The landlord explained that it was waiting for an assessment from an occupational therapist in May 2022, but for the resident to still be waiting for her handrails to be replaced 3 months later is inappropriate. Further, in its Step 2 complaint response on 25 May 2022, although it said that it had partially upheld the resident’s complaint because of how long it took to organise the repair of her stairs; it failed to mention, at that stage, its poor response to the replacement of her external handrails.

Kitchen cupboard height

The fact that the landlord was fully aware that the resident was disabled should also have informed any installation of the kitchen. The landlord’s response to this aspect of the resident’s complaint was that as there had been no occupational therapy involvement and the repair of the kitchen had been a standard replacement, any adjustments made would now have to be completed through a disabled facilities grant through the local authority. This was an unsympathetic response and this Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord had considered whether the resident required any reasonable adjustments.

Other issues

There were other issues arising from the major works that were completed at the property in March 2022. These included issues with the sink unit, the beading to the hallway floor and the sealing of the kitchen floor. However, these do not appear to have been specifically raised by the resident until 6 August 2022, when she had a conversation with the landlord about outstanding repairs. The landlord’s response was appropriate in relation to these items as it arranged for the works to be completed on 17 August 2022, which is within its timeframe for repairs. It accepted that she should not have had to chase the landlord to address those issues.

Summary of repair issues

As set out above, there were failings in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs required to the bathroom floor, pantry floor, various doors, external handrails, issues with the kitchen, the stairs, windows, together with reports of damp and mould. Taking together, this amounts to maladministration on the part of the landlord.

On the landlord’s complaint handling

At the time the resident raised her July 2021 complaint, which is the first complaint this investigation has looked at, the Code was in place. The Code set out that landlords should have a 2 stage complaint’s process. The landlord’s complaints policy acknowledged that requirement but did not comply with it. The landlord’s complaints policy referred to 4 different stages which is not consistent with the recommendations within the Code. This was inappropriate.
The resident’s Complaint 1 went through 3 stages. The first 2 stages were the landlord’s:
1. Complaint stage 1 acknowledgement on 27 July 2021.
2. Stage 1 resolution letter on 17 August 2021.

The resident was told the landlord’s stage 1 resolution letter would usually take 10 working days but because of annual leave, would take 21 days. This was not appropriate.

The response failed to acknowledge the landlord’s failings. It commented that a job had been raised to repair or refit the bathroom flooring in March 2020 and noted that the recent survey had said the floor had not been resealed. This meant that the work had not been completed properly but it did not acknowledge this as a failing; which it was.
At section 5.2 of the Code, it says that landlords should apologise for any failure identified, give an explanation and, where possible, inform the resident of the changes made or actions taken to prevent the issue from happening again. However, apart from a general apology at the end of its letter, the landlord did not apologise for its identified individual failings. Whatever the reason for the landlord agreeing to replace the floor, the resident was left without a properly repaired floor for a significant period and was put to the trouble of raising it as an issue repeatedly within the complaints process before the landlord acted. This is inappropriate.
The landlord’s complaint response about the pantry floor noted that the resident had notified the landlord of the issue over a year ago. However, it did not offer an apology to the resident for the failure to repair before then. It upheld the resident’s complaint because of the length of time she had had to wait but it did not reflect on the impact this might have had on the resident or appear to consider any compensation for the distress or inconvenience she would have experienced during this time. As has been noted above, the note made on the landlord’s systems in May 2021 was that this was an urgent repair request and that there was a risk of falling. In such a situation, it would have been appropriate to consider a financial remedy. Its approach, which failed to consider compensation for distress and inconvenience, was contrary to its compensation policies and was inappropriate.
The resident received a Stage 1 acknowledgment letter (again) on 25 August 2021. This was confusingly given the same title as the 27 July 2021 letter but also confusingly said it represented Step 3 of its complaint’s procedure. While the landlord’s response showed that it had followed up the resident’s enquiries appropriately with a survey, having so many stages in the process and not being clear about what they are, creates confusion for residents and does not help manage complaints and their resolution effectively. The landlord’s complaint’s policy recognised that the Code said it should only have a maximum of 2 stages to its process.
A further issue was that the Step 3 complaint response mixed issues that had been addressed in previous complaint responses with issues it had missed in the resident’s 30 July 2021 email. This made it difficult to track what complaint issues had been properly addressed or not. As the Code says, where residents raise additional complaints during the investigation, where a stage 1 response has already been issued, they should be logged as a new complaint.
That process was not followed here and the Step 3 response was confusing. The landlord said it would undertake to complete repairs on a number of items at a certain date, apart from the ‘exceptions’ but did not say what those exceptions were.
In line with the Code, the landlord acknowledged where it had gone wrong. It accepted it had not provided the resident with timely updates or communications. It said it had reviewed its team procedures to understand why this had not happened and what it could do to ensure this was managed correctly in the future. However, it failed to provide details of what steps it would take to prevent similar issues in the future.
The landlord did not consider providing a financial remedy for its failings. Considering the number of longstanding issues that the resident had raised, an apology was not sufficient to acknowledge the level of distress and inconvenience the resident incurred.
The only financial compensation the resident appears to have been offered was in the form of £75 to replace a hearth that operatives had taken some time ago. Even though that payment appears to have been in relation to the hearth, which was an issue that was not mentioned in the stage 1 acknowledgement letter or other responses in Complaint 1; the without prejudice agreement that the resident signed to accept the payment, stated that “…in accepting this offer I confirm [Complaint 1] will be closed.”
This Service has recommended below that the landlord reconsider using this way of closing down complaints, where, as in this case, the complaint appears to have been closed down upon payment of £75 for a fire hearth which was not actually the subject of the complaint.
With regards to Complaint 2, in relation to the issue with the resident’s external handrails as has already been said above, the landlord’s response was inappropriate. By this stage, the resident, who is disabled, had had to manage without her handrails for up to 2 months. The landlord explained that it was awaiting an occupational therapist’s assessment but did not provide any apology for this delay. Given the impact on the resident who, being disabled, was left vulnerable without the use of her handrails, a financial remedy would have also been appropriate but was not considered.
With Complaint 3, the landlord again started the process with a letter entitled Customer Care Step 2 Acknowledgment. As noted above, bypassing stage 1 in the process can be confusing. Further, if this complaint had been dealt with as at stage 1 of the process; under the Code, it should have been responded to within 10 working days. The resident received her first full response to her 6 August 2022 complaint on 26 August 2022, which was 20 working days later and therefore an inappropriate delay.
In that response the landlord dealt with the older issues which had initially been raised under Complaint 2 and the newer issues under Complaint 3.
It said it was sorry for the length of time it was taking to replace the resident’s handrails. By this point the resident had now been almost 5 months without her handrails being replaced. In those circumstances, an apology was not sufficient, and a financial remedy should have been considered. It was inappropriate to fail to consider such a remedy given the seriousness of this failing.
The complaint was partially upheld but as the resident was not told upon what basis it was partially upheld, it is difficult to see what learning the landlord gained from the process.
When the resident escalated Complaint 3 to the next stage the records show the landlord investigated the resident’s concerns before responding and arranged for works she had raised as outstanding to be completed.
However, again, it split its assessment between those concerns the resident had raised within Complaint 3 and newer issues that she had raised since. In line with the Code, it appropriately said it had asked these issues to be addressed as a new Step 1 complaint but it would have been clearer if it separated the responses to old and new complaints in different letters so that it was easier to follow the separation between new and old issues.
The resident was not content with the landlord’s final response. The landlord responded again but this added a fourth stage to its process that is inappropriate. The Code says that a process with more than three stages is not acceptable under any circumstances in the Ombudsman’s view.

On the landlord’s record keeping

During the course of this investigation, from the records the landlord provided to the Ombudsman, it has not been possible to determine with certainty if:
1. The resident’s dining room door was replaced in November 2021 or not.
2. The operatives notes on whether there was an issue with the dining room door following replacing the resident’s downstairs flooring.
3. The pantry floor was replaced or repaired.
4. The bathroom floor was replaced or repaired on 18 and 19 November 2021 as scheduled.
5. A quote was obtained for the resident’s furniture.
6. The resident’s external handrails were replaced.
7. The landlord took steps to assess how the height of the resident’s kitchen cupboards impacted on her and if it could take steps to help support any necessary disability facilities grant that might be necessary.
There was therefore maladministration by the landlord in relation to its record keeping. When works were raised, such as the issues with the pantry floor or the replacement of the resident’s external handrails, an efficient record system would have enabled the landlord to be more easily alerted to the fact that works had not been completed. This would have made the landlord’s approach to repairs much more responsive.

Determinations (decisions)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports about repairs at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaints handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its record keeping.

Reasons

The landlord took too long to respond to reported repairs requests. This was especially the case with the resident’s pantry floor and with the replacement of the resident’s external handrails, which were removed by the landlord in order to complete major works. The landlord also failed to take a more proactive approach to reports of damp and mould at the property and the resident says the issue has still not been resolved.
Contrary to the Code, which was in place at the relevant time, the landlord had more than 2 stages to its complaints policy. On occasion this was further confused when it sent the resident letters with the wrong complaint heading. Having so many stages means it was hard to track when one complaint ended and another began and this was further confused by the landlord’s practice of occasionally missing out step 1 or stage 1 of its process because some aspects of a new complaint related to an old complaint. Further, its complaint responses failed to consider any sort of financial compensation for situations where an apology by itself was not sufficient. It also failed to acknowledge various failings and was unclear about the reasons for closing down one of its complaints, linking this to an agreement to accept payment for an issue that was not related to that complaint. Its compensation policy also set out that any agreement to accept a payment under that policy was in full and final agreement that the issues were resolved, which was inappropriate when the issue resolved by payment was not part of the complaint.
The repair records provided to this Service by the landlord were limited in terms of detail and there appear to be significant gaps in their records. These gaps and omissions have meant the landlord has not been able to clearly demonstrate what steps it has taken to resolve the resident’s concerns, its overall management of the issues and condition of the property.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £1700 in compensation. The payment should be made within 4 weeks, comprising:
1. £500 to recognise that for a significant period of time, spanning over the period of at least a year, because of a failure to address repairs appropriately, the resident did not have the full enjoyment of her home.
2. £500 for the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failings in its response to her reports of repairs required at the property.
3. £300 for the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failure to take a proactive approach to damp and mould at the property.
4. £300 for the time and trouble incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
5. £100 to acknowledge the impact on the resident of the landlord’s poor record keeping.
The payment is to be made direct to the resident and not used to offset any monies that the resident may owe to the landlord. The landlord must update this Service when payment has been made.
Within 4 weeks a senior member of staff should apologise to the resident, in writing, or on person if the resident prefers. The apology should acknowledge the maladministration, accept responsibility for it, explain clearly why it happened, and express regret.
Within 8 weeks of this report, the landlord must undertake a senior management review of the case to help prevent similar failures reoccurring. The landlord should report back on this review to this Service.
Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord should arrange an inspection of the property to establish if any further works are required to the property and if the resident’s kitchen meets her reasonable adjustment needs. If works are required, within a further 2 weeks the landlord is to provide a timetable to the resident of the works to be completed, and send a copy of the timetable to this Service.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should arrange a damp and mould survey of the property. The landlord should send a copy of the report to this Service and to the resident, together with a timetable for the completion of any works required.

Recommendation

The landlord should consider the appropriateness of using full and final settlement forms with without prejudice payments in order to achieve closure on complaints. If it considers this is an appropriate approach it should also consider signposting residents to free independent legal advice before signing agreements that may deter them from continuing to raise potentially unresolved aspects of a complaint after they have agreed to close.
The landlord is recommended to review the learning on this case in respect of its management of knowledge and information. It is recommended that the landlord reviews and incorporates the best practise highlighted in the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on knowledge and information into the provision of housing services. In particular related to the storage, use, and accuracy of records stored on its housing databases related to repairs.