The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Hyde Housing Association Limited (202003112)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202003112

Hyde Housing Association Limited

2 December 2020


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 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

  1. The complaint is about:

a.     The landlord’s handling of the resident’s repairs following an inspection of the heating system; and

b.     The landlord’s handling of the resident’s historic Subject Access Request (SAR) and a data protection breach.

 

  1. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

 

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint, or parts of a complaint, will not be investigated.

 

  1. The Ombudsman has reviewed the evidence provided by both parties and has concluded that there are several parts of the complaint which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioners Office (ICO). The Ombudsman notes that a number of issues were raised in relation to the landlord’s historic record keeping / handling of a Subject Access Request (SAR) and an alleged data protection breach. Under paragraph 39(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which concern matters which fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body. These matters have therefore not been considered within this investigation. The Ombudsman has, however, commented on the landlord’s general record keeping.

 

  1. The Ombudsman has therefore only investigated:

a.     The landlord’s handling of the resident’s repairs following an inspection of the heating system; and

b.     The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

 

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident has been an Assured Tenant, in respect of the property, since 6 August 2007.

 

  1. The property is a 4-bedroom house.

 

  1. Much of the complaint correspondence was written by, and addressed to, the resident’s son who was given authorisation to act on his mother’s behalf. The resident’s son does not live at this property. The resident’s niece was also noted as an authorised party.

 

Legal and Policy Framework

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

  1. Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is obligated to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the premises, except where the tenant or persons living with the tenant or the tenant’s visitors have caused disrepair by failing to use the property in a reasonable manner.

 

  1. Once the landlord has been informed of repairs that are needed, the tenant must allow a reasonable time for the work to be done, and liability only arises once the reasonable time has elapsed from the date the notice was served. The length of time will depend on the scale of the work and the effect the disrepair is having. The landlord will not be in breach of its repairing obligation until this time has elapsed.

 

Tenancy Agreement

  1. This Service has reviewed the tenancy agreement for clarification on the landlord’s responsibilities. Within the agreement, it is detailed that:

a.     The landlord will make sure that it keeps all fixtures and fitting for water, gas, electricity, space and water heating repaired and in working order. This includes the boiler, gas pipes/fixtures, and the heating system.

 

Responsive Repairs Operational Procedure

  1. This document outlines the landlord’s approach to repairs. Under the “Regulatory code and Legal Framework” section of this document, the landlord has acknowledged that it has a legal duty, under The Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998, to ensure that any gas appliances and flues within the property are safe to use and maintained correctly.

 

  1. The landlord’s procedure shows that for its “Anytime Repairs” (those that are not considered an emergency), a call handler will arrange an appointment within 20 working days. A post inspection may be undertaken and were follow on works are identified, the surveyor will reissue orders to follow up.

 

Complaints Procedure

  1. The landlord has provided this Service with a copy of its complaints procedure. Within this, the landlord defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction about a service provided by itself and/or any of its representatives.

 

  1. Amongst other things, the procedure details the landlord’s two stage process, indicating that:

a.     At stage one, the complaint will be picked up and acknowledged by an investigating manager within two working days and responded to within a reasonable time, no later than 20 working days. If the resident is unhappy with this response, a more senior manager will review the case to determine whether it warrants a review at stage two.

b.     If it is escalated to stage two, a Head of Service or Director will review the initial response, with an aim to respond at stage two within 20 working days from the complaint escalation date.

 

  1. The landlord may decline to investigate a complaint about a specific incident or service failure that occurred over six months prior to the complaint being made. Discretion will be used, particularly where there is evidence of a longstanding or continuing problem.

 

Scope

  1. The Ombudsman notes that amongst a number of other issues, the resident’s son expressed his concern for the safety of his mother’s heating system in late 2018, which was included in his complaint later that year. He questioned why the gas supply had been interrupted on two occasions and why there had not held appropriate records for this. The Ombudsman can see that this was responded to by the landlord on 13 May 2019, in which the landlord acknowledged its poor record keeping and its subsequent inability to answer the resident’s questions. The Ombudsman cannot, however, see that any further action [to escalate the complaint] was taken at this time. The Ombudsman notes that the resident’s son was made aware of the options for escalation but did not bring this to the Ombudsman Service (as the letter advises). It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to consider this aspect of the complaint resolved. Therefore, the Ombudsman’s investigation has solely focused on the landlord’s actions following this response. Part of this have been included in the summary of events to provide adequate context.  

 

Summary of Events

  1. On 13 May 2019 the landlord detailed its position following a review of all of the complaint topics raised by the resident’s son over the previous 18 months in relation to the resident’s property. Of particular relevance, the landlord noted that whilst the resident’s heating system was safe and effective, the heating could only be controlled manually and not by the thermostat. The landlord therefore confirmed that arrangements would be made to review the heating system and to provide the resident with some assurance. It explained that as arrangements were being put in place and to avoid repetition on its handling of historic events, it would no longer revisit matters relating to the heating repairs prior to the date of the response letter (13 May 2019).

 

  1. On 14 May 2019 the resident’s son updated the landlord that he had been contacted by the Gas Safety Compliance (GCS) service, and an appointment had been arranged to inspect the resident’s heating system. The resident’s son stated, in reference to historic issues with record keeping, that he wanted to make sure that accurate records would be kept from this point forward and so would be providing a paper trail of agreed appointments and scheduled work.

 

  1. On 5 June 2019 the resident’s son contacted the landlord and explained that he had found a warning notice (amongst the resident’s paperwork), dated August 2018, which suggested that the gas had previously been shut off. This had not been included in an earlier SAR, nor were there images or records of the gas safety certificates.

 

  1. The warning notice indicated (following the inspection in July 2018), that the appliance / gas pipework was immediately dangerous as “the collector [had] split, leaking fumes”. A new flue collector was therefore required.

 

  1. It is unclear from the records provided when this was addressed by the landlord.

 

  1. On 12 June 2019 the landlord informed the resident’s son that it had obtained a list of recommended works to be undertaken at his mother’s address following GCS’s visit in May 2019. The landlord confirmed that it had accepted the recommendations in the report, and would endeavour to do the following:

a.     Ensure everything is correctly in position and securely in place (reinforce wall and re-hang the radiator in bedroom 3. Also, secure programmer to the wall).

b.     Bring forward the renewal of the hot water cylinder

c.      Ensure the components that keep the system pressurised are correctly working to remove future pressure related issues (Reset cylinder expansion, check external expansion vessel to ensure correct air charge / replace if required).

d.     Replace the valves to ensure optimum control and efficiency of the system (change all TRVs, remove 2 port and change to 3 port, and replace room thermostat).

e.     Ensure the water within the heating system is flowing freely and at optimum rate (change multiblock inlet control valve and powerflush system).

The landlord requested a few date options to accommodate the works.

 

  1. On 14 June 2019 the resident’s son shared the 2018 warning notice with the landlord. In response, the landlord explained that the notice appeared to be evidence that the boiler had been isolated for specific reasons but did not suggest that the gas supply to the flat had been shut off. This would be passed to the Gas Team to review. Putting the historic issues aside, the landlord suggested that the best action moving forward was to complete the repairs recommended by GCS. The landlord asked the resident to confirm a convenient time for the commencement of works.

 

  1. The resident’s son returned to the landlord with his availability on 21 June 2019. He explained that he would be available from 1-3 July 2019.

 

  1. With no further contact, the resident’s son chased a response on 4 July 2019 and highlighted that no one had attended the property. In relation to the warning notice, he explained that he had consulted a local gas contractor and the suggestion was that the gas supply from the meter had been capped. He expressed that he was alarmed by this as the landlord had no record of this taking place.

 

  1. On 9 July 2019 the resident’s son chased an update on the outstanding works.

 

  1. On 10 July 2019 the landlord offered the resident’s son an apology as the works had not commenced. It explained that a number of the resident’s emails may have been deleted in error and requested additional dates for the works to take place.

 

  1. On 23 July 2019 the resident’s son confirmed his available days from 2 August 2019 onwards. In relation to his assertion that the gas had previously been cut off, he stated that the lack of records about works carried out by the landlord’s contractors was a major health and safety issue. He noted that he had previously raised this but had been told that no works had been undertaken at the time. He requested a copy of the gas safety policy and that the contractor explain the function of the warning notice.

 

  1. On the same day, the landlord advised that the works would take two working days. An independent survey would be undertaken by GCS following the works in order to provide reassurance that the heating system was functional and safe.

 

  1. On 25 July 2019 the resident’s son contacted the landlord as its contractor had contacted his niece about the outstanding works. He emphasised that all correspondence and arrangements should have been done through him. This was acknowledged and agreed by the landlord on 26 July 2019.

 

  1. In correspondence between 29 July 2019 and 2 August 2019, it was confirmed that the landlord’s contractor would attend the resident’s property on 5 August 2019 to assess and arrange repairs. Works were penciled in to commence on 19-20 August 2019 and the resident was assured that no further communication issues would arise. The landlord stated that it would stay in communication all through the advised repairs to ensure that all was good and clear.

 

  1. Following the visit on 5 August 2019, the resident’s son asked the landlord to reconfirm the works recommended by GCS. The resident questioned whether a factual report had been provided by GCS.

 

  1. On the same day, the landlord confirmed that on attendance, its contractors had noted the following works:

a.     Powerflush required.

b.     Change all TRV’s.

c.      Change 3port.

d.     Remove 2port.

e.     Change pump and valves.

f.        Check external expansion vessel to ensure correct air charge/ replace if required

g.     Reset cylinder expansion.

h.     Change multiblock inlet control valve.

i.        Reinforce wall and rehang radiator in bedroom 3.

j.        New room thermostat required.

k.      New unvented cylinder – recommendation due to age and condition.

l.        Secure programmer to wall.

m.   Filling loop to be left disconnected

The landlord reiterated that on completion of these jobs, GCS would attend to ensure that all works were completed. It additionally confirmed that it held a copy of GCS’s previous report.

 

  1. On 15 August 2019 GCS confirmed that an inspection would be undertaken on 27 August 2019.

 

  1. On the same day, following a telephone call with the resident’s son, it was agreed that the works would be delayed until 23 August 2019. The landlord asserted that all works would be completed on this day.

 

  1. It is unclear what works took place on 23 August 2019. The Ombudsman notes from the landlord’s records however that an operative identified weakness in the resident’s radiator wall. It was also noted that items needed to be moved in order to make room for works however the resident refused.

 

  1. On 9 September 2019 the resident’s son wrote to the landlord’s contractor and explained that there was still some miscommunication. His niece had been contacted again to arrange the repair of the radiator wall and to reattach the radiator. Operatives had attended earlier in the day but rather than completing this task, began undertaking works which had not been previously agreed. He questioned why, if the wall strengthening and radiator reattachment was already a part of the scheduled works, his niece was contacted, and the work was arranged for earlier in the day. He stated that he would attempt to contact the operatives to return to complete the single radiator.

 

  1. On the same day, the landlord’s contractor confirmed that this would be recorded as a complaint and someone would be in contact within 24 hours. The Ombudsman cannot see that this was done.

 

  1. On 17 December 2019 the resident’s son issued the landlord with a formal stage one complaint. He stated:

a.     Between June – August 2018, the contractors operatives attended the property in which they disconnected and reconnected the gas supply due to harmful fumes being vented into the property. A supervisor did, after some time, attend and addressed this issue and was alerted to several other historic issues. Nothing had taken place, however.

b.     Works were carried out to the boiler/heating system, but this was only a temporary fix which should have been addressed shortly after. No records can be found about them however and so these repairs could not be traced back to their origin(s).

c.      All issues were investigated by GCS in 2019. Several issues were found and reported to the landlord and its contractor however many were still outstanding.

d.     The landlord was given permission in August 2018 to discuss complaints with the resident’s son and this should have allowed its contractors to provide the relevant information, however they refused to do so. Full written authorisation was also provided and a further written request in December 2018 however this was ignored.

e.     The gas safety warning notice was escalated to the landlord however no stage one complaint response was provided.

He requested that the landlord investigate its failures, including the time, inconvenience and distress caused, health and safety risks, negligence and a loss of earnings.

 

  1. On 8 January 2020 the landlord wrote directly to the resident. It thanked the resident for discussing her experience with her boiler, the landlord’s contractor, and how her queries were handled. It stated that it would provide a response by 3 February 2020.

 

  1. On 17 January 2020  and again on 31 January 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident / the resident’s son and advised that it would be unable to provide a response by 3 February 2020 as originally proposed. A response would subsequently be provided by 17 February 2020. It apologised for the delay.

 

  1. On 12 February 2020 GCS contacted the resident’s son and proposed to attend his mother’s property on 14 February 2020. In response, the resident questioned why a second inspection was necessary.

 

  1. On 17 February 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident and thanked her for getting in touch about her experience with her boiler repair, the contractor and the management of the ongoing issues. The landlord stated that it hoped to give a full response on 17 February 2020 however again, it needed more time to gather information. The landlord stated that a full response would be provided by 2 March 2020.

 

  1. On 19 February 2020 the resident’s son confirmed availability for an inspection (by GCS) on 4 March 2020. He stated that he was not aware of any issues with the boiler.

 

  1. On 21 February 2020 the resident’s son expressed his dissatisfaction that to date, the works proposed on 12 June 2019 had not been completed other than the radiator which had been rehung.

 

  1. On 2 March 2020 the landlord sought a further extension for its complaint response. It stated that it would now seek to provide a full response by 16 March 2020.

 

  1. Later, on the same day, the resident’s son wrote to the landlord in which he explained that:

a.     The inspection scheduled to be undertaken on 4 March 2020 by GCS was the second in less than 12 months.

b.     The original report provided by GCS was sent to the landlord and the contractor, however neither were able to locate this.

 

  1. On 4 March 2020 GCS undertook its inspection of the works completed by the landlord’s contractor. The report noted that the following works had been outstanding since the visit in May 2019:

a.     Flush of system/radiators

b.     Replace all TRV’s

c.      Replace 3 port valve

d.     Replace pump and pump valves

e.     Replace expansion vessel

f.        Replace multiblock inlet valve

g.     Replace unvented hot water cylinder

h.     Secure programmer to wall (securing backplate screw missing)

i.        Filling loop to be disconnected and capped.

j.        Radiators on the first and second floors are piped using microbore pipework. Possible blockage/restriction in pipework.

It was also noted that the smoke alarms were out of date and should have been replaced in May 2019. GCS confirmed that while the situation was safe, there were a number of outstanding issues to be addressed.

 

  1. On 16 March 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident with its stage one response. It stated that it had looked into the handling of the previous queries and also the resident’s complaint and had stated that:

a.     On 13 May 2019 in its complaint response, it had apologised that there had historically been poor record keeping and that the content it had provided did not offer a detailed narrative of the previous heating repairs. It had advised that it would use this as a learning point but could not continue to review records prior to 2019 in hope of a different outcome.

b.     The resident’s son had informed that following an inspection of the residents heating in May 2019, GCS provided a list of recommendations to be reviewed. Since then the only action taken in accordance with this was the fitting of the first-floor front bedroom radiator, with all other actions remaining outstanding. The original report detailed extensive works to improve the existing system however as this was received prior to the start of the new contract manager, it was unclear why the recommendations were not acted upon. A further survey was therefore requested. It was confirmed however that the boiler remained compliant and there were no health and safety risks. A visit was being planned with both GCS and the contractor for any outstanding works.

c.      It did hold third party details for the resident’s son. The landlord apologised that disclosure of information to him was previously refused and it confirmed that its contractor had been updated.

d.     The complaint was originally submitted on 17 December 2019 but was not formally acknowledged until 8 January 2020. This was due to an administration error and an influx of issues during the Christmas period. The landlord apologised for the delay.

e.     Under its compliance policy, it was unable to investigate issues which occurred more than six months prior. It therefore could not investigate the historic issues with the boiler and heating repairs. The landlord noted however that it was not clear what was done following GCS’s inspection in May 2019. It stated that due to the change in manager, it was unable to gather any supporting evidence on this also. The landlord apologised for the lack of clarity, uncertainty and distress caused since May 2019. To improve its service, the complaint would be reviewed by the relevant contract’s managers, highlighting the communication difficulties experienced and areas to improve. It stated that it had also highlighted the need to take appropriate action when receiving reports from GCS.

It was concluded that there could have been better communication and reassurance of the actions that were being undertaken. The landlord therefore made an offer of £100, awarding £50 in recognition of the delays experienced and £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused.

 

  1. The landlord wrote to the resident’s son following a later phone call and sought to confirm the resident’s availability for an appointment to address the outstanding actions and determine the next steps with the residents heating system.

 

  1. On 18 March 2020 the resident’s son wrote to the landlord. He stated:

a.     Following an enquiry into visits between 27 July 2018 and 14 August 2018 in which the gas was turned off at the property for safety reasons, he had requested the safety documentation from the landlord however it failed to produce this. No information was provided to pinpoint when the landlord’s contractors had “rigged” the heating system to operate only within refined parameters. He stated that there were several issues which should have been identified by the landlord’s contractors during its multiple routine gas safety checks. Instead, the system operated in an ad-hoc fashion for a number of years.

b.     A senior member of the landlord’s team subsequently organised an assessment of the heating system. Still, however, the landlord was unable to establish what work was required in the property. The landlord had been unable to confirm the list of work carried out to date [in its complaint response]. This was the second time that the landlord’s record keeping had come into question.

c.      The landlord’s contractor had endangered the lives of the tenants at the property with its unsafe and unsatisfactory work; the landlord’s gas team had failed to provide information held by the department; and the landlord and its contractor when given the chance had not been able to correct all of the unsatisfactory historic work or to provide an accurate record of what they had done.

d.     In relation to the compensation offered, £50 for 19 months of delay and £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused was not sufficient.

 

  1. On 20 March 2020 the residents’ son made a review request.

 

  1. On 27 March 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident’s son. It thanked the resident’s son for his detailed response and stated that this would be used as evidence to support his compensation review request. The landlord confirmed that a response would be provided by 9 April 2020.  Additionally, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s frustration that there were still outstanding actions to be completed. Correspondence had been issued explaining the landlord’s position in light of the COVID-19 outbreak.

 

  1. On 8 April 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident. It apologised that she was unhappy with the level of compensation offered and explained that it had reviewed the compensation offer. It stated that it had taken the decision to increase the amount from £100 to £150 as a final offer. This was broken down as:

a.     £50 for delays

b.     £50 for distress and inconvenience

c.      £25 for administrative errors made which resulted in delays in acknowledging the complaint

d.     £25 for time and trouble spent chasing this up

 

  1. The landlord explained that it had changed its decision as it had been agreed with the Resolution Officer that there should have been better communication. The previous amount offered did not reflect the handling of the complaint or the time and trouble spent. The offer was subsequently increased. The landlord noted that while there were no health and safety risks with the boiler, action was still being undertaken to address repairs required.

 

  1. On 10 April 2020 the resident’s son questioned why, if there was no health and safety risk, the gas supply was turned off twice; why the landlord had no copies of the health and safety warnings; why the job was escalated to a supervisor on two occasions; and why GCS were brought in to review the works.

 

  1. On 15 April 2020 the resident chased a response from the landlord. He was informed on the same day that a request had been passed onto a Team Leader who would consider escalating his complaint.

 

  1. On 4 May 2020 the resident’s son wrote to the landlord and expressed that he had been waiting for a response for a month. He requested a call from a manager.

 

  1. On 12 May 2020 the landlord provided its final response. Addressed to the resident, the landlord noted that the resident had requested a stage two escalation as she was still dissatisfied with the outcome and handling of her complaint. The landlord stated that it would not be changing its decision as:

a.     A comprehensive response had been provided by a senior member of staff in May 2019, along with an offer of compensation which recognised the level of service failure identified.

b.     There was no new information to consider in the resident’s latest email, thus it would not be changing its decision.

 

  1. On 4 June 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident’s son. It stated that it wished to confirm a convenient time for GCS and its contractor to attend, and wished for the resident’s son to be in present. The landlord added that the complaint had not been escalated to stage two but would remain at stage one due to the outstanding visit mentioned. Once availability had been shared, an inspection would take place.

 

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s repairs following an inspection of the heating system.

  1. In connection with the resident’s son’s previous complaint regarding a SAR, he raised that a missing document had been discovered (a warning notice) in June 2019. He asserted that this had been absent from the records provided by the landlord and was indicative of his earlier argument that there were health and safety issues which resulted in the gas being disconnected at the resident’s property. The Ombudsman can see that this was responded to on 14 June 2019 and that the resident was advised that the Gas Team would review this matter. The Ombudsman notes that while the landlord acknowledged the resident’s son’s concern, in its complaint response, it informed that it would not continue to review this matter. This was as it had already commented on its handling of the resident’s heating system and recognised that its record keeping had been inadequate in its complaint response on 13 May 2019. The Ombudsman is content that the landlord chose not to re-investigate this element of the complaint. It would have been appropriate, however, for the Gas Team to have made contact with the resident to explain what the warning notice meant, as previously requested by the resident and as proposed on 14 June 2019 by the landlord.

 

  1. As per the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord should, once it is made aware of the need for repair, undertake repairs within a reasonable timeframe. This sentiment is echoed within the tenancy agreement which more clearly details the landlord’s obligation to keep in repair and working order the boiler and heating system. The landlord subsequently should have taken reasonable steps to undertake the recommended and agreed works, following GCS’s assessment of the resident’s heating system.

 

  1. The Ombudsman notes that this was prompted by historic issues raised by the resident’s son, and was accepted by the landlord on 12 June 2019, with a plan to complete all works over a two-day period. As these repairs were not considered emergency repairs, this would have fallen into the landlord’s “Anytime Repairs” category which, as the procedure suggests, should be arranged [and reasonably completed, in the Ombudsman’s opinion] within 20 working days. The Ombudsman can see however, that this work was still being arranged for completion and post-work inspection in June 2020, a full year later. The Ombudsman has considered this to be unacceptable and inappropriate. The landlord was provided with several opportunities to undertake the repairs within this time and was provided with a clear list of the works that needed to be undertaken, however failed to do so.

 

  1. The Ombudsman has reviewed the landlord’s repair record and can see that the only work undertaken was the strengthening of the resident’s wall and re–hanging of a radiator on 9 September 2019. The Ombudsman cannot see that any other reasonable attempts were made to complete the outstanding repairs. This was confirmed by the inspection undertaken by GCS on 4 March 2020 in which it reported several issues which had been outstanding since its previous visit in May 2019. This was inappropriate. The resident/resident’s son raised their dissatisfaction with the outstanding issues within the complaint in December 2019 and again on 21 February 2020, however this was not responded to until the landlord’s stage one response on 16 March 2020. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, as well as allowing a reasonable amount of time to elapse in undertaking the repairs, there was also an unsatisfactory delay in the landlord’s communication.

 

  1. In relation to the landlord’s handling of the outstanding repairs, the Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s correspondence on 16 March 2020 and is dissatisfied with the response. While the landlord noted, from the resident’s son’s reports, that no works other than the re–hanging of the radiator had been completed, it was unable to provide a reasonable explanation on why the works had not been completed, what the delays were, or what works remained outstanding. This was as, the landlord asserted, a new manager had started, and it was unclear from the information available what the earlier position was following GCS’s inspection. In the Ombudsman’s view, this was unacceptable as the landlord should have a system in place to ensure that adequate records are kept in relation to repairs. It is clear from its response that the landlord had failed to maintain an adequate audit trail – one which evidenced the landlord’s repair actions irrespective of staff turnaround – in line with good practice.

 

  1. The Ombudsman acknowledges that as per the landlord’s complaints process, it may not investigate matters which occur more than six months prior to a complaint being raised. The Ombudsman accepts that the landlord subsequently did not investigated matters which occurred before the previous complaint response in May 2019. In the Ombudsman’s view, however, it may have been appropriate for the landlord to apply its discretion, as per its policy, to use the longstanding and continuing problems as context to reasonably respond to the resident’s complaint. As the arrangement of an inspection and subsequent repairs was proposed as a form of resolution in the resident’s/resident’s son’s previous complaint, the landlord should have made every effort to honour this in good time.

 

  1. In recognition of the delays in its handling of the resident’s repairs, the landlord made an offer of £50 compensation. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, however, this failed to satisfactorily recognise the extent of the service failure or to recognise the length of time that had passed. There was little acknowledgement for the impact of the landlord’s poor record keeping as well as its failure to uphold its repair obligations within a reasonable timeframe. In the Ombudsman’s view, the compensation awarded, and the continued absence of an agreed repair date thus fell short of an acceptable remedy. 

 

  1. The Ombudsman has noted and taken into consideration that part of the landlord’s delay in undertaking the outstanding repair work was due to the restrictions imposed (and the impact on services) following the COVID-19 outbreak. Still, this only accounted for the delays which may have occurred in the months after the landlord’s stage one response. The Ombudsman is subsequently still dissatisfied with the landlord’s delays.

 

  1. Moreover, the Ombudsman notes that in the stage one complaint, the resident’s son expressed his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the third-party permissions given by his mother for him to act as her rep. The Ombudsman notes that this was responded to in May 2019 and a further apology was provided in the landlord’s complaint response on 16 March 2020. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it was not necessary for the landlord to revisit this in any further detail.

 

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

  1. As per the landlord’s complaints procedure, the landlord should have acknowledged the residents/resident’s son’s complaint within two working days of receipt. The Ombudsman notes however, that formal acknowledgement was not provided by the landlord until 8 January 2020. This was inappropriate. The Ombudsman is, however, satisfied that the landlord recognised this in its stage one complaint, and provided both a reasonable explanation followed by an offer of redress on 8 April 2020.

 

  1. Still, the Ombudsman is displeased with the landlord’s delay in providing a stage one response. In line with the landlord’s policy, a response should have been provided within 20 working days however was not provided until almost four months later. The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord appropriately sought an extension on three occasions, however in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s reasoning on each occasion – that it was still awaiting feedback – was not an adequate or proportionate justification for the length of time it took. The Ombudsman is therefore dissatisfied with the way in which this element of the complaint was handled. At minimum, the landlord should have recognised this within the its stage one response and offered an apology.

 

  1. It was appropriate for the landlord to undertake a review of the compensation offered, following the resident’s/resident’s sons request. In the Ombudsman’s opinion however, the landlord failed to use this as an opportunity to revisit and satisfactorily recognise the extent of the service failure. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord made an offer of £50 for the inconvenience and distress caused. This poorly reflected the excessive level of involvement required from the resident/resident’s son in chasing the repairs and accommodating inspections, over a period of almost 11 months. The Ombudsman appreciates that the landlord increased its offer by £25 to account for the resident’s/resident’s son’s time and trouble, however drawing from the Ombudsman Service’s Remedies Guidance, this equally failed to offer reasonable and proportionate recognition. What’s more and as suggested above, an offer of redress would have been appropriate in recognition of the landlord’s delay in providing a response. In the Ombudsman’s view, this was the result of both poor record keeping and poor communication between the landlord and its departments/services. This should not have caused further inconvenience for the resident. 

 

  1. Adding to this and in a similar respect, the landlord failed to take the opportunity to re-evaluate the resident’s/resident’s sons overall experience, and to put things right within its final response. On 15 April 2020 the resident’s son was informed that a team leader would consider his request to escalate the complaint. This should have been responded to within good time. Despite being chased by the resident’s son however, the Ombudsman notes that a response was not provided until 12 May 2020, in which the landlord stated that it would not be changing its stage one decision. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, not only was this slightly delayed, the landlord also missed an opportunity to ensure that its stage one response was fair and to recognise that the works had still not been completed. The Ombudsman notes that on 4 June 2020 the landlord explained that a stage two response would not be given due to the outstanding works. This should not have prevented the resident from having the complaint reviewed by a more senior member of staff.

 

  1. The Ombudsman also notes that the landlord acknowledged that there had been communication issues (such as its repeated contact of the resident’s niece) and that the resident was not adequately kept up to date with the next steps. This was recognised in both the landlord’s stage one response and also the landlord’s compensation review however this was not reflected in its offer of redress. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s compensation offer therefore failed to recognise the resident’s all round experience.

 

  1. The Ombudsman is dissatisfied with the landlord’s management of case information and filing. Within the landlord’s stage one response, it explained that it was necessary to undertake a further inspection of the heating system as it was unable to locate the list of works previously recommended by GCS in May 2019. As well as failing to retain appropriate records (such as the inspection report), the landlord failed to revisit its previous correspondence of 12 June 2019 or 5 August 2019 in which it clearly outlined the works to be undertaken. Its failure to do so resulted in further time wasted and greater inconvenience both in arranging and undertaking a further inspection.

 

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Service, there was:

a.     Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s repairs following an inspection of the heating system; and

b.     A service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

 

Reasons

  1. The Ombudsman has arrived at the above determination as:

a.     The landlord failed to undertake the agreed repairs, contrary to its obligations under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the tenancy agreement and its internal policy. The landlord should have arranged and completed the outstanding repairs within a reasonable amount of time, and where this was not possible, offered an appropriate explanation however it did not do this. What’s more, the landlord failed to maintain an audit trail / relevant repair records which subsequently meant that a further inspection was necessary, adding to the delay and inconvenience caused. There was insufficient recognition of its handling of the outstanding repairs in the compensation awarded and subsequently, inappropriate resolution.

b.     Similarly, the landlord failed to sufficiently recognise its handling of the complaint. The landlord unreasonably delayed in provided the resident with both its stage one and two responses, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, failed to consider the resident’s all-round experience. This was reflected in the landlord’s offers of compensation. It is clear that there was a considerable level of involvement by the resident’s son as a result of the landlord’s handling of the matter and this, equally, should have been recognised. As demonstrated in the Ombudsman’s assessment, the landlord failed to use its opportunities to put things right.

 

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. In recognition of the landlord’s failures, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to increase the compensation awarded to the resident to £550. This has been calculated as:

a.     £350 in recognition of the landlord’s delay in undertaking the recommended repairs over a considerable period of time; its failure to meet service (and contractual) standards for actions and to provide a reasonable explanation where it failed; the inconvenience and distress caused by the delay and the repeated inspections (resulting from poor record keeping).

b.     £200 in recognition of the landlord’s delay in providing its complaint responses; the excessive/unreasonable level of involvement from the resident; its poor record keeping and file management; to account for its communication errors; the resident’s all-round experience over an extensive period.

 

  1. This should not replace any amounts already offered by the landlord, in relation to other aspects of the resident’s/resident’s son’s complaint (such as offers which relate to the handling the SAR).

 

  1. The landlord should comply with these orders within four weeks of receiving the Ombudsman’s determination.

 

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should ensure that moving forward, inspection, maintenance and repair records are adequately retained and stored to enable it to provide a good service for its residents. The landlord should reinforce amongst its staff and contracted services, the importance of maintaining an audit trail and evidencing its actions moving forward. The landlord should also, as it mentioned in its stage one response, learn from the failures outlined in this case and seek to both improve its internal communication (including with its contractors) and ensure that adequate action is taken upon receipt of inspection reports.