Hexagon Housing Association Limited (202014900)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014900

Hexagon Housing Association Limited

9 August 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of a roof leak at the resident’s property.
2. Provision of grounds maintenance which the resident pays a service charge.
3. Response to the resident’s reports of bulk waste being left in the grounds of the property.
4. Handling of the attendance and behaviour of contractors completing repairs at the property.
5. Handling of the closure of an annex building at the property.
6. Handling of the installation of a fire door at the property.
7. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident has a shared ownership lease of a 1 bedroom flat in a converted house owned by the landlord. The building houses 5 flats in total, over 3 floors. The resident’s tenancy started in August 2010. The landlord has no recorded health vulnerabilities for the resident.
The resident raised a stage 1 formal complaint to the landlord on 7 September 2021. The resident was pregnant at the time of her complaint and gave birth in October 2021.
Prior to the resident’s September 2021 complaint, she had raised multiple similar or related complaints to the landlord from at least 2015. The landlord considered it had resolved these complaints by way of refunding a proportion of the resident’s annual service charge payments.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response to the resident on 21 September 2021. It provided an explanation to each of the resident’s concerns and the action it would take. No further redress was offered at this stage.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s internal complaints process (ICP) on or around 4 October 2021. The resident continued to chase the landlord for updates on 26 October, 29 November, and 23 December 2021. She wanted the landlord to co-ordinate, fix, and resolve all outstanding matters.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 16 March 2022. It summarised action it would take to resolve her concerns. It informed the resident that her current complaint had now completed stage 2 of its ICP. No redress was offered for the resident’s current complaint and it advised she could request escalation to a third complaint stage, where her complaint would be heard by a panel.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 3 of the landlord’s ICP on or around 18 April 2022. Following an incomplete stage 3 hearing on 16 June 2022, the landlord met again on 22 February 2024. It provided its stage 3 final response on 7 March 2024. The landlord acknowledged poor service delivery and complaint handling failures. It offered compensation of £2,262.13. This comprised:
1. £1,362.13, 50% of the resident’s service charge costs between 2021 to 2024.
2. £1,000 to recognise the distress and inconvenience its complaint handling failures caused.
The resident brought her complaint to the Housing Ombudsman Service. She said the landlord had made unsuccessful attempts to address matters and further work had been completed to the roof in January to February 2024. She explained she continued to experience water ingress and was unable to rent or sell her property due to disrepair. Her complaint became one we could formally consider on 11 April 2024.
In July 2024 the resident said that the landlord’s communication remained poor. She informed us the landlord had sent a specialist roofing contractor in or around April to May 2024, who did not access the external parts of the roof. She said nobody from the landlord had contacted her, so she had no idea what action it planned to take next to resolve the leak. The resident said she had started to make her own enquiries for quotes to fix the roof.
While working with the resident and collating evidence, we were required to issue the landlord with two complaint handling failure orders (CHFO) on 15 January 2024 and 26 June 2024. This was due to its failure to provide us with timely responses and its failure to provide all requested evidence. We made a further request for the landlord to resend information on 24 July 2024. The landlord did not respond to or acknowledge this request within the timescales set.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman notes that the resident’s correspondence included an expression of dissatisfaction regarding the landlord’s service charge costs.
Any dissatisfaction regarding the reasonableness, liability, or the methodology used to calculate service charge contributions requires a decision by a court or tribunal service. Should the resident remain dissatisfied with this matter, she is advised this would fall outside of our jurisdiction and is within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). The resident is also encouraged to discuss the matter further with the Leasehold Advisory Service (LEASE) www.lease-advice.org. This matter will not form part of this investigation.

Handling of a roof leak at the resident’s property

Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord must keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, including the roof, gutter, drains, and pipes. This obligation is acknowledged in paragraph 5.3 (a) of the resident’s lease agreement which states the landlord will:
1. Improve or shall procure the maintenance, repair, redecoration, improvement, or renewal of the load bearing framework and all structural parts of the building, which includes the property’s roof.
Following significant correspondence to the landlord between January to June 2024, we did not receive the landlord’s repair records nor policies and procedures. The absence of this requested information has hindered our investigation and our ability to accurately assess the landlord’s actions.
Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the Scheme state:
1. The member landlord must provide copies (without charge) of any information requested by the Ombudsman that is, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, relevant to the complaint or assessment of compliance with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code). This may include the following records and documents:
  1. The member’s policies and procedures.
  2. Any internal files, documents, correspondence, records, accounts or minutes of meetings, in hard copy or electronic form. This includes records relating to similar cases where the Ombudsman needs them to establish consistency of practice.
  3. A self-assessment against any good practice issued by the Ombudsman when ordered to do so.
2. The member landlord must provide the requested information within a reasonable timescale in an accessible format or allow access for inspection.
The landlord’s failures to provide all of the requested information within reasonable timescales was not appropriate and not in line with the obligations of our member landlords.
It is unclear from the evidence supplied when precisely the resident first reported the roof leak to the landlord. This information should have been available to us via the landlord’s repair records. This lack of evidence has affected our investigation and demonstrates poor record keeping.
However, there is evidence the resident informed the landlord in May 2020 of water ingress from the roof. She said she had decorated her property twice due to damage caused by roof leaks. There is further evidence she informed the landlord of leaks affecting her property on 20 July 2020 and in her stage 1 complaint on 7 September 2021. It is unclear from the evidence supplied by the landlord, what action it took at these stages following her reports. This demonstrated record keeping and communication failures.
We expect landlords to manage repairs for which it is responsible appropriately, by completing them in a reasonable time and providing regular communication and updates to the resident about the works. Where repair work is overdue, residents should receive regular updates clearly explaining the reasons for delay and the expected date of completion. It is unclear from the evidence supplied what communication, if any, the landlord provided the resident at this stage. We have seen no explanation from the landlord outside of the resident’s complaint, which explained the actions it planned to remedy her repairs.
There is evidence the landlord emailed the resident on 5 October 2022. This followed the landlord’s initial, incomplete, stage 3 complaint handling process four months earlier, in June 2022. It explained a specialist would survey the roof and it would provide the resident with its proposed action plan to remedy the leaks.
While this now suggests the landlord acted on the resident’s concerns, we have seen no evidence of a specialist report or the findings in which the landlord used in its attempts to fix the resident’s repair. There is however video evidence from the landlord’s contractor and the resident which demonstrates water damage from roof leaks at the resident’s property on 16 March 2023, 24 September 2023, and 4 October 2023.
There is evidence within emails the landlord erected scaffolding and completed several roof, guttering, and Velux window repairs. These took place in or around August 2021, September 2022, May 2023, August 2023, and February 2024. However, the resident informed us in July 2024, that no lasting leak repair was ever achieved. It is therefore reasonable that she described how the ongoing disturbance of unsuccessful repairs affected her quiet enjoyment of the property.
There is evidence from the landlord’s internal communications from October 2022 and March 2023 where it said it was waiting rain or was in a “stand off period” to test the water tightness of works completed. However, given the history of the resident’s recurring leaks, it was unreasonable the landlord did not evidence completing controlled water tests or stress tests to satisfy itself the weatherproofing was successful.
There is evidence the resident emailed the landlord on 30 March 2023 reporting “water pouring in to her property.” This was within days of the landlord considering the repair complete. This did not demonstrate a landlord that had thoroughly inspected or monitored the work completed. This caused damage to the resident’s property and further distress and inconvenience.
On 29 September 2023 there is evidence in the landlord’s internal communications that confirms the resident’s ongoing and intermittent leaks from the property’s roof. It states it had sent its contractor but it had “failed twice to find and fix the roof issue.” This demonstrates the landlord knew of the resident’s ongoing repair need and that it had failed to resolve it.
We note from the landlord’s internal communications on 10 April 2024 that it acknowledged there have been recurrent leaks at the resident’s property. It said this had taken place over a lengthy period of time affecting multiple properties in the building. While we acknowledge leaks are often difficult to detect, the time taken to remedy the resident’s repair was unreasonable. The resident provided evidence of water damage in an email to the landlord on 29 March 2023, explaining how her home was “getting ruined as we speak, not to mention damp and cold.” The landlord’s failure to provide the resident with an action plan or resolve the roof leak for another year at this stage caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) provides recommendations for landlords, including that they should:
1. Adopt a zero tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions. Landlords should review their current strategy and consider whether their approach will achieve this.
2. Ensure they can identify complex cases at an early stage and have a strategy for keeping residents informed and effective resolution.
3. Ensure that they clearly and regularly communicate with residents regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould.
4. Identify where an independent, mutually agreed and suitably qualified surveyor should be used. This includes sharing the outcomes of all surveys and inspections with residents to help them understand the findings and be clear on next steps. Landlords should then act on accepted survey recommendations in a timely manner.
While it is not disputed the landlord made attempts to fix the roof, there is no evidence in this case if, or how the landlord adopted these recommendations. Furthermore, given the landlord’s failure to complete the roof repair and ongoing damage to the resident’s property due to water ingress, it was responsible for carrying out repairs to put things right for her.
The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard that may require remedy. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS, and they are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified. Given the prolonged intermittent leak, the landlord has failed to demonstrate how it considered its obligations under HHSRS or consider the increased risk to the resident.
In view of the landlord’s difficulties to identify the cause of water ingress and to keep the roof watertight, we would have expected the landlord to have considered other practical ways to support her such as the offer of dehumidifiers. We have seen no evidence to suggest the landlord considered this need, which was unreasonable. Such an approach may have helped the landlord develop a more positive and empathetic relationship with the resident, who described feeling that “nothing had been done.” These failures caused distress and inconvenience to the resident and did nothing to improve the resident and landlord relationship.
While it is not disputed the landlord carried out work to prevent leaks affecting the resident’s property, these were unsuccessful and she continued to experience a lengthy delay for a resolution. The landlord’s handling has led to significant distress and inconvenience, and damage to the decoration of the resident’s property.
When there are failings by the landlord, as there is in this case, it is our role to consider an appropriate level of redress to put things right. Although the landlord demonstrated taking some action to complete repairs, this was not sufficient mitigation for the identified failures. It failed to resolve the leaks over an identified period between May 2020 and its stage 3 response on 7 March 2024, approximately 200 weeks. It failed to demonstrate how it gave due regard to the resident being pregnant at the time of her complaint or the affect the leak would have on her living conditions. Its communication with the resident was and remains poor, leaving her distressed and without a clear action plan for resolution.
In summary, the landlord’s failures amount to severe maladministration. The landlord failed to show a clear repair audit trail, failed to demonstrate an effective action plan strategy throughout its handling of her repair, and its poor communication caused the resident time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience pursuing the matter with the landlord. Furthermore, the landlord has failed to evidence that it had completed the repairs in a reasonable amount of time. Nor has it demonstrated that it has successfully resolved the repair.
Based on our findings, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £2,400. Given an identified period of 4 years living with the effects of a roof leak, the sum of £600 per year is warranted to recognise the landlord’s significant failure to resolve the repair. This is in line with the remedies guidance available to us when a landlord’s failures have had a serious detrimental impact on the resident and undermined the landlord and resident relationship.

Provision of grounds maintenance which the resident pays a service charge

The resident pays a monthly service charge to the landlord. Between 1 April 2023 to 31 March 2024 this was £100.20 per month. Of which, £24.18 per month with specifically for grounds maintenance.
The resident says the landlord continually completed garden maintenance to a low standard. Furthermore, agreed attendance schedules were not adhered to. There is evidence the resident has raised this as a recurring complaint point from at least 2018. While the resident’s continued reports of dissatisfaction do not demonstrate a landlord that has learned from outcomes, there is evidence it has previously investigated, and refunded service charge payments to her. There is evidence this included a refund of £1,470.99 in March 2021.
It is not disputed by the landlord that issues remained ongoing with its delivery of its grounds maintenance contract. Internal correspondence on 3 May 2023 demonstrated the landlord investigating the resident’s concerns. This included the dates of non-attendance, site photographs, and reports from estate audits. This demonstrated the landlord acted on the resident’s concerns.
The landlord’s stage 3 response advised the resident it would visit the property to review the maintenance of the garden and communal areas and ensure these met the expected standards. Furthermore, it said if standards continued to fall below the required expectations, it would assign a new grounds maintenance contractor to complete the necessary work. The landlord said it would continue to inspect on an ongoing basis, to ensure that the maintenance routine was adhered to.
While the resident had waited an unreasonable time for the landlord to complete its ICP, these actions demonstrated the landlord taking steps to address the resident’s long standing concerns. Furthermore, its stage 3 response offered a £1,362.13 refund of service charges. It summarised this as an agreed refund of 50% of the resident’s total service charges between 2021 to early 2024.
In this case, the landlord acknowledged that there were communication failures and it was delayed in completing the resident’s complaint. It apologised and acknowledged ongoing ground maintenance failures, offered an action plan to put things right, and offered sufficient compensation in accordance with the remedies guidance available to us. Based on the evidence, we find the landlord has offered reasonable redress in this matter.

Response to the resident’s reports of bulk waste being left in the grounds of the property

The resident advised us that bulk waste was being left in the property grounds by other residents. She believed she was paying service charges for these items to be removed which she considered unreasonable. During communication with us, the resident said the landlord had not provided her with confirmation of where the service charge money was being allocated.
While any dissatisfaction regarding the reasonableness and liability of service charge contributions falls outside of our jurisdiction, we can consider the landlord’s communication.
The legal responsibility of a landlord regarding notifying residents of annual service charges are governed by the terms outlined in the lease. Landlords are required to provide clear and transparent information to residents regarding charges, including the amount, breakdown of costs, and any changes.
Schedule 7 of the resident’s lease defines the ‘account year’ for the resident’s property as 1 April to 31 March each year. It states the landlord should calculate any service provision (estimates) before the beginning of the account year and provide actual statements “as soon as practicable” after the end of each account year.
Evidence has been supplied by the landlord which demonstrated it provided the resident with letters annually. These included breakdowns of how the service charges were allocated. From the evidence supplied, the landlord sent these to the resident in line with the requirements of the lease.
However, while the 2023 to 2024 statement included a charge for refuse collection, there is no explanation within the landlord’s letter why this charge had been included. This did not demonstrate a clear and transparent approach by the landlord to notify the resident of service charge changes.
The landlord did not provide copies of its policies and procedures. However, its website states that “every time a resident dumps a bulky item that the landlord collects, the charge is passed on to all residents at that building. These costs are recovered through the service charge, which may increase if perpetrators continue to dump unwanted goods.” Therefore, the landlord has appropriately applied its policy to recharge the residents of the building.
While this is in line with its bulk waste policy, it is unclear from the evidence supplied what actions, if any, the landlord took to identify the perpetrators. Its failure to demonstrate how it investigated the resident’s concerns and the lack of evidence of any communication outside of the resident’s complaint, does not demonstrate a landlord acting to prevent the situation recurring.
The landlord’s stage 3 complaint response on 7 March 2024 said it would meet or telephone all residents of the building “to ensure that they clearly understand the rules regarding bulk waste and service charges.” The resident disputes this has been done and reports that problems remain ongoing.
Inconsiderate behaviour by another resident would understandably be upsetting. While the detriment to the resident would be low, the landlord has failed to demonstrate the actions it has taken to enforce the terms and conditions of tenancies to prevent incidents recurring. Nor has it demonstrated effective communication regarding its attempts to prevent incidents or explain changes to the resident’s annual service charge statements. These issues remained ongoing during the landlord’s considerable delay to complete its ICP. The landlord’s failures have adversely affected the resident. Therefore, we find maladministration with this matter.

Handling of the attendance and behaviour of contractors completing repairs at the property

The resident states that she has repeatedly been disturbed by the unannounced attendance of contractors to her property or the building. She described how they fail to clear away rubbish, leaving it in the internal and external areas of the building. Furthermore, she said the landlord repeatedly failed to inform her of scaffolding work and operatives would look in to her windows.
Following the incomplete stage 3 hearing in June 2022, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns on 5 October 2022. It advised it had informed its contractors not to turn up unannounced. It accepted that these instructions had not been followed.
There is evidence within the landlord’s internal communications on 21 February 2023 where the landlord acknowledged that it should know when its contractors would be on site. It said, “there should be no reason, and minimal effort employed for us to advise customers in advance of scaffold being erected and give an indicative time line of how long they can expect the scaffold to remain in situ.”
This is a clear acknowledgement for the need to improve communication and record keeping. The landlord said it would adopt and agree this recommendation with its contractors. While this demonstrated the landlord acting on the resident’s concerns, there is evidence the resident continued to report incidents up to June 2024. Therefore, no learning was demonstrated and the landlord failed to put things right for the resident.
Paragraph 3.13 of the resident’s lease states the landlord’s right of inspection and right of repair. It says the resident must permit the landlord and its employees or agents or surveyors at reasonable times (except in case of emergency) to enter the premises and examine their condition.
Paragraph 5.1 of the resident’s lease refers to “quiet enjoyment.” It states the resident “may peaceably enjoy the premises during the term without any lawful interruption by the landlord.”
While there is a delicate balance between the requirement of scaffolding to access roof repairs, and the resident’s rights to quiet enjoyment, the landlord acknowledge the impact unannounced visited had on her. It acknowledged the need for improved communication and committed to inform her when work would take place. However, it failed to deliver on this promise, and advised during its stage 3 response on 7 March 2024 that this was something to which it could not commit.
The landlord should hold sufficient records of planned or responsive repairs to provide the resident with either a precise appointment date or a date range for works. If appropriately monitored, the landlord should be in a position to provide residents with updates to ensure they are informed of any delays. While the landlord was obliged to complete the repairs, it was also under an obligation not to interfere with the resident’s quiet enjoyment of her home. The landlord’s failure to communicate even approximate dates its contractors would attend the resident’s building infringed on this.
Furthermore, the landlord has failed to demonstrate it has taken any action with the resident’s reports that contractors left rubbish at the property. This caused additional distress and inconvenience to the resident while she waited for the landlord to complete its delayed ICP. Therefore, due to the accumulation of failures and delays which caused the resident distress and inconvenience, we find maladministration.

Handling of the closure of an annex building at the property

The resident reports the landlord closed an annex adjacent to the main building and this was done without consultation. The resident says the landlord has not communicated if, or when this would be reopened. She described using the annex for storage from at least 2003. She considers the landlord’s decision to remove access to this area without consultation unreasonable.
The lease agreement states the landlord has the power and discretion to alter “common parts.” While the evidence supplied to us does not identify the annex, the resident’s rights of access to the main building’s common parts such as the lobby, landings, and stairs required to access her property remain unaffected by the annex closure.
There is evidence the annex building suffered a roof leak. In August 2020 the landlord discussed internally the future plans for the annex which needed a feasibility study to assess options and costs. The landlord discussed the challenges of safely managing communal storage spaces and the need for substantial work required to prevent further water penetration. It considered the building unsafe for use by any resident and closed it on health and safety grounds. This decision was within the landlord’s power and discretion. Given the landlord’s inspection had identified health and safety concerns, its decision to close the annex without consultation was reasonable in the circumstances.
However, there is no evidence the landlord provided the resident with any communication regarding the outcome of its feasibility studies. While it was within its right to close the annex, it failed to demonstrate effective communication with the resident regarding its future use or potential alternatives.
The landlord’s stage 3 panel hearing and stage 3 response recognised that closing the annex indefinitely was not an ideal solution. It advised it was not currently in a financial position to resolve this. It agreed to consider whether any additional funding could be identified to complete the works necessary to make this space safe to use in future years.
While the loss of an additional storage facility would understandably be upsetting, the detriment to the resident would have been minimal. We have been unable to identify any clause in the resident’s lease that includes the annex as part of her agreement. Therefore, she does not pay rent or service charges towards it. Any previous use had been provided at the landlord’s discretion.
However, although the landlord’s stage 3 response demonstrates its intention to investigate funding opportunities, the resident has been required to chase the landlord throughout her complaint for this information, approximately 200 weeks. This did not demonstrate the landlord communicated effectively. Therefore, we find maladministration in this matter.

Handling of the installation of fire doors at the property

There is evidence the resident’s front door was replaced in or around September 2020. However, there is further evidence in the landlord’s letter of 5 October 2022, which indicates the doors were replaced again in February 2021. As the landlord has not provided evidence of its repair or installation records, we have been unable to assess this accurately.
Following installation, the resident says she reported issues with the door’s alignment and gaps she could see around it. Furthermore, she reported dissatisfaction with damage caused to surrounding decoration.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response on 16 March 2022 said its fire safety project manager, inspected works on 19th January 2022 and had signed off on the quality of the installation. The landlord’s complaint response made no further reference to the resident’s concerns in its response. This did not demonstrate the landlord had carefully considered all the information and evidence provided. This was not appropriate and not in line with the expectations of 4.7 of the Code.
While the landlord provided a fire risk assessment (FRA), valid between 24 May 2022 to 24 May 2024, this relates to the building and communal areas. No evidence has been supplied relating to the resident’s concerns regarding her own front entrance door. Given the resident’s reports that the property’s door was not correctly aligned, we would have expected repair records to demonstrate the landlord’s actions to remedy this. As these were not available to us, it is unclear what action, if any, the landlord took at this stage.
However, there is evidence in the landlord’s letter of 5 October 2022 where it acknowledged “there had been confusion between the pictures sent to it after the installation and subsequent replacements.” It said, “it thought the doors were fitted correctly and no further action needed.” This did not demonstrate effective record keeping and demonstrated an ineffective investigation at stage 2 of the landlord’s ICP. The lack of a thorough response was dismissive of the resident’s concerns. This caused her distress and inconvenience.
Fire doors play an essential role in preventing or slowing the spread of smoke and toxic gases. Landlords should demonstrate cyclical FRA inspections of fire doors in communal areas and property entrance doors. These inspections include a visual inspection, a review of any gaps between the leaf and frame, and or threshold. The landlord’s “confusion” and lack of evidence regarding this matter, does not demonstrate it addressed the resident’s concerns. Nor that it monitored the actions of its contractors or maintained effective record keeping.
There is evidence of internal communication on 19 February 2024 where the landlord discussed the resident’s fire door installation complaint. It states, “there is no correspondence relating to the door, just a report from the contractor relating to the install of the original door.” This further demonstrated ineffective record keeping and a lack of action since the resident’s complaint in September 2021.
The landlord’s stage 3 complaint response acknowledged the resident’s complaint included her concerns “over the quality of the fire door installation.” However, it again failed to make further reference to this or what action it would take to reassure her.
While we note the landlord’s stage 3 summary of issues records the resident’s fire door issue “resolved.” The resident disputes this and informs us, although the decoration was addressed, the landlord has not attended the property to inspect or adjust the door. This is not appropriate. FRA 12 months and
While we are unable to determine whether there has been any failure by the landlord to correctly install the resident’s front door, its communication and record keeping failures have resulted in it failing to respond to her concerns with a reasonable time. This has caused her time and trouble trying to resolve matters with the landlord. Therefore, we find maladministration in this matter.

Complaint handling

Although requested, the landlord failed to provide us with copies of its policies and procedures prior to the start of our investigation. However, the landlord does not dispute that it operated a 3-stage complaint handling process at the time of the resident’s complaint.
The Code sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. This includes the number of days that a landlord should provide its stage responses and the number of days that this can be extended, on agreement with the resident. The Code states that complaints should be acknowledged within 5 working days. A stage 1 and stage 2 response should be provided within 10 and 20 working days, respectively.
The landlord’s use of a 3-stage complaint process was not appropriate and not compliant with the Code. The landlord has informed us that it ended its 3-stage complaints process in 2023.
The resident raised her stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 7 September 2021. Therefore, she should have received a stage 1 acknowledgement by 14 September 2021 and a stage 1 response by 21 September 2021.
From the evidence supplied by the landlord, we are unable to determine whether it sent a stage 1 complaint acknowledgement. This indicates poor communication, a record keeping failure, and a failure to adhere to the expectations of the Code. However, it was appropriate for it to provide a stage 1 response on 21 September 2021.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s ICP on 4 October 2021. She should therefore have received an acknowledgement by 11 October 2021 and a stage 2 response by 1 November 2021.
While the resident and landlord continued to correspond between October 2021 to March 2022, there is no evidence the landlord provided the resident with a stage 2 complaint acknowledgement. Furthermore, the resident did not receive a stage 2 response until 16 March 2022. This was not appropriate and 94 working days beyond the expectations of the Code.
There is no evidence the landlord had discussed or agreed any complaint response extension with the resident. This was not appropriate and not in line with the Code. Furthermore, there is evidence the resident continued to chase the landlord for updates between October 2021 to March 2022. This demonstrated poor communication by the landlord which caused the resident time and trouble as she tried to progress matters.
The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles encourage learning from outcomes. While the landlord’s stage 2 response acknowledged its complaint handling delays, it failed to set out what steps it would take to prevent similar failings happening again. This was not appropriate. It failed to demonstrate recognising the effects its failures had on the resident and would therefore be unable to learn from it.
The resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 3 of the landlord’s ICP. As the landlord failed to provide us with its relevant complaints policy, its expected response timescale for its non-compliant third stage was unclear.
However, there is evidence from the landlord’s stage 3 response and compensation award calculation on 7 March 2024 which indicates a stage 3 hearing should have been completed within 60 calendar days.
It is not disputed by the landlord that the stage 3 hearing was delayed by 615 days. Furthermore, the evidence shows the resident waited a total of 689 working days between her escalation request to receipt of the landlord’s stage 3 response. This was not appropriate and an unreasonable amount of time for the landlord to complete its ICP. This delay caused the resident distress and inconvenience as she continued to report being affected by the complaint matters raised.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (acknowledgment of failings, an apology, and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles; be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
It is unclear from the evidence supplied what exactly caused the delayed stage 3 hearing and response. However, the landlord has openly informed us those issues included:
1. “Poor record keeping practices at the time.”
2. “Significant turnover of staff.”
Without good knowledge and information management (KIM) a landlord is unable to deliver its services efficiently and effectively. It is imperative that records are accurate and maintained to keep both the property and the resident safe now and in the future. There is evidence in this case that staff were either unable or did not know how to appropriately record or access data they needed. This was not appropriate and delayed it progressing the resident’s complaint.
While these issues demonstrate poor record keeping and information management, it was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge these failures. Its stage 3 response recognised where service delivery and complaint handling had fallen far from its expectations. It explained the actions it would take to put things right. This demonstrated the landlord learning from outcomes.
The landlord’s stage 3 response on 7 March 2024 offered the resident £1,000 compensation. The landlord described this as recognition for the “distress and inconvenience associated with the extensive delays in resolving your complaint, and the poor communication you experienced throughout.” This is a fair summary of the landlord’s failures and its attempts to put things right.
However, it was unclear whether the landlord intend this for complaint handling alone or to cover other aspects of the resident’s complaint. It would have been helpful to have provided an explanation in its stage 3 response of how it had calculated this award. Based on the evidence presented and the landlord’s explanation we find that the compensation was offered for complaint handling alone.
The landlord does not dispute that it has poorly managed the resident’s complaint. The Ombudsman would therefore have made a finding of some level of maladministration but for the steps taken by the landlord to put things right. The landlord has apologised, offered compensation, and sought to learn from the identified complaint handling failures. Its offer of compensation is in line with the remedies guidance available to us. This is when a failure has had a significant impact on a resident and substantial redress is required to put things right.
It is therefore the Ombudsman’s finding that the landlord has offered reasonable redress in this matter.

Review of policies and practice

The Ombudsman has found maladministration (including severe maladministration) following several investigations into complaints raised with the landlord involving its response to reported repairs, its record keeping, and complaint handling. As a result of these, wider orders have been issued to the landlord under paragraph 54 (f) of the Scheme. This is for the landlord to review its policy or practice in relation to the service failures identified, which may give rise to further complaints about the matter.
Some of the issues identified in this case are similar to case 202210842 which has already been determined, 24 February 2024. The landlord has demonstrated compliance with our previous wider order so we have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case, which would duplicate those already made. The landlord itself should consider whether there are any additional issues arising from this later case that require further action.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration with the landlord handling of a roof leak at the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the matter of the landlord’s provision of grounds maintenance which the resident pays a service charge.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of bulk waste being left in the grounds of the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the attendance and behaviour of contractors completing repairs at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the closure of an annex building at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the installation of fire doors at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the matter of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
1. A senior member of the landlord’s staff to write to the resident and apologise for the findings of this report.
2. Pay the resident £2,800 compensation, comprised of:
  1. £2,400 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of a roof leak at the resident’s property.
  2. £100 for the time and trouble caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of bulk waste being left in the grounds of the property.
  3. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the attendance and behaviour of contractors completing repairs at the property.
  4. £100 for the time and trouble caused by the landlord’s handling of the closure of an annex building at the property.
  5. £100 for the time and trouble caused by the landlord’s handling of the installation of fire doors at the property.
3. The landlord is ordered to provide the resident with a written explanation of her estimated and actual service charge statements for the last 3 account years. In which, a breakdown of charges should be included, along with an explanation of any year on year changes.
4. The landlord is ordered to visit the property and:
  1. Assess any incomplete grounds maintenance issues and the actions required to resolve them.
  2. Assess and resolve any rubbish clearance issues.
  3. Inspect and complete any required work to the resident’s front door to the property.
  4. Within 4 weeks, provide evidence to the Ombudsman of the actions taken.
Within 8 weeks the landlord is ordered to arrange or provide evidence of an independent survey (completed since its last attempted repair in February 2024) to inspect the roof and effected areas of the resident’s property. The appointment date must be agreed in advance with the resident. The landlord must:
1. Determine what roof repairs remain outstanding.
2. Communicate its findings from the visit to the resident verbally and in writing.
3. Provide the resident a written action plan, including dates the landlord will complete works. This must include any assessment of damage caused to the fabric of the resident’s building. If appropriate, the landlord should explain how the damage will be addressed or provide the resident with its liability insurance details for her to initiate a claim.
4. Update all repair records to ensure actions are recorded on the landlord’s repair systems.
5. Provide a copy of the findings and action plan to the Ombudsman within 8 weeks.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman’s determination of reasonable redress for the landlord’s complaint handling is made on the understanding that the £1,000 compensation offered is paid to resident within 28 days of this report, if it has not already been paid.
The landlord should reoffer the resident the £1,362.13 compensation offered at stage 3 for the identified failures of its provision of grounds maintenance, if not already paid.
The landlord should consider issuing a customer satisfaction survey to the residents of the building affected by the grounds maintenance issues. This will provide an opportunity to assess how things are now and whether further improvements are necessary.
The landlord recommends that the landlord considers how it sets out any compensation offered and how it explains which complaint point it is attributed to. This will improve clarity and understanding to all those reading it.