Home Group Limited (202015188)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202015188

Home Group Limited

9 September 2022

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

This complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response the resident’s reports of various repairs to the property;
2. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant and the original tenancy began in 2005. The resident and her family occupied the property following a mutual exchange around 27 October 2020. The property is a three bedroom house. The information seen suggests the resident has difficulty with her vision, along with additional vulnerabilities including learning difficulties and mental health issues.
The tenancy agreement shows the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the property “in good repair”. This includes installations providing water, heating and sanitation. The resident is obliged to allow the landlord or its agents “ access at all reasonable hours of the daytime” to inspect or repair the property.
The agreement details the landlord’s repair timescales. It shows the landlord responds to emergency repairs in 24 hours, urgent repairs in 7 days and day to day repairs in 28 days; planned works have no set timescale. Correspondence between the parties suggests a 12 week general repair timescale was in effect during Covid restrictions. The landlord’s website defines emergency repairs as presenting an immediate threat to health, safety or security.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints process. It provided a complaints policy document, effective 20 April 2021, that confirms the landlord will respond to complaints in a timely manner. The document does not provide specific response timescales. The Ombudsman has seen a similar document effective 21 May 2020.

Summary of Events

The landlord’s repair history screen shots show the resident reported a repair on 2 November 2020. Notes from the corresponding works order said she had “just moved in” and the property’s toilets would not fill or flush. The screen shots show the repair order was marked complete the following day, but the resident also reported additional repairs. The relevant notes, from 3 November 2020, said the thermostat was faulty so the heating had to be manually switched off. Further, an understairs cupboard door would not shut and a cupboard light was defective.
On 4 November 2020 the resident called the landlord at least twice about the thermostat. Call records indicate she was previously told the fault would be treated as an emergency repair. However, the landlord attempted to explain this was incorrect because the property had heating. The resident subsequently asked for a manager to call back and hung up. Additional records show she called back later and hung up after being advised a manager call back was not possible.
In correspondence to the resident around this time, the landlord agreed to fit a handrail to the property’s staircase. The correspondence said the landlord had instructed its repairs team to raise a works order accordingly.
Between 5 and 16 November 2020 the resident reported there was no heating or hot water. Repair records show the corresponding works order was marked complete the same day. They also show the thermostat and cupboard lights were repaired on 11 November 2020. This was eight days after the defects were reported. Repair notes from this date onwards said the resident was disabled and vulnerable. The resident subsequently reported: a leaking toilet, a bedroom door that would not close properly and split pipe boxing. The landlord’s repair records indicate the leak was limited.
On 23 November 2020 the resident called the landlord to postpone scheduled joinery works by five days until 7 December 2020. She also reported additional repairs including: a defective window locking mechanism, loose window handles and defective window seals. The corresponding works order shows the patio door was also reported to be affected by similar issues.
The next day the resident reported there was no heating or hot water. Repair records show the landlord attended the same day and fixed a boiler fault. However, the landlord’s contact records show the resident had to chase the repair because an engineer did not arrive within her allocated appointment time.
Between 2 and 8 of December 2020 works orders were raised to supply and fit the staircase handrail, and repair an external light. The timeline confirms there was an unnecessary delay of around a month in respect of the handrail.
The resident called the landlord on 8 December 2020. Call records show she confirmed repairs to the internal doors and pipe boxing were outstanding. The timeline confirms it took around 21 days to repair the leak. The records also show she was expecting the outstanding works to be completed on 7 December 2020. However, a new repair order had to be raised because the original job was closed in error. From the landlord’s later correspondence, it raised a formal complaint around this time because the resident expressed the following concerns:
1. The landlord’s contractor blamed the landlord for failing to raise the initial repair order.
2. It failed to fulfil a promise to return to the property on 7 December 2020 and complete the outstanding works.
3. It subsequently told the resident the remaining works would be scheduled for 16 December 2020. However, she later discovered the landlord had no corresponding diary notes and the repair order was closed.
4. The resident did not like the way the contractor had spoken to her and, despite multiple phone calls, insufficient progress had been made.
Call records from 9 December 2020 confirm the resident was unhappy that works scheduled for 16 December 2020 would take all day. They show three jobs were scheduled but two were due to take place in the afternoon. However, the resident wanted everything done in the morning since she “couldn’t face having (the contractor) in all day due to mental health…”. They show the contractor told the landlord that the resident had agreed to the scheduling. It also said its engineer returned to the property on 7 December 2020 but the resident was out.
Between 24 and 27 December 2020 the resident reported there was no heating or hot water, and water was “pouring out” of a toilet cistern. Repair records show the boiler was repaired the same day and the leak was repaired on 29 December 2020. No information was seen to show the leak presented an immediate threat to health, safety or security Around the same time, the landlord asked the resident if it could arrange to inspect the property with a surveyor in the new year.
On 2 January 2021 the resident reported the property’s only functioning toilet was blocked. Records show the blockage was cleared on Monday 4 January 2021. On the same day, repair orders for the windows, handrail, external light, internal doors and pipe boxing were closed. The orders were marked “no access”, which suggests the landlord was unable to enter the property to complete the works. A new repair order was also raised to remove and reinstall a toilet with a view to identifying and fixing a fault.
The resident raised further concerns during a phone call on 5 January 2021. Call records show her main points were:
1. The resident called the contractor and the landlord on 17 and 18 December 2020 respectively. This was to cancel the works scheduled for 4 January 2021. Neither party listened and the contractor’s representative mocked the resident and corrected her grammar. (The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence relating to these calls, but the landlord later accepted the contractor’s communications were unacceptable on several occasions).
2. The resident subsequently received 15 unwarranted text messages about the cancelled repairs. The contractor was blaming the resident and the landlord for the situation, but it failed to acknowledge any responsibility. It should recognise its failures and apologise accordingly.
3. The resident reported a blocked toilet on 27 December 2020. An engineer arrived to complete the repair on 4 January 2020 without any prior notification to the resident. The engineer was ultimately unable to complete the repair because they lacked a required washer. Despite telling the operative the other toilet was blocked, the resident was left without a functioning toilet.
4. During a phone call on 2 January 2021, the landlord said it held an incorrect address for the property but it was unable to amend its records. This caused an identification problem when the resident called again the following day. Her Dyslexia meant she was unable to confirm her phone number instead. The situation prompted an argument with the landlord’s representative who was unprofessional.
5. The landlord should contact the resident by phone before appointments because she did not want to receive text messages. Further, engineers frequently arrived more than an hour after the time specified in the messages.
Between 13 and 14 January 2021 the resident reported further repairs including: no heating and hot water; faulty switches and sockets in several rooms; the outstanding handrail; defective internal doors; and external gate and light works. The landlord’s repair records show the boiler was repaired the same day. Subsequent notes show the resident was not available for appointments on Wednesdays.
The following day an engineer was unable to remove and reinstall a toilet because the fixing screws were trapped in place. Relevant notes show it needed removing to fully identify the cause of the blockages, but it could be damaged during the process. They also show the resident raised concerns any replacement parts would result in a colour mismatch with the rest of the bathroom. The notes the said the landlord should investigate and get back to the resident.
The landlord’s records show the following events took place on 19 January 2021:
1. The resident reported cancelling a previous repair because she was always busy on Wednesdays. She said all parties were previously made aware of this information. Further, the landlord failed to provide any alternative appointment dates and repairs were not progressing because it was not offering convenient appointment times. She also said the contractor had taken her complaint personally and it failed to attend scheduled appointments on more than one occasion.
2. The resident told the landlord she wanted to move out and she was still having address/identification problems during calls. She was also receiving text messages about appointments contrary to her wishes. Further, the landlord failed to respond to her formal complaint despite a previous escalation request. The resident said she only wanted a list of uncomplicated repairs completing on convenient days at a pace she could handle.
3. The landlord asked its contractor to remove the resident’s mobile number from its automated messaging system. It said the resident was registered blind and she was unable to read the texts.
The landlord’s records show repairs to the doors, gate, handrail and basin were cancelled on Thursday 21 January 2021 because the landlord was unable to gain access to the property.
On 2 February 2021 repair orders were raised to remove and refix floorboards, replace a kitchen fan and repair leaking kitchen taps. Correspondence between the landlord and the resident, on 3 February 2021, shows they were raised following a surveyor’s inspection around this time. In her response, the resident said she raised the same repairs prior to the inspection. Further, she did not want a mismatching bathroom, and she had not received a response to her complaint.
On 5 February 2021 the resident told the landlord she recently cancelled repairs scheduled for Tuesday 22 February 2021. This was on the basis she “(could not) do all day”. She said the landlord did not listen because it offered a Wednesday as an alternative. Further, repairs were now scheduled for 5 and 9 March 2021 but she would not be free all day. Additionally, the landlord should not start any works it was unable to finish the same day and, since she was told the works would be completed by one engineer, the resident did not want any “surprise” visitors.
Repair orders to overhaul an internal door and address uneven landing flooring, were marked complete on 5 and 9 March 2021 respectively. The first order took around 30 days to complete. The second order took around eleven days. However, the orders raised on 2 February 2021 were closed over the same period having been marked “no access”. It is noted a national lockdown was in effect around this time.
The resident updated the landlord again on 3 March 2021. She said an engineer attended the previous evening to fix the toilets, but she had already removed the blockage. The corresponding repair record shows both toilets were reported blocked on 2 March 2021 and the landlord attended the same day. The resident said the engineer subsequently identified and fixed a basin blockage. While a further obstruction (in the pipework) needed to be resolved, the resident said her family could now use the basin after a four month period.
On 9 March 2021 the Ombudsman asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint. The landlord subsequently confirmed it was investigating a stage one complaint about doors, pipe boxing and a toilet leak. However, it would include more recent issues within the scope of its investigation. It said a stage one response would be issued once the repairs were complete. The same day, an order to repair a defective shower was closed because the landlord was unable to gain access.
On 10 March 2021 the resident updated the landlord. She said she had asked an engineer to leave without completing any repairs on 9 March 2021. This was because they arrived without all the necessary parts to complete the required works. She also said no one had arrived to fix the toilets and pipe boxing works could not be completed until this was done.
Multiple repair orders were raised the same day. They included orders to: address issues with both toilets, including relevelling a pan and checking for limescale build up; replace patio door glazing; repair multiple windows and replace handles; adjust internal doors; repair squeaking flooring and repair or replace bath, basin and sink taps. The order relating to the toilets was completed on 19 March 2021. In later correspondence to the landlord, the resident said the squeaking flooring was left over following repair works to an uneven landing.
On 1 April 2021 the Ombudsman asked the landlord to respond to the complaint within five working days. On 8 April 2021 the landlord updated the resident. The update apologised for the landlord’s poor communication to date. The landlord said it would work with its contractor to ensure the remaining repairs were completed as soon as possible.
The resident responded to the update in detail on 26 April 2021. She said it sought to diminish the extent of the delays, communication and scheduling problems. She also raised quality issues about some of the completed repairs, in addition to questioning the contractor’s inability to complete certain works at the first attempt. The resident said she had clearly stated it would be better to complete the required repairs during multiple short appointments so she would not feel overwhelmed. Further, a gas engineer failed to attend a scheduled appointment on 20 April 2021.
She also said the mutual exchange should never have gone ahead. This was on the basis a thorough inspection would have highlighted the poor condition of the property. Further, she was unable to decorate while multiple repairs were outstanding. As a result, flooring was left bare during the winter and bubble wrap was placed in the windows. The resident said she should be rehoused given the property’s condition over a five month period.
Around 29 April 2021 the resident asked to escalate her complaint. The landlord’s records show she was unhappy with its lack of contact and progress. Further, the resident wanted all “work done at once” with a view to minimising the required timeframe.
The landlord issued a stage one response the following day. The main points were:
1. The landlord inspected the property with its senior surveyor on 26 January 2021. Though repair orders were subsequently raised, arranging appointments to suit the resident’s availability had been difficult. Further difficulties were encountered gaining access to the property on agreed appointment dates. Orders due for completion in March 2021 were cancelled after the landlord was unable to gain access.
2. A further visit on 15 March 2021 was attended by the landlord’s Contracts Manager and the contractor. This was to discuss repair and appointment issues with the resident in person, with a view to resolving the situation as quickly and conveniently as possible. At this point, the landlord suggested scheduling multiple works over 18 and 19 March 2021.
3. The resident advised she wanted the majority of repairs completed in one visit. She also said she could only facilitate access in the afternoon. As a result, the parties agreed to wait until UPVC window/door parts were received before scheduling any further works. An appointment was now scheduled for 20 May 2021.
4. A gas engineer was arranged to assess the property’s hot water on this date. However, the landlord later learned the property was due a boiler upgrade as part of upcoming planned works. The landlord was sorry for any related miscommunication.
5. Between 20 and 21 May 2021 the landlord would: address the patio door glazing; adjust windows and replace handles; renew the bath taps; repair basin and sink taps; install a handrail and repair flooring at the top of the stairs. The resident was notified about the scheduled works on 27 April 2021. Because the resident was still dissatisfied, the landlord had escalated her complaint. She would be contacted at stage two within five working days.
On 12 May 2021 the landlord acknowledged the complaint at stage two. The timeline suggests there was a short delay prior to the acknowledgement. A works order was raised the same day to repair fencing and the rear garden gate. The repair was marked complete ten working days later.
On 17 May 2021 the landlord listed six open repair orders for the property. It asked the resident to provide an alternative date if she was unhappy with an appointment scheduled for 21 May 2021. The next day, the resident detailed around 30 outstanding repairs including a new boiler, door and window works, flooring repairs, the staircase handrail and external works. Her main points were:
1. The landlord repeatedly failed to complete scheduled repairs due to a lack of equipment, relevant expertise or coordination issues. For example, scheduled repairs could not be completed without prior works from a relevant contractor. In addition, both of the property’s toilets were still blocking and overflowing.
2. Items were missing from the landlord’s list of repairs which confirmed its record keeping was inaccurate. It also failed to notify the resident that repairs were scheduled for 19 March, 20 May and 21 May 2021. The landlord should provide commencement dates to address her list of outstanding works.
3. It was “unacceptable” that the landlord kept adding additional repairs to confirmed appointment dates. The resident should not have to explain why she was limiting the number of repairs on a given afternoon. However, she did not want to be overwhelmed and was concerned about the number of engineers attending the property during the pandemic.
The resident called the landlord on 24 May 2021. Records show she was unhappy that the contractor attended the property when she had cancelled the scheduled repair works. Later that day, she reported she was unable to leave the property because the patio doors would not lock. The repair records show the landlord fixed the problem the same day.
On 21 May 2021 repair orders relating to kitchen taps, squeaking landing flooring and the stairway handrail were closed for “no access”.
On 8 June 2021 the landlord issued a stage two update letter. It included referral rights for the Ombudsman service. The main points were:
“There (had) been real difficulties in completing the required work” since various appointments had been missed by the contractor, or were cancelled due to a lack of advanced notice to the resident. While some repairs were complete, suitable arrangements needed to be made for the outstanding issues.
The landlord noted the resident was unavailable on Wednesdays and that she wanted the repairs scheduled over multiple afternoons to avoid disruption. The landlord would work closely with its contractor to ensure convenient arrangements were made. However, it would be helpful if the resident could detail any unsuitable dates over the coming weeks. The resident would have a single point of contact until the outstanding issues were resolved.
The landlord raised around seven repair orders on 11 June 2021. They included orders to repair flooring, patio doors, windows and taps. The landlord’s repair records show these orders were outstanding when the landlord gave the Ombudsman its evidence file around October 2021. The information seen shows the orders were still open on the landlord’s repair system.
On 14 June 2021 the property’s boiler was replaced as part of planned works raised on 19 March 2021. Around the same time, repair orders were raised to address the resident’s reports of defective switches and light fittings, along with a leaking bathroom window. The orders were marked complete on 27 July and 30 September 2021 respectively. The timeline shows the electrical repairs took around 39 days and the window repairs took around three and a half months.
The resident updated the Ombudsman on 13 August 2021 She said she was caught between the landlord and its contractor and the situation was hampering further works. However, both parties attempted to shift the blame and the contractor had taken her complaint personally. Her main points were:
1. During a call with the contractor on 22 June 2021, the resident restated her preference for repairs to be scheduled over multiple days. However, the contractor recently said it would be better to complete the works in one day to resolve the situation. Further, it would contact her again to schedule the repairs in full. This was unreasonable given the scope of the works and the resident’s preference.
2. During a follow up conversation, the resident was offered a Wednesday appointment contrary to her stated availability. This confirmed the landlord’s records were not up to date. Further, multiple repairs were outstanding including: uneven flooring; replacement taps; a broken aerial socket; pipe boxing; a replacement toilet valve, tiling and door/window adjustments.
3. The ongoing situation had disrupted the family’s lifestyle because: the resident had to push her back against the wall for support getting down the stairs; toilets needed plunging on a daily basis; the resident was worried a window might fall out; furniture needed propping on uneven flooring and the property could not be decorated.
4. Attempting to resolve the situation was inconvenient because the resident spent time waiting for engineers and correspondence to arrive; operatives arrived unexpectedly on multiple occasions and on “a couple of occasions” operatives failed to arrive altogether.
5. The resident’s mental health was impacted by the property’s condition and the landlord’s unprofessionalism. Instead of providing a relaxing environment, the property made her feel helpless and stressed. Overall, the resident said she was being forced to live in “squalor” and she no longer wanted to live at the property.
6. To resolve the situation the resident wanted: the repairs completed; compensation for the distress, inconvenience and “damage” to the family’s mental health; written apologies from the landlord and its contractor and for both parties to accept that works should be completed over a timescale which suited the resident given her disabilities and availability.
On 19 August 2021 the resident reported an upstairs toilet was leaking through the ceiling. Repair records show the landlord attended the same day and isolated the leak. An order for follow up works was raised on 31 August and completed on 14 September 2021. The timeline suggests there was an avoidable delay of around 12 days before the second order was raised. Notes on the follow up works order also said the downstairs toilet kept blocking. This suggests it was functioning with intermittent problems.
The landlord issued a final response on 6 October 2021. The main points were:
1. In the early stages, delays largely resulted from a failure to consider the resident’s availability and preferences when scheduling appointments. More recently, the landlord struggled to gain access for repairs even though appointments were prearranged.
2. The landlord noted the resident’s approach to appointments changed during the timeline. Initially, she asked for repairs to be undertaken at the same time to minimise the overall disruption. However, the resident later asked for repairs to be completed over a series of appointments because she did not want engineers in the property for prolonged periods.
3. The landlord wanted to work with the resident. However, this change of approach had resulted in further delays. The contactor was not entirely clear about the resident’s wishes and it was reluctant to contact her in case it made the situation worse. However, the overall situation was recently exacerbated by the landlord’s complaint handling. This had “certainly” added to the landlord’s overall timeframe. The landlord was also aware the resident had been self-isolating for a period and was unable to grant access during this time.
4. Communication from the contractor did not always meet the landlord’s required standards. There were several instances of unacceptable behaviour when it discussed the resident’s availability over the phone. One of the individuals involved no longer worked for the contractor. Nevertheless the landlord would monitor the contractor’s communication.
5. Morning appointments were now scheduled on 14 October and 4 November 2021 to complete the outstanding repairs. The resident should notify the landlord as soon as possible if these dates were unsuitable. Compensation was appropriate given the resident’s experience. A total of £250 was awarded comprising: £100 for the delayed repairs, £75 for the disruption and £75 for poor communication and complaint handling.
The resident replied on 18 November 2021. Broadly, her email confirmed she was unhappy with the landlord’s progress, service and communication. She also said the condition of the property was affecting her health. Her main points were:
1. The landlord failed to acknowledge her request to cancel scheduled repairs on 14 October 2021.Though she subsequently agreed, at short notice, to facilitate repairs the following day, the works could not proceed because the landlord said the orders had been cancelled and the repairs needed to be reported again.
2. Her new upstairs toilet did not match the colour of the bathroom. She was also still unable to lay floor coverings, some of which were removed in December 2020 to facilitate repairs. Further, by advising that repair works would continue until they were finished, the landlord had failed to respect the resident’s “boundaries”.
3. The resident wanted repairs to take place over multiple afternoons to allow a small number of repairs to be completed at a time. This was to ensure there was no pressure on the engineers and repairs were completed to a good standard. She was also busy and could not stay at home all day for repairs. The landlord therefore needed to give specific timings for any scheduled works.
During an email update to the landlord on 20 December 2021, the resident said she was woken by an unexpected visit from an engineer. Her email suggests they were instructed to fit the handrail but left without completing any repairs. Further, the landlord later apologised for attending on the wrong day. It said the resident had agreed to works on 22 and 23 December 2021 and the landlord had allocated additional time the following day.
The resident updated the landlord again by email on 5 July 2022. Though repairs “(were) done to a fashion”, the resident said she was awaiting an update from an inspection of a sloping floor. Further, she was unhappy with the mismatching bathroom because the landlord previously advised the whole suite would be replaced if the colours clashed. She also raised concerns about a recently installed replacement kitchen.
The resident updated the Ombudsman during a phone call on 1 September 2022. Her main points were:
1. There were quality issues with a number of completed repairs including flooring, pipe boxing and windows. The bathroom did not match and the handrail took around 18 months to install. Multiple appointments were needed to fix the windows and the property lacked floor coverings because repairs were incomplete.
2. The landlord said it would cut into the property’s pipework to remove limescale and chalk deposits that were causing blockages, but this never happened. As a result, the property’s toilets had to be plunged on a regular basis. Further, the resident was often left without a functioning toilet for hours at a time during the above timeline.
3. Promised bathroom grab rails were also still outstanding but the resident had disengaged from the overall situation given the frustration involved. Though she was unable to recall the full timeline, the resident remembered the landlord frequently arrived to complete the wrong repairs contrary to prearranged schedules. Overall, she felt the landlord was unnecessarily prolonging the outstanding repairs.

Assessment and findings

It is recognised that the situation is both distressing and frustrating for the resident. The timeline confirms it has been ongoing for a considerable period of time. Though additional issues have arisen during the timeline, the scope of this investigation is limited to the matters addressed by the landlord during its response to the resident’s formal complaint. If the resident wants to pursue her recent concerns, for example around the kitchen and grab rails, she should raise a new complaint with the landlord.
This is because little evidence has been seen to fairly assess the landlord’s handling of these matters. Further, landlords need to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any issues prior to the Ombudsman’s involvement.
The resident can approach the Ombudsman again if she is unhappy after completing the landlord’s internal complaints process. It may also help to explain that, unlike a court, the Ombudsman is unable calculate or award damages. We can order compensation for distress and inconvenience where appropriate.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of various repairs to the property

The landlord recognised it was responsible for delays and poor communication. It also acknowledged its failures caused the resident unnecessary distress and inconvenience. It was therefore appropriate that, in addition to seeking to complete the outstanding repairs as soon as possible, the landlord attempted to put things right by awarding compensation. This assessment considered the landlord’s overall response to the resident’s reported repairs, including its offer of redress.
In relation to the failures identified the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the complainant’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The timeline suggests the landlord made an excessive number of repair related visits to the property. It also shows the parties disagree about the reasons why such a high number of visits was necessary. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to conclude that the number of visits contributed to the length of the overall timeline. On that basis, this assessment sought to identify any unnecessary appointments or unreasonable delays that were overlooked by the landlord’s final response letter.
This was a difficult task because, contrary to the resident’s correspondence, little evidence was seen to confirm that she cancelled most of the landlord’s scheduled visits in advance. In contrast, the timeline suggests the resident either postponed, cancelled of failed to grant the landlord access for appointments on around 12 occasions during the timeline. Further, this resulted in repair orders being cancelled which subsequently needed to be re-raised. The tenancy agreement confirms the resident is obliged to allow the landlord access for repairs at all reasonable hours of the daytime.
Nevertheless, the evidence suggests the landlord attempted to facilitate the resident’s availability preferences. For example, it was responsive to her request that no repairs should be scheduled on Wednesdays. It was also responsive to the resident’s vulnerability based requests. For example, it asked the contractor to adapt its contact methods when the resident said she did not want text communications. These were reasonable actions given the circumstances.
However, the evidence shows the resident’s approach to the repairs changed during the timeline. It is reasonable to conclude this inconsistency was unlikely to have helped the landlord. The timeline also shows that some of her scheduling requests were unreasonable. For example, from November 2021 her stipulation that repairs should take place over multiple half day periods was based on her belief that less time pressure would result in better quality workmanship.
No information was seen to show the request related to her vulnerabilities from this point. As a result, it is reasonable to conclude the duration of the repairs on given days was broadly a matter for the landlord from November 2021 onwards. Further, that the resident’s request subsequently had a detrimental impact on both the landlord’s operations and other residents.
That said, the evidence points to unacknowledged delays in respect of the handrail and toilets. This is because the landlord failed to raise the initial handrail order for around a month after the installation was agreed with the resident in November 2020. A similar failure occurred in August 2021, which resulted in a toilet repair being delayed for around 12 days. Further, a repair order raised on 2 January 2021 said the property’s only toilet was blocked. However, the corresponding repair order was not completed until 4 January 2021. This suggests the blockage was not treated as an emergency repair.
The above information suggests the landlord failed to redress the resident for delays of around six weeks in total. Further, given the nature, frequency and scope of the resident’s reported repairs, along with the duration the situation was unresolved, the landlord could have reasonably offered the resident a final surveyor’s inspection upon completion of the repair works. No information was seen to show a final inspection was offered even though this measure could have helped to resolve the situation.
As a result, there was service failure on the landlord’s part in relation to this complaint point. The Ombudsman will therefore amend the landlord’s compensation offer to put things right for the resident given the information seen.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The timeline shows it took the landlord around ten months to issue a final response to the resident’s complaint. This is based on the period between 7 December 2020 and 6 October 2021. From the wording of its complaint correspondence, it is accepted the landlord attempted to resolve the reported repairs before responding to the complaint. However, the overall timescale was inappropriate given the circumstances. This is because the landlord’s complaints procedure shows it should respond to complaints in a timely manner.
Nevertheless, the timeline confirms the resident had to repeatedly chase the landlord for responses. Further, she eventually asked the Ombudsman to intervene because she was concerned about the landlord’s progress with the complaint. The timeline also suggests she was confused by the landlord’s complaint handling approach. For example, her interactions with various parties suggest she was unsure whether the landlord’s correspondence on 8 April and 8 June 2021 amounted to full complaint responses. The evidence suggests she engaged in additional correspondence with the landlord as a result.
Given the above, it is reasonable to conclude the landlord’s approach resulted additional distress and inconvenience to the resident. In its final response, the landlord ultimately recognised its complaint handling prevented the resident’s concerns from being resolved at an earlier stage of the timeline. It is also reasonable to conclude the landlord missed an opportunity to resolve the dispute through its own internal complaints process. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord apologised and offered compensation to recognise what went wrong.
However, the evidence suggests the landlord’s £75 compensation award was disproportionate given both the length of the delay and the related inconvenience to the resident. This is partly because it offered a combined award for complaint handling and communication failures. However, the wording of the landlord’s final response suggests it accepted several significant communication failures took place. In addition, no evidence was seen to show the landlord took steps to improve its complaint handling based on the resident’s experience. Given the above, the Ombudsman will again amend the landlord’s offer to put things right.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Service failure in respect of the landlord’s response the resident’s reports of various repairs to the property;
2. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The timeline suggests the landlord failed to acknowledge, and ultimately redress, unnecessarily delays of around six weeks in total. Given the circumstances, the landlord could have also reasonably offered the resident a final surveyor’s inspection to help resolve her concerns.
The landlord’s £75 compensation award, for complaint handling, was disproportionate given both the length of the delay and the related inconvenience to the resident. No evidence was seen to show the landlord took steps to learn from the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord to have a surveyor inspect the property within four weeks and write to the resident and the Ombudsman with it findings. This is with a view to resolving any outstanding repair/quality issues.
The landlord to pay the resident a total of £425 compensation in four weeks comprising:
1. £100 to recognise any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above identified delays and failures in respect of the landlord’s response to the various reported repairs.
2. £75 to recognise any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above identified delays and failures in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.
3. £250 which the landlord awarded in its final response letter from October 2021. The landlord should deduct this figure from the above total if it has already paid the resident.
The landlord to share the report’s key findings with its relevant staff for improvement purposes. Complaint handlers should be encouraged not to delay issuing responses until repairs are complete.

Recommendations

The landlord to consider offering final or independent surveyor’s inspections as a means of resolving long running repair disputes.
The landlord to review its processes to ensure works orders are raised promptly to avoid unnecessary delays.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders and confirm its intentions in relation to the recommendations within four weeks of the date of this report.