Hyde Housing Association Limited (202121443)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202121443

Hyde Housing Association Limited

8 December 2023

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Application to succeed her late mother’s tenancy.
2. Repairs including leaks and mould.
3. Reports of rubbish in and around the property.
4. Formal complaint
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s knowledge and information management.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the 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 will not be investigated.
The resident has raised as part of her complaint to the Ombudsman the landlord’s handling of her reports of rubbish in and around the property. After considering the evidence, it is noted that the resident did not raise this as part of her stage one or two complaints to the landlord. Under paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure. Therefore, this element of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and is not considered further in this report. However, the Ombudsman notes from the evidence provided that the landlord had raised an order to collect rubbish from the property in April 2022.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is the assured tenant of the property, which is a four-bedroom house. She succeeded to the tenancy of her late mother. The landlord is a housing association.
The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident. She has told this Service she has a special guardianship court order for her two younger siblings, one of whom has dyslexia and mobility issues.
The tenancy agreement states, regarding succession, “Under the Housing Act 1980 when you die…your tenancy will pass to your partner if your home was also their only or main home at the time you died…If the tenancy does not pass to your partner…we will consider whether to offer a new tenancy for the property…to a member of your family if that person lived with you for at least 12 months before your death and the property was their only or main home during that time.”
The landlord’s succession policy sets out the law on succession. Under section 17(1A) of the Housing Act 1988 when an assured tenant dies, if their tenancy started after 1 April 2021, they are not themselves a successor, there is no spouse or partner, and there is a clause within the tenancy agreement allowing for a family member to succeed to the tenancy, then upon the death of the tenant the family member succeeds automatically, provided the terms of the tenancy clause are met. This is called statutory succession. The policy says anyone claiming succession must provide evidence of their identity, relationship to the deceased, and length of time they had lived with the deceased.
Under the policy, if there is no statutory or contractual succession, the landlord can decide to exercise its discretion to grant a new tenancy. The resident must apply, and the landlord will decide whether to exercise discretion within 28 days. If discretionary succession is refused the landlord will write to the resident to set out its reasons. Under the criteria the landlord will consider whether:
1. There had been a previous succession.
2. The deceased tenant was a parent or legal guardian of the resident.
3. The resident had lived at the property for the previous 12 months.
4. The property was not too large or too small for the resident.
5. The resident had sufficient income to pay the rent.
6. The deceased tenant had complied with the tenancy conditions.
7. The resident had no ASB complaints or convictions against them.
8. The resident agreed to pay any arrears that had accrued since the tenant’s death.
The tenancy agreement also sets out the landlord’s repair obligations, which comply with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The landlord will repair the structure and outside of the property, including walls, roof, guttering and pipework. It will also repair internally walls, floors, ceilings, and plasterwork. It will keep repaired all fixtures and fittings for the supply of water, electricity, gas, and water and space heating. The tenancy agreement says the landlord will complete repairs “within a reasonable time of you telling us about a problem” and will depend on the urgency of the repair.
The landlord is also under an obligation to keep the property fit for human habitation under the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018. The Housing Act 2004 introduced the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). One of the 29 identified hazards is damp and mould. Landlords have an obligation to minimise or remove the identified hazards, and their presence can be used to help determine whether a property is fit for habitation.
Under the landlord’s repairs policy repairs are categorised into emergency (made safe within 24 hours), anytime repair (to be completed within 20 working days) and major repairs which are completed as per the landlord’s plan programmes.
The Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management sets out 21 recommendations to help landlords improve their management of knowledge and information. These include developing an organisational key data recording standard to set out the minimum standard to which data must be entered in the landlord’s databases, and to make adherence to this part of the service level agreement with third parties, for example contractors.
The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction about a service provided by any part or representative of [the landlord].” A resident can make a complaint by telephone, email, letter, in person or via the landlord’s online complaints form.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints process. The policy says the landlord will acknowledge stage one complaints within two working days and contact the resident to ensure it understands the complaint. It will respond as soon as possible and no later than 20 working days after the complaint was raised. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can ask to escalate their complaint to stage two. The policy also says that any stage one complaint not responded to within 20 working days, and within an extension agreed with the resident, will be automatically escalated to stage two.
The landlord will consider requests to escalate. If agreed, it will proceed the complaint to stage two and will respond within 20 working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can approach this Service.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out how a landlord should respond to complaints. Paragraph 1.2 states that a complaint should be defined as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of actions by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents.” Under paragraph 5.1 a landlord should respond to a stage one complaint within ten working days and should address all elements of the resident’s complaint within its response (paragraph 5.8). The landlord should escalate the complaint if asked to do so by the resident (paragraph 5.10) and should respond within 20 working days (paragraph 5.13).
The landlord’s compensation policy states that the landlord may pay discretionary compensation in recognition of loss as part of a complaint response. The landlord can take into account distress and inconvenience, time and trouble. It will consider the severity of distress, length of time involved, and number of people affected, stating that family members can also be considered. The policy contains guidance on whether the impact in terms of delay and distress is low (up to £100), medium (up to £250), or major (up to £500). It states that the maximum compensation for time and trouble is £50.

Summary of events

The resident’s late mother’s tenancy started in 2012. In April 2018 the resident and her two siblings left the property and were placed in temporary accommodation by the council. In February 2021 the resident’s mother died.
The resident emailed the council on 26 March 2021. In her email she said that her mother had died, and she had been trying to apply to the landlord to succeed the tenancy. She said the landlord said this would be at its discretion. The Ombudsman has not been provided with any records by the landlord of the resident’s initial contact with it about the death of her mother or succession. The resident said she and her siblings had grown up in the property, and their possessions were still there, but they had had to leave as it was unsafe to remain with their mother. The council replied by email the same day to say it had no objections to the resident applying for succession.
On 6 April 2021 the landlord’s records state that it raised “void works” and “void electrics” however these jobs were marked as cancelled, and there are no further details recorded in the records.
The resident emailed the landlord on 12 April 2021 regarding succession and the property being in disrepair. She said she was told the landlord had no discretion to grant her succession as she had not been living in the property for 12 months prior to the death. She said the landlord would not consider an email she sent (which has not been provided to this Service by the landlord) and had refused to let her speak to a manager. She also said her mother had been suing the landlord before she died and she submitted that the property was uninhabitable, giving specific examples of outstanding repairs.
On 13 April 2021 the resident called the landlord. The landlord’s records state it was a succession enquiry, and that the resident did not live in the property, but no further information was recorded.
The landlord and the resident exchanged emails on 16 April 2021. The resident said that it had not responded to her succession application and that her mother had been in a legal dispute with it over repairs, which she said the court had ordered it to resolve. The landlord raised a stage 1 complaint regarding the succession application and outstanding repairs.
On 5 June 2021 the landlord’s records state it raised a repair for out of hours “made safe ceiling (sic)” which was marked as completed on 7 June 2021. The records do not contain any further information.
The resident emailed her local councillor on 7 June 2021, asking for help with the succession and disrepair issues and explaining that she was the sole special guardian of her siblings who had particular needs. She said the property had no heating or hot water, mould, and no working lights in the bedroom or bathroom, and that was the reason she did not move back in before her mother died. She had notified the landlord of her mother’s passing on 1 March 2021 and had sent her succession application with supporting documents to the landlord by email on 13 April 2021. She said she had not heard anything from the landlord. It is not known by this Service whether the councillor made an enquiry to the landlord following the resident’s email; no copies of an enquiry or response have been provided by the landlord.
On 16 June 2021 a friend representing the resident emailed the MP and local councillors on her behalf to ask for their help with the succession. She said the resident had vulnerabilities as a result of her past experiences and that she would benefit from a stable home to live in with her siblings. The MP emailed the landlord on 17 June 2021 asking it to update him on the resident’s succession application and the landlord acknowledged the MP’s email.
On 28 June 2021 the landlord discussed the MP’s enquiry in internal emails, noting that the succession application had been refused as the resident did not live in the property. It noted the resident’s custody arrangement of her siblings and the reasons for this, and also that the mother’s disrepair case was part of the reason the children did not live with her. It is not known by this Service whether the landlord responded to the MP’s enquiry as a copy of a response has not been provided by the landlord.
The landlord’s notes state it tried to call the resident on 29 July 2021 to arrange a surveyor’s inspection for 3 August 2021, but it could not reach her.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response letter of 30 July 2021 it apologised for the delay in its response and upheld the repairs complaint as it could have done them quicker. It offered £150 compensation for the time and trouble, distress and inconvenience caused in that regard. It confirmed that an inspection had been arranged for 3 August 2021 and provided the contact details of a named surveyor. It then committed to complete any necessary repairs and post-inspect the works. It also said that staff training had been carried out on record keeping and the importance of maintaining accurate and up to date records.
The landlord said that it may be able to grant a discretionary succession but the approval process was being delayed by the disrepair claim so legal involvement was required. The matter had therefore been referred to its Legal Services for guidance. Finally, it explained how to escalate the complaint if the resident remained dissatisfied and gave information on how to contact this Service.
It is not clear from the evidence what happened regarding the appointment on 3 August 2021 except that it does not appear that it went ahead. The landlord’s surveyor called the resident on 4 August 2021 to book another appointment for 10 August 2021.
The resident emailed the landlord on 10 August 2021 to say that the surveyor had not attended and she had tried to call her without success and left a voicemail. She also said she called the landlord that day and it had not been able to contact the surveyor. The landlord replied the following day and said it would contact the surveyor for an explanation and a new appointment.
On 19 August 2021 the resident emailed the landlord again to chase up the surveyor. She had tried to call her but she did not answer calls and she had not heard anything from the surveyor or the landlord. As her succession was dependent upon the disrepair having been resolved she felt she was at a standstill. She asked if she could have a different surveyor and reported an attempted break-in at the property.
The landlord replied to the resident the following day advising that the surveyor had not been able to complete the inspection as they had “missed each other a couple of times”. It then requested suitable times and dates the for inspection to be carried out.
In her email of 23 August 2021, the resident reiterated the contact difficulties with the surveyor and detailed various instances when she had been unable to contact the landlord and the surveyor had not attended appointments. She said the surveyor had advised that her contact details were not on the system, despite her providing them on several occasions since March 2021. She reiterated that she wanted the disrepair resolved as it was slowing down her succession application and her request for a different surveyor.
The resident emailed the landlord again on 1 September 2021 to say that she had not heard from it or the surveyor. The landlord replied the following day and said it would look into why a new appointment had not been made. The resident replied that day to say the landlord had given the same response three weeks earlier. She asked if this could be escalated to a manager as the surveyor was avoiding the inspection and to have a different surveyor. She said it had been six months since she told the landlord her mother had died, and no progress had been made.
On 8 September 2021 the resident emailed the landlord again. She said she visited the property and found a card from the surveyor which said she tried to attend on 17 August 2021 which was completely unannounced. She said that the surveyor knew she did not live at the property and had not contacted her to make an appointment since the one missed on 10 August 2021. The surveyor would not answer her calls. The resident also said that the property’s gardens were being used by people fly-tipping.
The resident’s friend, on her behalf, emailed the MP on 9 September 2021, saying that the landlord was dealing with the situation badly and this was causing unnecessary distress to the resident. She said the landlord’s lack of response was denying the resident the ability to progress her complaint or to escalate it to the Ombudsman.
The same day the MP emailed the landlord to ask it to look into the resident’s concerns. The landlord acknowledged the MP’s email but this Service has not seen a copy of any substantive response to the issues raised.
On 15 September 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to ask to escalate her complaint. She said she had not received a reply from the landlord since she sent her last email. She also said she had spoken to the surveyor on 13 September 2021 by telephone (no evidence has been provided of this call) and the surveyor had said:
1. She attended the property on 10 August 2021 at 1pm and met a caretaker. The resident said this was not possible as she was there at that time, and there was no caretaker as the property was a house.
2. She had seen the resident’s calls and text message but “couldn’t reply to me all these weeks later because she is not allowed to use her phone while driving”.
3. She had spoken to the landlord who agreed to the visit on 17 August 2021. The resident said she asked why the surveyor did not call her when she had her telephone number, and the surveyor did not have an answer to this.
The resident reiterated that the succession was dependant on the disrepair being resolved, but the difficulties with getting the surveyor to inspect the repair issues meant the succession case was “in perpetual limbo”. She stated that various parties had written to the landlord on her behalf (and did not reference having received any response) so she wanted to escalate her complaint to stage 2.
The resident emailed the landlord again on 28 October 2021, saying she had not heard from it since her request to escalate her complaint, which had not been acknowledged. She also said she had emailed specific managers, telephoned and messaged it on social media without receiving a response.
On 4 November 2021 the landlord emailed the resident to say that the surveyor had attempted to inspect the property several times and it had tried contacting her but only had her email address. It apologised for the “communication gap” and asked for her telephone number. It acknowledged the stage 2 complaint and said she could expect to receive a response by 2 December 2021.
The resident replied to the landlord by email the same day, when she noted that she had told the landlord the surveyor had had her telephone number since 4 August 2021, but had never called or sent a text message to arrange any appointments. Further, the landlord likely knew she did not live at the property as it had written to her at her temporary accommodation address before. She confirmed that the landlord had her contact details on its system since 13 April 2021 when she applied for succession and she had contacted it in various ways since then, and provided her contact details to ask for a response.
The resident noted that the landlord had emailed her on 29 October 2021 approving her succession application (no copy provided to the Ombudsman) and now all she wanted was to agree an appointment for the surveyor to inspect the property.
The landlord replied the same day to apologise for the inconvenience caused. It said it did not agree to the surveyor’s appointment on 17 August 2021. It confirmed again that it had escalated her complaint to stage two.
The resident has told this Service that a different surveyor from the landlord inspected the property on 24 November 2021, but no record of this inspection has been provided to the Ombudsman by the landlord.
In the absence of a stage 2 response from the landlord, the resident contacted this Service and Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 21 December 2021 asking it to issue that response. In the landlord’s letter to the resident of 31 December 2021, it advised that it needed more time to issue its stage 2 response, but this should be done by 7 January 2022.
The resident emailed the landlord on 6 January 2022, advising that she had not received documents for the tenancy in her name, or paper copies, and only had an emailed copy in her maiden name. She asked the landlord to send the documents in the correct name by post to her temporary accommodation address.
The landlord ultimately issued its stage 2 response on 11 January 2022 (no copy provided to the Ombudsman). The resident responded the same day, stating that the £250 compensation offered by the landlord was insufficient to reflect all the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to her. She also questioned various works which she said had not been mentioned within the response and asked about an appointment on 20 January 2022.
The landlord emailed the resident on 12 January 2022 and said it had reviewed the compensation it had offered and increased this. It attached a new stage 2 response letter in which it confirmed that the succession had been approved. With regard to the survey and repairs, it acknowledged various delays on its part but advised the property was habitable whilst the repairs were being done. It had arranged a contractor appointment for 20 January 2022 and it provided a detailed list of repairs (in most rooms of the property) which were to be carried out that day. It offered £425 compensation in place of the £150 offered at stage 1, and gave details on how to contact the Ombudsman is the resident was dissatisfied.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process

On 13 January 2022 the landlord’s repairs records state it raised repairs for:
1. The kitchen “ceiling to be stain blocked following a repairs of a leak…Bedroom 1, Scrape back to ceiling area and stain block 2SQM…Bedroom 3, Make good to hole in wall behind door” which is marked as completed on 20 January 2022.
2. The kitchen window and doors “Window has been smashed externally, please attend to measure up and replace (job raised to temporally Board)…Living Room: Repair to angle bead which is coming away next to back door…All internal doors to be eased” which it marked as completed on 8 February 2022.
3. Regarding leaks “Shower was removed to fix a leak, please put back to working order…Mould wash to ceiling of shower room…Mould wash to whole bathroom…Clear outlet pipe in bedroom 4” which it marked as completed on 21 January 2022.
4. The second bedroom “Light has been disconnected, please put back in to working order…Light switch is missing please put back to working order” which it marked as completed on 20 January 2022.
The resident signed and returned to the landlord its form to accept the compensation offered at stage 2 on 26 January 2022.
On 14 February 2022 the landlord raised a repair to “complete stain blocking and full decoration of bedroom 1 left hand side of shower room and bathroom” which it marked as completed on 16 February 2022.
The landlord raised further repairs on 18 February 2022 for “Window has been smashed externally, please attend to measure up and replace. All internal doors to be eased and adjusted (some don’t close). Ease and adjust bedroom door. Balcony door ledge is rotten please renew. Ease and adjust balcony door” which it marked as completed on 9 March 2022.
On 9 March 2022 the landlord also raised a repair to repaint the kitchen ceiling which it marked as completed on 10 March 2022.
The resident emailed the landlord on 6, 12 and 21 April 2022 to chase up her compensation which the landlord had not paid. On 21 April 2022 the landlord replied and said it would process the payment. The landlord emailed the resident again on 10 May 2022 to confirm that it had processed the compensation and she should receive the money within 10 working days.
The resident has told this Service that she moved into the property on 12 May 2022 and most of the issues raised in her complaint from 2021 have now been resolved. She made a new complaint in March 2023 which has progressed through the landlord’s complaints process.
In its response to enquiries made by the Ombudsman, the landlord has advised that it could not find any records of any disrepair claim, or Environmental Protection Act 1990 claims, for the property made by the resident’s mother before she died.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s application to succeed her late mother’s tenancy

From the information provided by the resident regarding her contact with the landlord in April 2021, it appears the landlord had decided the outcome of her succession claim before it had given her the opportunity to submit her application and any supporting evidence, which was a failing. While its advice may have been correct in relation to statutory succession, by the very nature of discretion, the landlord could have considered the resident’s application for a discretionary succession under its policy, as length of residence was only one criterion it considers.
The resident called again and was sent a succession application form which she said she completed and sent back to the landlord straightaway. The resident, and various parties acting on her behalf, then chased the landlord for a response between April and June 2021, without success. This represents an unreasonable delay by the landlord and sub-standard communication for the duration. Whilst internal emails from 28 June 2021 show the landlord considering the resident’s application, there is no reference to the previous delays or lack of contact with the resident, or any explanation for them. This was a clear failing on the part of the landlord.
In its stage 1 complaint response of 30 July 2021 the landlord detailed the chronology of the statutory succession application with the conclusion that the discretionary claim was still with its Legal Services for consideration. Given that the resident had applied for discretionary succession by 13 April 2021, this response was not helpful or appropriate, as it did nothing to explain the ongoing delays in the 3-months since then. Instead, it would have been helpful if the landlord had acknowledged that it was considering whether to use its discretion to grant the resident a new tenancy, that it had taken too long by that point to have done this and apologised for the delay. It should also have said what steps it was going to take to speed up the process to reach a decision.
The Ombudsman notes that the landlord stated that a disrepair claim was causing delays to the succession application, but has since told this Service that it had no records of a disrepair claim. The Ombudsman cannot say with any certainty which of these statements is accurate.
The resident chased the landlord again on 19 and 23 August 2021, as she believed that her succession application was dependent upon the disrepair in the property being resolved. It is not clear from the evidence whether this was the case or why it would be, but it is clear this was what the resident believed based on what the landlord had told her. Along with delays in the landlord surveying the property, which are addressed below, this caused frustration, distress, and anxiety for the resident for over 4 months by this point in time. She said “my succession case is in perpetual limbo”.
The resident told the landlord on 4 November 2021 that it had written to her on 29 October 2021 approving her succession, which it backdated to the date of death of her mother. As the landlord did not provide a copy of this letter to the Ombudsman this Service does not know whether any apology or explanation for the delay in coming to an outcome was given. The landlord had taken over six months to exercise its discretion to allow the resident to succeed. The landlord’s policy states that it will decide discretionary succession applications within 28 days and so this was an unreasonable and extended delay where the landlord did not follow its policy. That was severe maladministration, which caused significant distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble to the resident. To reflect this an order has been made that the landlord pay £1,000 compensation to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s repairs including leaks and mould

The resident has told the landlord, and this Service, that prior to her death her mother had a disrepair claim against the landlord and the court had ordered the landlord to complete repairs. She has also said that the matter did not get to court before her mother died. The landlord has told this Service that it has no record of a disrepair claim. It is not clear what happened prior to the resident’s mother dying. It is possible that the landlord was aware of disrepair within the property although equally possible it was not; there is no clear evidence on this point and the Ombudsman cannot make a determination in that regard.
However, after the resident emailed the landlord on 12 April 2021 (in which she clearly described the nature and extent of the disrepair), it was on notice of disrepair within the property. Despite this, the landlord did not take any action until it “made safe” the ceiling on 7 June 2021. If it had followed its repairs policy, it would have attended to the leak as an emergency repair within 24 hours, but it failed to do this.
The landlord delayed until 29 July 2021 to attempt to make an appointment for a surveyor to inspect 5 days later. By this time 76 working days had passed since the resident reported the disrepair. As it could not reach the resident by telephone, the landlord included details of the appointment within its stage 1 response dated 30 July 2021, which the resident has said she did not receive until the day of the appointment, and so could not attend.
Positively, the landlord’s surveyor called the resident and arranged a new appointment for 10 August 2021, but she then failed to attend. Despite the resident’s best efforts, she could not contact the surveyor after this. It also appears that the landlord was unable to contact its surveyor. The resident received no contact from the landlord or its surveyor until she found a calling card at the property on 8 September 2021 from 17 August 2021. It is not clear why the surveyor attended on that date when the landlord was aware that the resident did not live at the property at that time. It is also not clear why the surveyor did not call the resident to make a new appointment or reply to any of the resident’s many contact attempts. Both of these were failings which prolonged the period of time the property was in disrepair.
When the resident ultimately managed to speak to the surveyor on 13 September 2021, her explanations about the appointments on 10 August 2021 and 17 August 2021 were either mistaken or false and her reason for not replying to the resident’s messages was non-sensical. There were failings in communications and how the landlord treated the resident which increased her levels of distress, frustration, and inconvenience, at an already difficult time.
The landlord inspected the property on 24 November 2021, sending a different surveyor, 160 working days after the resident first reported the disrepair. This was a protracted, unreasonable and unacceptable delay in trying to resolve the issue. The landlord detailed the repairs to be completed in its complaint response letter on 12 January 2022, and raised these repairs the following day, around one and a half months after the inspection, which again was an unreasonable delay.
Repairs were carried out in January, February and March 2022, one year after the disrepair was first reported. There was severe maladministration, which caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident, as well as considerable time and trouble in trying to arrange the surveyor’s inspection and chase the repairs. An order has been made that the landlord pay £1,500 compensation to reflect this.

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

The landlord’s complaints policy definition of a complaint is not compliant with the Code’s definition under paragraph 1.2. The landlord raised a stage 1 complaint for the resident on 16 April 2021, but this should have been done on 12 April 2021, when she first expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord.
The landlord replied to the complaint 73 working days later, on 30 July 2021. This was in breach of its policy timeframe of 20 working days, which is also not compliant with the Code, at paragraph 5.1, which states that a landlord is to respond within 10 working days. This was also an unacceptable delay. The landlord apologised for the delay but did not offer any compensation for this. It also failed to fully respond to the resident’s complaint as it only addressed her complaint about repairs, which was also a failing.
The resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 15 September 2021. The landlord did not acknowledge the escalation until 4 November 2021, which was 36 working days later, when it should have provided its response in less than this amount of time. Both the landlord’s policy, and the Code at paragraph 5.13, state that the landlord must respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord asking for its response on 21 December 2021. Even after this intervention the landlord emailed the resident on 31 December 2021 to say that it needed more time. It made poor excuses and did not address the length of time it had taken before the end of December 2021. It said it hoped to be able to provide a response by 7 January 2022, but it also failed to meet this deadline.
On 11 January 2022 the landlord provided its first stage 2 response, 82 working days after the resident’s request to escalate, which again was an unacceptable delay. After the resident rejected the £250 compensation offered the landlord increased this to £450 in its second stage 2 response on 12 January 2022. The compensation was offered to reflect the delay in repairs. The landlord failed to acknowledge, apologise for, or offer compensation for the delay in its response, which was also a failing. In total the resident had spent 117 days waiting for complaint responses.
Overall, there was severe maladministration. An order has been made that the landlord pay £500 in compensation to reflect the inconvenience, distress, time and trouble caused to the resident by these failings.

The landlord’s knowledge and information management

A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, investigations, and communications. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively. The landlord’s staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these.
Throughout this investigation the Ombudsman’s work has been hampered by a lack of evidence and records which have not been provided by the landlord. In addition to this Service’s initial request for evidence, the Ombudsman has asked a further two times for specific records and evidence which the landlord has failed to supply. In addition, some records supplied are limited by a lack of information or details within them which is especially true of the landlord’s repairs and contact records.
Within this report it has been noted where information had not been provided or is incomplete, which includes:
1. No details in the repair record dated 6 April 2021 for “void works” and “void electrics”.
2. No details in the repair record dated 5 June 2021 for the repair “made safe ceiling”.
3. No details in the communications record dated 13 April 2021 in relation to the resident’s call.
4. A copy of the resident’s application to succeed, or any records of her report of the death of her mother or initial request to succeed, have not been provided.
5. The resident referred to an earlier email in her email on 12 April 2021 which has not been provided by the landlord.
6. Copies of responses to the councillor and two MP enquiries have not been provided and it is not clear whether the landlord responded to these enquiries.
7. The landlord has no record of the outcome of the inspection appointment booked for 3 August 2021.
8. No records of calls the resident made to the landlord on 22 March 2021 and 25 March 2021 have been provided.
9. No record of a call between the landlord’s surveyor and the resident has been provided.
10. A copy of the landlord’s email sent on 29 October 2021 granting the resident succession has not been provided.
11. There is no evidence or record of, or copy of any surveyor’s report, for the inspection which took place on 24 November 2021.
12. A copy of the landlord’s first stage two response letter dated 11 January 2022 has not been provided.
In its stage 1 response on 30 July 2021 the landlord accepted there had been problems with its knowledge and information management and advised that staff training had been carried out. However, on 4 November 2021 the landlord said it only had the resident’s email address on its system, despite her having demonstrated numerous times she had provided her full contact details to it.
It is also extremely concerning that the landlord could not find any records of any disrepair claim, despite having told the resident within it stage 1 response it had “referred to Legal Services for further guidance regarding the succession request as there is an open disrepair case”.
The lack of records and poor quality of knowledge and information management delayed the resident’s complaint through the landlord’s complaints process. It caused distress, frustration and inconvenience to the resident who had to point out her previous communications with the landlord several times when they had not been acknowledged or considered.
Overall, there was severe maladministration. An order has been made that the landlord pay £500 in compensation to reflect the impact these failings had on the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Application to succeed her late mother’s tenancy.
2. Repairs including leaks and mould.
3. Formal complaint.
4. Knowledge and information management.
In accordance with Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of rubbish in and around the property, is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Reasons

There was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s application to succeed her late mother’s tenancy, as it delayed for an unreasonable amount of time to exercise its discretion in relation to the succession claim. It confused itself and the resident on the fact of a disrepair claim slowing down its decision making, which it later stated it had no record of. The delay left the resident, and her siblings, in ‘limbo’ for over 6 months.
There was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s repairs including leaks and mould as it failed to follow its repairs policy in relation to the resident’s reports of leaks and mould, by delaying in arranging a survey and completing the works. The communication failures around the survey and repairs caused considerable distress and inconvenience to the resident. Once the landlord had surveyed the property it delayed again in raising and completing the repairs.
There was severe maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling as it did not reply to either the stage 1 or 2 complaints within its policy timeframes or those set out within the Code. Its stage 1 response did not respond to all the resident’s complaint elements. The landlord’s request for an extension to its stage 2 response did not give good reasons. The landlord also failed to apologise, or compensate, for the unacceptable delays.
The landlord either does not have, or failed to provide, a large number of records and documents to this Service. Its communications and repairs records lack information making them of little value. The mismanagement of information caused delays to the resident’s complaint and inconvenience, frustration, time and trouble to her. Despite the landlord saying that it had provided further training on record keeping no improvements appear to have been made. The poor knowledge and information management has also hampered the Ombudsman’s investigation into this complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide an apology to the resident from the chief executive for the failures detailed in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident compensation of £3,500 made up of:
  1. £1,000 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident due to its failings in how it handled her application to succeed.
  2. £1,500 for the distress, inconvenience and considerable time and trouble caused by its failures in how it handled repairs.
  3. £500 for the inconvenience, distress, time and trouble caused to the resident by its complaints handling failures.
  4. £500 for the distress, frustration and inconvenience caused by its knowledge and information management failings.
3. Provide a copy of the surveyor’s report from the inspection on 24 November 2021 to this Service, or explain if one does not exist, and confirm that all repairs identified within the survey have been completed. The landlord may find it easiest to provide this information in the form of a Scott Schedule.
4. Carry out a self-assessment against the recommendations within the Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management and provide the results of this assessment to this Service.
5. Provide evidence of the staff training provided which it referred to in its 30 July 2021 complaint response.
6. Arrange to provide further staff training on knowledge and information management; this can be included within its self-assessment against the spotlight report.
7. Make amendments to its processes or IT system to allow for the recording of resident’s details when a succession application is made, so that these are clearly visible to all relevant staff and confirm this to this Service.
8. Carry out a case review of this complaint and report the outcome of this review to its board.
9. Confirm compliance with these orders to this Service.