Hexagon Housing Association Limited (201904493)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201904493

Hexagon Housing Association Limited

9 June 2022

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of disrepair to her property, in particular in relation to delays and the standard of repairs.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident occupied a three-bedroom house. The landlord had recorded vulnerabilities in relation to the resident’s son. She was also the carer for her son who had special needs and her mother who had a long-standing medical condition.

The legal and policy framework.

Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord had an obligation to keep the gutters, roof, outside doors, window frames, pathways and other means of access, in good repair and to keep in good repair and working order any installations provided by the landlord for sanitation, including toilets. Under section 9a of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord had an obligation that the property was fit for habitation and free from hazards, including damp.
Under the repairs “priorities”, the landlord had five categories ranging from emergency, urgent (with a response time of five working days) and 28 days for routine repairs. Urgent work included blocked sanitaryware and blocked gutters. Routine works included repairs to doors, windows including easing of doors and windows, and floors, kitchen sinks, placing gates and fence panels.
The repairs policy set out that “successful monitoring of contractors’ performance is critical to the delivery of the maintenance service and ensuring performance targets are met”. The policy set out a detailed methodology for monitoring the landlord’s contractors, including by way of its contractual arrangements, holding meetings, and also “Using reports within the repairs system, it is possible to report on orders that are overdue or are about to become overdue”.
There were “several” stages under the landlord’s complaints procedure. Its “front-line staff” would try to resolve a complaint “quickly and informally”. It logged and monitored all complaints and would provide a reference number on request. If the resident sent a written complaint, it would provide a written response. It was not a formal stage and complaints would be escalated directly to stage one if the resident requested this. Complaints at stage one would normally be responded to within 10 working days, although if the matter was complex, it could extend this by a further 10 working days. The landlord would notify the resident if an extension was required.
If the resident felt the result was unsatisfactory, they could request an escalation to stage two. It would normally expect the resident to do this within 30 days of receiving a stage one response. The resident should set out the reasons they were not satisfied. The resident should receive a written response within 20 working days. However, if the matter was complex, this could be extended by a further 20 working days.
There was an optional third stage. The resident had the option of having the complaint heard by a Board Panel, as well as referring the complaint to the Housing Ombudsman.

Chronology

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of disrepair to her property, in particular in relation to delays and the standard of repairs.

The Ombudsman will decide how to investigate a complaint. In this case, the Ombudsman is not investigating events prior to January 2019, as it would not be proportionate to do so. However, it has noted the history of repairs relevant to this complaint. The landlord’s repair records for the period 2016 to 2018 are summarised as follows:
1. A repair was carried out on 26 October 2016 to overhaul the window in the first-floor bedroom.
2. On 20 April 2018, a repair was raised to a leaking pipe in a first–floor water tank cupboard.
3. On 24 April 2018,a job was raised, and completed, on 4 May 2018 to ease and adjust a window in first–floor bedroom and overhaul the UPVC back door.
4. On 15 June 2018, a job was raised, and completed, on 22 June 2018, to repair a leaking toilet.
5. On 31 July 2018, a job was raised, and completed, on 14 August 2018 to attend to and diagnose the cause of water damage to the wall behind the toilet.
6. On 13 August 2018, a job raised to replace garden fencing was cancelled. It did not state by which party.
7. On 5 October 2018, a job was raised to carry out decorations to the bathroom after previous leaks.
8. On 13 August 2018, a job was raised to inspect and report back on a leak in the downstairs hall.
9. On 28 September 2018, a job was raised, marked completed 5 October 2018, to decorate the bathroom after the leak and to inspect a leak in the hall and report back findings.
10. On 12 October 2018, the landlord’s record noted that the back door had been inspected. The new hinge was incorrect, the door had dropped, causing damage to the frame. It was a recall from 24 April 2018.The job was marked “cancelled”.
11. On 16 November 2018, there was a recall of a job caried out on 28 September 2018 in relation to the bathroom after a previous leak, the decorating and inspection of the leak in the hall. It was marked as completed on 2 January 2019.
12. On 30 November 2018, a job was raised, and completed on 4 December 2018 to remedy a leak from the toilet which affected the front room.
On 4 December 2018, a different contractor was to attend the job raised 24 April 2018 to look at the back door. The contractor was to inspect the door and report to the landlord if further works were needed. The contractor was to overhaul the first–floor bedroom window. This appeared to have been carried out on 6 December 2018. The resident wrote again on 8 February 2019 requesting confirmation of the schedule of intended works to her property which was discussed during a visit to her property on 6 February 2019.
Further works were noted according to the repairs record as follows:
1. On 7 February 2019, a job was raised and carried out on 19 February 2019 to carry out a CCTV drain survey and a roof inspection. A job was also raised to refix the UPVC panel and seal around the back door.
2. On 28 February 2019, a job was raised to repair the fencing The repair notes indicated that the job was completed on 13 March 2019.
3. On 4 March 2019, a job was raised to erect scaffolding. The job was cancelled.
4. On 1 April 2019, or 4 July 2019, the records are not clear, the contractor noted the following works were to be carried out:
  1. Rip out the boxing in the first-floor toilet room.
  2. Remove the washbasin and toilet to establish the cause of the leak.
  3. Rerun the waste pipe from the washing machine to the outside drain.
5. On 16 April 2019, a job was raised and completed the same day to repair a leak from at pipe in the hallway.
6. On 26 April 2019, a job was raised and completed on 24 May 2019 to carry out external works to the garden.
7. On 13 May 2019, a job was raised and completed on 17 May 2019, to refit a light to the bathroom ceiling.
8. On 20 May 2019, a job was raised and completed on 28 May 2019, to identify any fault with the back patio door which hinge was coming away. The issue had been ongoing for 2 years.
9. On 22 May 2019, a job was raised and completed on 11 June 2019 to fit a new gate to the boundary fence.
On 28 May 2019, the resident wrote that the hallway was “more uncovered” in order to check whether the exposed pipe was causing the leak. She also reported that one of the kitchen cupboards was smelling of damp and there was an issue with the adjoining wall. The “trap” has been changed in the kitchen but nothing has improved there, so the pipes would need to be repositioned. She would book a repair “as soon as she heard from them” and had not been able to give access in the weeks before.
The landlord replied on 28 May 2019 stating the resident would hear from operatives that day, or the next, and to contact it if she did not hear.
The resident replied on 4 June 2019 stating that the contractor would be collecting the dehumidifier. However, she remained concerned about the smell of damp. The back door repair remained outstanding , the UPVC had not been washed down or oiled and the front gate and fence had not been painted.
The landlord replied on the same date that the operative was due to deliver a back door on 10 June 2019. The contractor would provide timescales for the remaining issues.
Further works were recorded in the landlord’s repair records as follows:
1. On 07 June 2019, a job was raised and completed on 12 June 2019 to renew the trim to the back door.
2. On 28 June 2019, a job was raised and completed on 1 July 2019 to repair the window in the living room. A further inspection and report was required to investigate remedial works to the frame.
3. On 10 July 2019, a job was raised to carry out works to the fencing outstanding from 28 February 20219 and was rearranged.
4. The next day a job was raised to carry out “ongoing works as instructed”.
5. On 31 July 2019, the following works were arranged and were completed on 28 August 2019 as follows:
  1. Investigate the damp in the kitchen.
  2. Remedy the fault to the back door. Arrangements were made to carry out replastering.
  3. Remove the vinyl tiles in the ground floor hallway, and relevel the floor and re–lay the vinyl. Fit new skirting and replaster walls where they were exposed, renew boxing and insulation to a pipe and decorate the hallway to the tenant’s colour choice.
  4. Trace and remedy leak (affecting living room) to the top floor bathroom.
6. On 1 August 2019, a job was raised and cancelled to carry out the works to the gate (recalled from 22 May 2019).
7. On 16 September 2019, a job was raised and completed on the same day to address a damaged waste pipe to the bath and to isolate electrics following a water leak from the bathroom above.
8. On 30 September 2019 a job was raised and completed on 18 October 2019, to repair a gate, and to trace and remedy a leak to the resident’s son‘s bedroom.
9. On 23 November 2019, a job was raised and completed on 27 November 2019 to erect a tower and fix a roof leak. The outcome was not clear from the records. The note also referred to decorating the living room.
10. On 2 December 2019, a job was raised and completed on 6 December 2019 to renew the bathroom and toilet extractor fans.
11. On 31 December 2019, a recall job was raised to trace and remedy a leak to child’s bedroom but was cancelled
An independent survey report dated 19 January 2020 made the following findings and recommendations:
1. The issues raised were in the roof rooms at the front and the back. Moisture content to the areas required further investigation.
2. The bathroom fan was inadequate.
3. Mould growth and moisture were identified in both rooms and insulation was missing in the front bedroom. There was no obvious leakage identified to the roof but the report identified issues with the roof insulation and poor fan ventilation would exacerbate the issue.
4. It recommended:
  1. Fitting additional insulation to create a warm roof.
  2. Replacing the plasterboard with insulation.
  3. Replacing the plaster louvre vents with trickle ventilation added to the window frames.
On 6 February 2020, the landlord/contractor wrote to the resident with the report and offered to consider a less intrusive way to resolve the insulation in the resident’s son bedroom. It invited the resident to contact the landlord regarding making an appointment. It also set out the outstanding jobs.
On 12 February 2020, a job was raised to carry out repairs including hacking off plaster, a de-humidifier hire and to dig up of floor and repair the leak.
According to the landlord, on 13 February 2020, it agreed the works and chased the contractor regarding replacing the toilet and bathroom fans. It also wrote to the resident confirming that the list of works was agreed except it had omitted work to the ground floor hallway walls which had not been correctly finished at the edges. The landlord would progress this.
On 14 February 2020, the landlord agreed it would repaint the hall walls and relay the floor. It had chased the installation date for the bathroom and would update the resident by the end of the following week. It chased finishing up the floor and walls (to the ground floor hallway).
The landlord wrote to the resident on 8 April 2020 that it had started the re-instatement of non-emergency works and invited her to agree dates.
The landlord wrote to the resident updating her that its repairs manager would contact her on 13 July 2020.
The landlord contacted the resident in relation to her complaint, and programming works on 13 July 2020. They agreed to put off the works. According to the landlord’s internal emails, the works were outstanding as follows, which was a similar list to that in the landlord’s email of 6 February 2020:
1. Relaying of the hall floor and plastering of hall walls needed to be done again
2. Front room needed to be decorated
3. The vinyl tiles in the hallway cupboard stopped half–way into the cupboard. The tiles had dislodged and were broken. The landlord suspected the presence of asbestos.
4. The cupboard ceiling which had been damaged by leaks from above required boarding and decorating.
5. The small toilet needed a new extractor.
6. A fan for the bathroom to be installed.
7. The third bedroom (the resident’s son’s) required decorating in anti-condensation thermal paint.
8. The surveyor was due to attend the resident’s property on 17 July 2020.
On 20 July 2020, the landlord noted that the hall concrete floor was uneven and needed a self-levelling screed which apparently had not been laid. It was also to fit a small threshold strip to the understairs cupboard door.
The landlord’s surveyor noted on 27 July 2020 that, due to the pandemic, the resident “was in no rush to get (the works) sorted”.
According to an internal email 30 July 2020, the parties agreed that the works would start in September 2020.
The landlord proposed taking each area at a time to minimise the disruption. It also proposed providing anti-condensation paint for the resident’s son’s bedroom to eradicate damp and provide insulation in accordance with the report. It also proposed to erect scaffolding or mobile tower in order to investigate the son’s dormer window.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 5 August 2020 to inform her the works were timetabled to start on 7 September 2020. The contractor would attend the property on 12 August 2020 both in order to schedule all the works for when she was available and measure up where required so that works were not delayed due to a lack of materials.
A job was raised on 25 August 2020 to repair skirting, replaster and relay the flooring to remedy defective laying of the floor and to the cupboard. The latex to the hall cupboard was also not laid. The job to the hall floor and cupboard was cancelled.
On 1 September 2020, the resident requested, due to a bereavement, a delay to the start date of the works.
The landlord informed this service on 8 January 2021 that the contractor had worked with the resident’s previous requests for access to be staggered or delayed for personal reasons.
There was further correspondence on 6 and 8 January 2021 and 18 February 2021 where the landlord’s contractor contacted the resident to book an appointment to complete the outstanding works. It was awaiting the resident’s decision on the paint colour and the resident had concerns about operatives undertaking works in her son’s bedroom. The work to the hallway skirting, flooring and decorating also remained outstanding.
On 15 April 2021 a job was raised to overhaul both the first-floor window which had fallen open and was not fitting correctly, and the back door as it was letting in water at the bottom edge.
On 28 June 2021, an urgent job was raised to check and repair the roof over the resident’s son’s bedroom as that may have been causing damp. A job was also raised to latex over floor tiles in the cupboard. There was no asbestos identified.
The contractor reported to the landlord on 17 August 2021 in relation to outstanding repairs to the back door and first floor bedroom window as follows:
1. The contractor had repaired the rear door which had been difficult to operate and close.
2. The silicone seal had perished and now been re-sealed with silicone.
3. It had undertaken repairs to prevent the water ingress but there was still a slight gap at the bottom. There were several repairs previously carried out by other contractors but they had not resolved the water ingress issue. It suggested replacing the door or installing sidelight panels.
4. The first-floor bedroom window was stiff to operate and close. The window has been installed incorrectly by the previous contractor. The existing sash did not fit the frame. It was beyond repair and the contractor suggested a replacement.
On 22 October 2021, the resident had reported the rear door was still defective.
On 27 May 2022, the landlord reported to this service that it was unable to state without checking with the contractor whether historical orders had been completed. It was unable to track who cancelled the various orders (contractor or resident).
As at that date, the repair to the back door was outstanding. The surveyor was due to visit the property to confirm either way and chase the contractor to complete the outstanding repairs.

The complaint handling

On 6 December 2018, the resident made a formal complaint that she had reported a number of repairs dating from early 2018. She wanted the repairs to be completed, to be offered compensation and an explanation for the delays. On 8 December 2018, she provided a list of repairs as follows:
1. The kitchen pipe work behind the washing machine was to have been altered had been outstanding since 2017.
2. Water was backing up into the sink due to the kitchen installation. The most recent inspection was carried out by the installation company in July 2018 but no work had been undertaken.
3. There had been ongoing issues with the UPVC first–floor front bedroom window since its installation. It was very draughty, the bottom window pushed out of the frame when locking it. A number of repairs had been undertaken, with the most recent in May 2018.
4. The hinge needed replacing on the UPVC patio door. There had been previous repairs but they had been inadequate. The most recent repair took place in May 2018. The resident had reported and chased this.
5. Damaged garden fence needed replacing due to the neighbour’s overgrown ivy. The resident had reported this in March 2018 but work was not completed. Overgrown shrubbery, tree, bushes from neighbouring tenants of the landlord were causing damage to the rear of house, fence, roof and blocking guttering. She had reported this a number of times and was awaiting a response, following the landlord having written to the neighbours.
6. Damp in toilet: there was a leak/damage to the panelling and skirting. The resident had reported the leak in June 2018. The most recent repair took place in August 2018. Brown staining, swollen panelling and skirting was still to be repaired and redecorated.
7. Damp in two places in the ground–floor hall and outside under her front window. She had reported this in March 2018. A surveyor had inspected in September and November 2018 and she had had two visits from a plumber. Damp was still visible and had not been resolved.
8. There was a leak into the front–room ceiling from the “misaligned” bathroom. The resident had reported this recently. A plumber had attended and informed her that the leak might have been from the roof. A section of the front room ceiling was bowing. She was awaiting a roofer to be booked.
9. According to the tenant’s handbook, these repairs should have been undertaken between seven and no more than 28 days.
10. While some repairs had taken place, the repairs were outstanding or incomplete.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 10 December 2018 and stated it would respond within 15 days.
The resident wrote again on 6 January 2019 in relation to the same issues, with the exception of the UPVC window. She also referred to “water” in the cylinder cupboard. She asked to escalate her complaint, given the length of time the repairs were taking.
The landlord replied on 7 January 2019 that it would investigate the complaint and respond within 15 working days. The resident replied on the same day that the complaint should have been escalated to the next stage in accordance with her request.
On 9 January 2019, the landlord wrote stating the resident’s email would have taken the complaint to stage one of its complaint procedure. It would also investigate the communication breakdown.
The landlord wrote again on 21 January 2019 and apologised for the delay in responding. It noted that the resident had requested an escalation on 8 December 2018. The landlord would respond by 30 January 2019 in respect of the resident’s escalation to stage two of its complaint procedure.
On 26 January 2019, the resident requested her complaint be escalated to stage three. She wrote again on 12 February 2019 and 27 February 2019 repeating her request. She had not heard from the landlord and the repairs had been delayed beyond its own timescales.
The landlord replied on 1 March 2019, stating it was in the process of addressing the complaint at stage 1 but the resident could request it be escalated and explain her reasons if she was not happy.
On 24 July 2019, the landlord wrote to the resident that if she was dissatisfied with the stage 1 response, she could escalate the complaint to stage 2 of its procedure.
On 1 August 2019, the landlord wrote to the resident summarising that the complaint was that the resident was unhappy with the delays and the quality of the works. There was confusion over a dehumidifier and she did not feel listened to. In addition, she had not received a schedule of works. It provided a plan and timescales but no dates or specific details of the works, apart from stating the works related to the roof, ground floor hall, kitchen, living room, airing cupboard, and bathroom.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 22 March 2020 to escalate her complaint. The schedule of repairs has not been followed and completion dates had passed. There were instances where repairs had been undertaken and needed redoing. The landlord had not contacted her despite assurances. She accepted the pandemic would delay matters but expected a response to her complaint.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 31 March 2020, referring to a telephone conversation. It had received the contractor’s report and would update her on 6 April 2020 and also inform her who would be dealing with her complaint at stage two of the complaints procedure.
The landlord wrote again the same day to say that “escalation would not be honoured” as her complaint was “was out of time “.
According to the landlord, it discussed the resident’s escalation request of 13 July 2020. It was confirmed that it would continue at the “current” stage and that the resident would provide details of what had been agreed previously with the landlord.
The resident requested an escalation of her complaint on 27 July 2020. While she understood the issue with the pandemic, her repairs had not been carried out appropriately or in a timely manner and many issues that had arisen had been unnecessary and unacceptable. The “moving forward” consisted of sending another surveyor to look at the repairs once again, despite the previous agreements and plans. She felt the landlord was reneging on previous agreements.
On 30 November 2020, the resident requested that her complaint be escalated to stage three as per her requests of July 2020.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 1 December 2020 that the complaint was too historic to escalate and asked her to raise a new complaint.
On 4 December 2020, the landlord informed this service that it had written to the resident to explain that the original complaint was raised in 2018 and it was therefore “unable” to escalate it as it fell outside of the timescale in which to do so. The resident would need to raise a new complaint. it agreed that the original repairs were not completed to the standard it expected and had taken steps to ensure that any issues with the work were being resolved. It would look into the inconvenience to the resident at the completion of the works. It took the view that offering compensation mid-work “would not appear to be correct” as other issues could arise and this would require a review.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 2 March 2021 as follows:
1. The landlord acknowledged that it had failed to escalate and respond to the resident’s complaint on time as there had been confusion regarding works and stages. It apologised and had changed its complaints–handling process to prevent this happening again. It offered £300 in compensation for its complaint–handling failures and in recognition of the resident’s “efforts” (or time and trouble).
2. It noted that the works that were the subject of the original complaint were completed. The remaining works were follow-on works that had been agreed with the resident after her original complaint had been acknowledged. This was the reason why the request to escalate this complaint was refused.
3. It would raise this issue as a new Stage 1 complaint in relation to timescales for completion of these works and would respond within 10 working days.
4. The landlord and contractor were waiting for available dates to complete the remaining works, given the resident had put them on hold several times. It asked the resident to contact the contractor to book the works.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 8 March 2021 as follows:
1. It set out the details of the works, including to the hallway, living room, cupboard, first floor cupboard, back door, son’s bedroom, bathroom, toilet and roof.
2. The works were raised on 30 July 2020 ,leaving the living room and first–floor window outstanding.
3. The works were delayed at the resident’s request including a month’s pause due to a bereavement, a decision on a paint selection still being required, issues around the ongoing lockdown, and the most recent delay during the bathroom refurbishment.
4. It did not uphold a complaint that the landlord unduly delayed the works. It offered to assist in getting the remaining works booked in. It invited her to state if she disagreed, and it would review this again.
The resident replied on the same day as follows:
1. The repairs referred to were raised in 2018. A number were attempted over the last two years but unfortunately there were often errors or poor workmanship which meant that they were either left incomplete or to such a poor standard they needed redoing.
2. The hallway corner beads had been fitted and painted. However, the suspected asbestos tiles had not been encapsulated.
3. The first-floor cupboard had been boarded but only after numerous requests. It also still had not been painted.
4. The back door and first-floor window bedroom had still not been fixed.
5. The door was still uneven and let in drafts.
6. The window was problematic to close and occasionally opened by itself.
7. The landlord had not investigated the roof over her son’s room where the source of damp was coming from. The resident had requested the protective paint, given the difficulty in her disabled son leaving his room due to his autism.
8. The fans in both bathroom and toilet had not been fitted.
9. The painting of the upstairs living room had been put on hold as initially the contractor was waiting for the damp caused by the poor bathroom repair to dry. The colour could not be matched and the proposed workman did not want to be in the house with other operatives. Further works were added due to the incompetent workmanship and handling of the repairs.
10. The bereavement occurred in August 2020 and the bathroom refit was only raised in March 2021.
11. If the landlord had supervised and monitored the repairs and if the contractor had ensured work had been undertaken by “competent operatives”, there would not have been a delay of almost three years.
12. She requested that the landlord escalate the complaint.
On 16 April 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident with its second stage complaint response as follows:
1. It apologised for the delay in its response which had been due on 2 April 2021.
2. The refurbishment of the bathroom had been completed on 24 March 2021 and its contractor was due to undertake snagging and remedy any defects.
3. It noted that refurbishment of bathrooms had been undertaken as part of its planned improvement programme and did not attract the same timescales as did its responsive repairs.
4. The “follow-up” complaint included repairs not included in the complaint of 4 December 2018. Any follow–on would be treated as a new complaint but not new repairs.
5. There were times where its contractors could not book appointments that were convenient to the resident and therefore there were delays in completion of some of the works.
6. It accepted that the original works had not been completed to a satisfactory standard as evidenced by having had to recall its contractors to re-do repairs.
7. There was no seamless continuance of resolving the resident’s outstanding complaint nor all the repairs that the landlord had agreed to complete after the previous repairs manager had left her employment.
8. It accepted that it did not effectively manage the resident’s complaint nor the outstanding repairs she raised in the original complaint.
9. It set out “key lessons learnt”. The landlord would :
  1. Use more “robust multi-channel approaches” to ensure complaints are responded to on time
  2. Ensure it managed, including regular liaison with the complainant, all repairs and/or actions agreed in a complaint until they are all completed to the complainant’s satisfaction and the complaint was formally closed down.
  3. Clearly outline the stages of its complaints process coupled with details of how and when complaints could be escalated and also make it clear when acknowledging and fully responding to complaints plus confirming what stage the complaint is at. This would help provide greater clarity to complainants.
  4. Make it clear to complainants what issues are being dealt with under a specific complaint, including its unique reference number. If any new issues were raised, these should be dealt with separately as a new enquiry rather than incorporate them into an existing complaint as this caused confusion and was not an effective way of handling complaints.
  5. Continue to enhance its centralised system that records all issues raised in an ongoing complaint to ensure seamless management of complaints.
  6. Continue to robustly monitor all the outstanding works.
  7. Ensure that these outstanding works were all closed down only when both the contractor and the resident had signed them off.
  8. Continue to liaise with the resident until all the current outstanding works were completed.
The landlord concluded that:
1. Any new repairs should be reported as usual.
2. It offered the resident compensation of £100.
3. It invited the resident to escalate the complaint to stage 3 but she could refer the complaint to this service in the meantime.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of disrepair to her property, in particular in relation to delays and the standard of repairs.

Due to the way the landlord handled the complaint, it was not clear, despite the landlord stating that the resident’s “follow up complaint” included new repairs, which aspects of the resident’s complaint the landlord was excluding and which should form a new complaint. The landlord addressed the remedial works in its responses, it also had left the complaint and the issue of compensation open, should further issues arise. The Ombudsman therefore investigated the remedial works as well as the resident’s original complaint. However, the Ombudsman has not investigated the suspected presence of the asbestos the resident raised later on, as that was a separate issue that was not raised in correspondence with the landlord until very late in the period of investigation. Likewise, while the landlord referred to the bathroom refurbishment in its responses, it only occurred at the end of the complaint process and therefore will also not fall part of this investigation. The resident would need to raise a separate complaint in that regard, if she remains dissatisfied.
There were gaps in the landlord’s records, such as evidence of the resident’s requests to delay works. The landlord’s repair records were difficult to interpret. While there may have been additional notes to the repair records that were not provided to the Ombudsman, the Ombudsman can only investigate on the basis of the evidence provided. The Ombudsman appreciates that the repairs teams and contractors utilise shorthand to save time, however there was a lack of information which indicated that the landlord itself had difficulty in interpreting its own records. This may have contributed to, or been indicative of, a lack of monitoring of repairs, which appeared to be reactive rather than proactive.
In relation to the issues the resident raised in her complaint of 6 December 2018 and 6 January 2019, the Ombudsman finds as follows:
1. In relation to washing machine plumbing: There was no evidence of these issues being reported or addressed prior to the resident’s complaint. However, the evidence showed that the issue of the washing machine plumbing was addressed in April 2019 and the damp in the kitchen was investigated on 28 August 2019. There was no further reference to these issues so it is reasonable to conclude that the matter was resolved at those dates respectively. However, this constituted an unreasonable delay.
2. In relation to the issues with the first floor front bedroom UPVC window and the UPVC patio door: The evidence showed that there had been issues with the first-floor window of a similar nature throughout the period from 2016 onwards and with the door since April 2018. There were repeated visits and works raised throughout 2019 to 2021. The evidence also showed that the window and the door were beyond repair. The window had not been fitted property. While it is likely that the silicone would have worn as a matter of course, given the resident’s numerous reports over a number of years, it was not reasonable of the landlord to simply arrange a re-inspection and repair of the window and door. It should have taken note of the resident’s repeated reports which should have alerted the landlord that a more substantive and robust approach was required. This caused frustration to the resident. The resident not only had the inconvenience of the poor operation of the window itself, but also the inconvenience of having to make several reports and repeated appointments at her property. This was particularly disruptive, given her particular circumstances. While it is noted that the resident postponed appointments from time to time, that did not delay the repairs to the window and doors, and in any event, did not cause the necessity for repeated visits .
3. In relation to the garden fence and overgrown shrubbery: The evidence showed that the job to replace the garden fencing raised on 13 August 2018 was cancelled. The landlord’s records are not clear as to who cancelled the job. The evidence also showed that a job was completed on 24 May 2019 to “carry out external works” to the garden. These were still outstanding, according to the survey report, as at 19 January 2020. While there was reference to works to the gate, it is reasonable to conclude that there was an unreasonable delay to the works to the damaged fence.
4. In relation to damp in the toilet, damp in the ground floor hall and outside the front window, the leak to the front room ceiling and the leak in the cylinder cupboard:
  1. The evidence showed that a job had been raised and completed in relation to the leaking toilet in June 2018. The evidence showed a further report of a leak from the toilet in November 2018 which affected the “front room”. While jobs were raised to investigate the leak on 1 April 2019, 31 July 2019 and 16 September 2019, the evidence does not show when this was resolved. However, nor was it referred to as an issue after September 2019. The evidence indicated that the leak in the living room was caused by the bathroom/toilet leak and that the effects of the leak were therefore significant. While the landlord responded promptly in June 2018, there was an unreasonable delay to the works between November 2018 and September 2019.
  2. The leak in the downstairs hall was raised in October 2018. Jobs were raised in relation to a leak into a hall pipe in 16 April 2019 and this was ongoing in May 2019. It is reasonable to conclude the leak was resolved soon after, given the leak itself was not referred to. However there was an unreasonable delay to the remedial works to the hallway cupboard, redecoration, plastering and relaying of the floor were not resolved. As the landlord acknowledged, and the evidence also showed, the delay to those remedial works was due to the inadequate repairs and remedial works undertaken by the contractors and were still outstanding as at early 2021. While some of the delay was due to the resident’s request, and due to lockdowns, these were not the only reasons, given lockdown commenced in March 2020, some 18 months after the first job was raised and a year after the leak itself was apparently resolved. While it was reasonable for the landlord (through its contractor) to organise the works in stages in order to accommodate the resident, and the evidence showed that the landlord was required to investigate the presence of asbestos before undertaking works, the Ombudsman finds that some of the delay was attributable to the landlord.
  3. Prior to the resident’s complaint, a job was raised in relation to the cylinder cupboard in April 2018. The evidence does not show when it was resolved after the resident’s complaint. The evidence is not clear as to which cupboard the landlord refers to at any one time, however the evidence indicates that the decorating to the cylinder cupboard was outstanding as at August 2020, if not later.
  4. It was reasonable of the landlord to adhere to its original promises to carry out remedial works to the living room, hall, and cupboards. It was also reasonable of the landlord to seek to accommodate the resident’s circumstances by arranging works in “blocks” or in stages. The fresh remedial works were hampered by the successive lockdowns. While the resident disputed that the delay to the living room decorating was due to her, the evidence showed that the landlord requested her colour choice on a number of occasions. Again, in the circumstances, a proportion of the delays were not attributable to the landlord. However, the evidence also showed that many of the issues and re-attendances were necessitated by it having to correct previous defective works.
The resident did not raise the damp in her son’s bedroom in her original complaint. However, the landlord, due to the way the complaint was handled, addressed the issue that the resident raised later on during the course of correspondence and therefore, the Ombudsman considers it reasonable to investigate the issue. A job was raised on 18 October 2019 to investigate the bedroom. The evidence indicated that the works were delayed in order to accommodate the needs of the resident’s son. It was then reasonable to offer the resident a less intrusive way to address the damp. However, while it was reasonable of the landlord to provide appropriate paint as an alternative, there is no evidence that a further investigation was carried out and the Ombudsman will make an order in that regard.
The evidence did not show the response times to the resident’s reports but showed the timescales from the date the jobs were raised. As far as it went, the evidence indicated that, in most instances, the contractor attended within the timescale of 28 days for routine repairs from the date the job was raised. The evidence also showed that the landlord demonstrated a proactive overview from time to time but this was not consistent. The works in 2020-2021 would have been affected by successive lockdowns, however the repairs, such as to the window and door, pre-dated lockdown. The evidence also showed that some of the delays were also at the request of the resident and works were carried out in stages in order to accommodate her circumstances, including her son’s health needs. It is noted in particular that the evidence indicated that the landlord did not pursue the works recommended by the report of 19 January 2020 due to it being “too intrusive” with regards to the resident’s son’s needs.
The evidence also showed that there were unreasonable delays as set out above, some of the works carried out were inadequate and unsatisfactory, which required re-attendances and there was a gap in continuity due to staff changeover between April 2020 and July 2020 which led to overall delays. There was no evidence of the landlord monitoring the contractor either in terms of timescales or standards, in accordance with its policy. Rather, the evidence indicated that the landlord, on the main, left matters to the contractor to resolve instead of pro-actively retaining ownership of the repairs.
The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to be more pro-active, to retain control and keep track of the actions of the contractor and to ensure that the repairs were being carried out. Adopting the words of the resident, and of the landlord’s own policy, the landlord should have monitored the repairs and ensured that work was undertaken by competent operatives. It should have proactively tracked any progress of the works and been in closer communication with the contractors, of which there was little evidence. While not all the delays were due to the landlord, and there was evidence of the landlord seeking to resolve the issues and accommodate the resident’s requirements, the overall delays and repeated appointments would have had an accumulative impact on the resident, in relation to which the Ombudsman finds there was maladministration.

The landlord’s complaint handling

On receipt of the resident’s complaint of 6 December 2018, the landlord made a number of assurances, including that it would respond within 15 working days, and on or by 30 January 2019. There was no evidence that it did so. In response, the resident asked that the complaint be escalated on a number of occasions. The landlord did not write again until 1 March 2019 when it stated it was addressing the complaint as a stage one complaint under its procedure. There was no evidence of any stage one response or indeed any substantive response until 1 August 2019 when it summarised the complaint. It was not satisfactory that the landlord did not provide a response or explain to the resident its complaint procedure.
It was unreasonable of the landlord to provide two contradictory responses to the resident’s request of 31 March 2020 to escalate her complaint. It was also unreasonable to refuse the resident’s request, given she had made a request to escalate in the previous year, in particular as the landlord had not explained at the time it was not escalating her complaint. It was then confusing that, according to the landlord, the complaint would “continue” at the “current stage” indicating that the complaint was live at 13 July 2020. It was also unreasonable that the landlord did not respond to the resident’s request to escalate her complaint of 27 July 2020. While it seemed prepared to consider a fresh complaint, and offer compensation, it was then unreasonable that the landlord refused to escalate the resident’s complaint in the period November 2020/December 2020 as the landlord had not concluded the complaint process, despite the resident requesting escalation of the complaint.
However, it was reasonable that the landlord rectified its position and agreed to address the resident’s complaints, following intervention by this service.
This report has already commented on the lack of a clear boundary of the issues the landlord addressed in the complaint procedure. In the Ombudsman’s view, however, leaving aside the issue of clarity, it was reasonable of the landlord, in its letter of 8 March 2021, to address the issues raised in the resident’s original complaint, as well as the further issues that had arisen. It would have been disproportionate to have required the resident to make a fresh complaint, in particular given the landlord’s poor complaint handling.
It was also reasonable that the landlord acknowledged its complaint handling failures in its letter of 2 March 2021 and offered compensation. The landlord went a considerable way in rectifying the failures in its stage one response in its response of 16 April 2021 when it acknowledged that the original works had not been completed to a satisfactory standard and it did not effectively manage the resident’s complaint nor the outstanding repairs she raised in the original complaint. It also set out how it should improve, which plan of action the Ombudsman agrees with.
The landlord’s offer of compensation in relation to complaint handling went a considerable way to compensate the resident for its very poor complaint handling, as did its recognition of its failures and as did, in particular, its action plan to remedy its complaint handling in the future. The landlord also, upon the involvement of this service, agreed to address the resident’s complaint from December 2018. Had the landlord not made this offer of compensation and recognised its own failings, the Ombudsman would have found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
However, it was unreasonable not to address the past delays on the basis that at that late stage the position had improved. Again, while the evidence showed the resident had played a part in delaying the works, the landlord did not address the length of time the repairs had taken. The landlord did not consider offering compensation regarding its delays to the works, despite its averred intention to do so, and its recognition that there had been delays to this service on 4 December 2020. It had itself envisaged that it would review new developments, hence not offering compensation sooner, but did not do so to any meaningful degree. The landlord had made assurances to this service that it would consider compensation at the end of the process. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to adhere to its assurances.
Taking all of the circumstances into account, the frustration for the resident who was living in difficult personal circumstances, the further delay to the stage two response, the backtracking by the landlord on offering compensation regarding the delays and poor standard of the repairs, the Ombudsman does not consider that £300 is adequate and considers that the landlord should make an additional payment of £100 to the resident in relation to its complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of disrepair to her property, in particular in relation to delays and the standard of repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

While the landlord scheduled a number of repairs around the resident’s circumstances and requirements, there were delays and poor standard or repairs which necessitated multiple visits. The landlord should have taken a more proactive approach to repeated reports of the same repair issues.
The landlord’s complaint handing lacked clarity and direction. However, the landlord later went a considerable way in recognising its failures by offering compensation. However, given the particular circumstances of the resident, the Ombudsman found that the initial offer of compensation for complaint handling failings was insufficient.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation in the amount of £600 within 28 days as follows:
1. An additional amount of £500 in addition to the £100 offered to the resident in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of disrepair to her property.
2. An additional amount of £100 in addition to the £300 offered to the resident in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
3. The landlord should complete the repairs or replacement to the back door within 28 days.
4. The landlord should contact the resident within 28 days to discuss the findings of the report of 19 January 2020 with a view to discussing whether any of the works recommended should still be carried out.
The landlord should confirm compliance to the Housing Ombudsman service with the above orders within 28 days of this report, with a copy of a letter from the landlord to the resident, confirming the resident’s response to its discussion with the resident about the report of 19 January 2020, and any resulting agreements.

Recommendations

The landlord should pay the resident the compensation it had already offered to the resident amounting to £400 (£300 for complaint handling and £100 for repairs) within 28 days, if it has not already done so.
If the resident requires it, the landlord should carry out the works recommended in the report of 19 January 2020 and monitor the position in any event.
The landlord should carry out all the key lessons set out in its letter 16 April 2021 in relation to its repairs handling.
The landlord should review its arrangements for monitoring the performance of its repair contractors.
The landlord should consider reviewing its record–keeping methods to ensure it has the facilities to undertake such monitoring on a proactive basis.
The landlord should also ensure it records all communications, including verbal communications, so that it can better track its own actions.
The landlord should carry out all the key lessons set out in its letter 16 April 2021 in relation to its complaints handling, including making very clear when the complaints begins and ends, which state the complainant is at, agreeing any extension of time for responding, in accordance with its own complaints’ procedure. This should also include providing a complaint reference number to the complainant as a matter of course.
The landlord should ensure all relevant staff are aware of the Complaint Handling Code and consider attendance at training events, such as learning from complaints workshops – https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/landlords-info/workshops/.
The landlord should notify the Ombudsman of its intentions regarding these recommendations within 28 days of this report.