Hyde Housing Association Limited (202201221)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202201221

Hyde Housing Association Limited

31 January 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Bathroom repairs, including a broken window.
2. The resident’s request to remove moss and debris from the roof.
3. The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The property is a 2-bedroom house. The landlord said the tenancy started on 7 November 1988. The tenancy agreement provided to this Service was signed by the resident on 12 July 2001. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.

Scope of investigation

The resident said she has been impacted mentally throughout the complaint and feels like she has post-traumatic stress disorder. The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s comments. However, as this Service is an informal alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are better suited for consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, the Ombudsman has considered the distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident.
The resident completed the landlord’s internal complaint process (ICP) for this case in June 2022. Therefore, this report investigates events up to June 2022. Actions pre and post ICP is summarised for context only.
The resident made a second complaint about events which took place after the landlord’s final response in June 2022. The landlord considered this under reference 609654. This complaint has been referred separately to this Service.
Within recent correspondence with this Service, the resident mentioned concerns that were not considered within her first or second complaint, such as a surveyor’s appointment being cancelled at short notice and a surveyor attending on a date not agreed with the resident. In the interest of fairness, the landlord must have the opportunity to investigate and respond to the resident’s recent concerns that it has not yet considered under its ICP. The resident would need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise another complaint if they are dissatisfied with the way the landlord responds.

Relevant policies, obligations, and laws

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of a property in repair.
The landlord’s responsive repairs procedure (dated August 2020) says an ‘anytime repair’ will be completed within 20 working days. Major repairs or complex works will be undertaken as per the landlord’s stock investment procedure. Under this policy, the landlord is responsible for (including but not limited to) baths, sinks, toilet flushing systems, waste pipe leaks and bathroom floor covering.
The landlord’s stock investment procedure states that if a window repair is deemed non urgent with no health, safety, or security risks, it will be added to the repair program. It can take a calendar year from the time of referral until the date a new window is installed. Requests for urgent replacement windows should go to the landlord’s responsive repair contractor.
The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process (dated January 2021) with an optional informal stage prior to stage 1. It states it will always offer the resident a choice over whether they want an informal response or a formal complaint investigation. At stage 1, it aims to respond within 10 working days. At stage 2, it aims to respond within 20 working days. If the landlord requires longer at either stage, it will keep the resident informed and may take an additional 10 working days to respond.

Summary of events

In January 2021, the resident said she spoke to the landlord about issues with her home, including a leaking toilet and broken bathroom window. An appointment was raised to assess the toilet in January 2021. It was noted on the landlord’s system that the resident cancelled this appointment as she was unwell.
The landlord said the resident did not respond to 2 contact attempts to review the bathroom window. The landlord’s records say the work order was then closed. From the evidence available, it is not clear whether the window replacement was considered under the landlord’s stock investment process or responsive repair procedure.
In February 2021, the toilet was assessed. Follow on work was scheduled to fit a new toilet pan. Records state this was cancelled by the resident.
The landlord has quoted an email sent by the resident regarding the new toilet plan. The date of the email has not been provided. It said (in summary):
1. The landlord was due to repair a toilet leak in the afternoon, however a new toilet and cistern had arrived. The new cistern had a smaller width and there was scarring on the exterior.
2. Fitting a smaller cistern would impact the surrounding tiling and paintwork. This was not acceptable as it would degrade the quality of the home and cause expense to make good.
3. The flooring had been damaged by a water leak over the years. Replacing the toilet would expose the damaged flooring.
4. The resident asked for a review of the landlord’s intended work and did not allow the suggested works to proceed. She asked for matters to be escalated to the property manager.
On 7 June 2021, the resident made a formal complaint. She said:
1. Around January 2021, she spoke with the repairs team about a few issues with her property concerning:
  1. A leaking toilet.
  2. A blown and broken bathroom window.
  3. Moss and debris on the roof.
2. The repairs manager did not call the resident as promised.
3. In March 2021, operatives arrived without an appointment. They did an asbestos check on the back porch and cleared gutters.
4. She had since heard nothing about the outstanding repairs.
5. To resolve the complaint, the resident asked for the job numbers of the above repairs and a full update, including a projected date for completion.
The landlord acknowledged the above as an informal complaint on 7 June 2021. It said it would respond within 5 working days. The resident chased for a response on 14 June 2021.
The landlord provided an update on 16 June 2021. It said it had tried to call her with no response. It said the job was closed as the resident declined work, however it was able to re-raise the work order if she was happy to use the materials the landlord provided. It reminded the resident she was responsible for redecorating.
The landlord raised a work order for the window replacement with a different sub-contractor on 22 June 2021.
The resident emailed the landlord on 26 June 2021 stating that the issue with the leaking toilet had been ongoing for a long time as no-one listened to her. She said the work order should not have been closed without her knowledge. She added that the sink basin was not level and the bathtub had issues degrading both the bath and panel. She said the leak from the toilet continued to impact the flooring. She wanted an investigation to be conducted by someone senior.
The landlord issued its informal complaint response on 2 July 2021. It said:
1. It had tried to contact the resident several times to discuss her concerns.
2. As the resident had refused permission for works to the toilet to be conducted before the contractors arrived, the work order was closed.
3. The error seemed to be that the resident was not informed that if the replacement toilet pan had a different footprint, replacement flooring would be arranged.
4. The director of property services would contact her to visit the property and do a full scope of the repairs required in the bathroom, incorporating all the resident’s concerns.
5. From this visit, they would produce a schedule of works and once approved by the landlord, would carry out the works at an agreed time.
On 14 July 2021, the resident emailed the landlord. She asked for her email address to be provided to the director and to remind them of the lack of mobile reception at her property.
It is unclear what happened between the end of July and September 2021.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 21 September 2021. It said:
1. It apologised for the delay responding to the complaint.
2. It did not attend the repair as quickly as it should have, meaning the damage got worse.
3. It offered £100 compensation to recognise the time and trouble spent by the resident in pursuing the matter. It also offered £50 for the delay.
4. It knew its repair service was failing some of its residents and it had been working hard to fix this. It was working closely with its contractors to understand the problems and would continue to penalise them for failing its customers, whilst supporting them to do better.
5. It was undertaking several actions within the business to ensure it responded quicker to residents when they complained.
It is unclear what happened between 21 September 2021 and 9 February 2022.
On 9 February 2022, the resident submitted a complaint form to the landlord. She said it had been a year since she reported that a leaking toilet and broken window required a repair. She explained both repairs had been inspected and passed back to the landlord to complete, yet they remained outstanding.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint at stage 2 on 17 February 2022. Records shows the landlord investigated it internally and discussed the complaint with the resident. It extended the response date on 17 March 2022 and 20 April 2022.
The landlord had a meeting with key stakeholders on 29 April 2022. Following this it informed the resident that it had raised 2 work orders:
1. 27 May 2022 – a subcontractor to quote for a replacement bathroom window.
2. 6 June 2022 – a plumber to attend regarding the ongoing leak in the bathroom.
The resident was dissatisfied. She explained she was self-employed and did not want to take more time off work. She asked the landlord to revert to the original contractors and book them to come and do the work they had already assessed.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s comments. It said it agreed it should know what was required by now, however as it was using another sub-contractor for the window replacement, it needed to ensure they could quote the works accordingly. With regards to the toilet and pipework, it wanted to have a plumber and/or supervisor to attend first considering it had failed to reach a satisfactory conclusion in the past. It wanted to make sure the repairs team fully understood the problem before it sent someone to fix it. It asked the resident if there were more suitable dates and times for appointments to reduce the impact on her.
The resident responded on 3 May 2022. She said it was unacceptable and wanted to proceed with the way forward that had been agreed with the director of property services as a resolution to her informal complaint. The landlord responded the same day to explain it was using another window contractor to ensure the works were completed sooner. It said a new appointment for a plumber to assess/discuss an appropriate course of action was required.
Records show the landlord made enquiries with its contractor network, however the director the resident referred to had left the organisation.
The resident informed this Service that the director did attend her property. An inspection report, comments from the director, or schedule of works has not been provided to this Service by the landlord.
The landlord updated the resident on 5 May 2022. It explained the previous director no longer worked for the organisation. It needed to obtain quotes from the contractors it intended to use for the repairs. It also explained that loss of earnings was not covered within its compensation policy.
A site visit took place on 6 May 2022. A report from the site visit has not been provided to this Service.
The landlord emailed the resident on 9 May 2022. It provided a choice of 4 floor coverings and a photo showing the other style of taps that it could supply.
The resident responded on 13 May 2022 selecting her preferred taps. She asked the landlord to provide more information about the flooring options, bath panel options and blind options. She requested the model of the replacement shower and confirmation that the bath replacement would have grab rails. She asked the landlord if it had potential dates for the jobs.
The landlord provided a complaint update on 23 May 2022 and extended the response date to 7 June 2022.
The resident chased the landlord several times for a response to her email of 13 May 2022.
The complaint response date was extended again on 7 June 2022. The landlord updated the resident on 8 June 2022. It apologised for not responding earlier and explained it was trying to find a contractor that could carry out the bathroom works in one go rather than over a few weeks to minimise the disruption. It asked if it could attend with a contractor on 14 June 2022. It explained the new contractor would have a bigger range of flooring, taps and showers. An appointment was then made to visit the site at 8am on 14 June 2022.
The landlord followed up internally on 16 June 2022. Records state the site visit took place on 14 June 2022, the specification of works were agreed, and the resident selected materials/colours.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 16 June 2022. It said:
1. It apologised that the resident had to wait so long.
2. It did not complete the repairs when it should have, and it failed to communicate with the resident effectively.
3. The stage 1 response was issued on 21 September 2021. Since then, work remained outstanding despite the resident chasing for action over the past 10 months.
4. The resident had reported the toilet issue for quite some time, and despite its attendances in the past, she remained unhappy with how it had been dealt with. Additionally, the resident reported that the bathroom suite was poorly fitted.
5. The quote received previously for the window works was not deemed acceptable, so this work was not actioned by the previous contractor.
6. It had previously engaged an external contractor who had inspected the resident’s bathroom in the past and knew what needed doing. However, that contractor had since left, and the organisation was no longer involved.
7. It agreed to start over and appointed its trade supervisor to manage the repairs. It provided their direct contact information. It appreciated how frustrating it was for the resident due to the energy she had spent trying to get the issues resolved.
8. A contractor attended on 27 May 2022 to quote for the replacement window and scaffolding.
9. A joint site visit took place with the trade supervisor, resident and a contractor on 14 June 2022 and agreed to the following works:
  1. Erection of scaffolding.
  2. Replace the bathroom window and blind.
  3. Replace the bathroom floor covering.
  4. Replace bathtub, taps and panel (including grab rails)
  5. Replace electric shower.
  6. Any necessary areas of making good because of the above works.
10. A contractor would conduct the works to the window first and then another contractor would complete the remaining works.
11. The clearance of moss from the roof was not part of its maintenance schedule and it would only look to get involved with this should the moss contribute to any water ingress.
12. Things could have been handled more efficiently and the changes in staff had not helped. Part of the reason the repairs dragged on was because the resident was not happy with its proposed solutions. On other occasions it did not agree with the solutions suggested by contractors.
13. It increased its offer of compensation from £150 to £275, comprised of:
  1. £50 for the resident’s patience throughout the complaints process.
  2. £25 for the poor communications.
  3. £50 for the resident’s time and trouble.
  4. £100 for the delays with the repairs.
  5. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Events after the end of the formal complaint process

On 26 June 2022, contractors arrived at the property but were unable to proceed with the works.
The resident reported on 4 July 2022 that a contractor put their foot through the bathroom floor and the kitchen ceiling had collapsed. The resident was concerned about asbestos.
Throughout July 2022 and August 2022, the resident raised further issues about the quality of repairs. She also said contractors caused a boiler leak and damaged a ceiling light.
The resident made a formal complaint on 26 August 2022 about events which occurred after she had completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. The landlord initially refused to raise a new complaint, before logging a new complaint on 17 October 2022 under reference 609654. It issued its stage 1 response on 8 December 2022, offering £250 compensation.
A site visit took place on 9 December 2022 and a further program of works was agreed.
The landlord said it sent a further letter to the resident to advise her of its final complaint response for complaint reference 609654. The landlord has not provided a dated copy of the letter or an email/audit trail to evidence it was issued. The landlord provided a screenshot to show the letter was last modified on 12 December 2022. The resident said she did not receive this letter.
The resident contacted the landlord in February 2023 to complain about the standard of works, staff conduct, and the type of shower screen installed. In March 2023, the landlord said it had been trying to contact the resident to arrange a post-completion inspection.
The Ombudsman has no records of what happened between 7 March 2023 and 23 November 2023. On 24 November 2023, the landlord contacted the resident and asked if there were any outstanding issues from the complaint that it could escalate. It also said it was looking to review the compensation.
The landlord discussed matters with the resident on 28 November 2023 and followed up by email the following day. It noted:
1. The shower screen was too big, and the resident could not open/close it without turning on the taps in the bath.
2. The decorations in the kitchen, bathroom and toilet were completed to a poor standard.
3. The grouting in bathroom was stained yellow with sealant breaking away.
4. The experience had been stressful for the resident using its contractors and she would like the landlord to consider reimbursing the cost of sourcing her own contractors.
5. It said it would update the resident that afternoon.
The resident responded the same day and said the summary above does not cover all her concerns and they would need another conversation to address it all. She chased for an update during December 2023 and January 2024.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 22 January 2024. It apologised for the extreme difficulties she experienced with having her home restored to a satisfactory condition and said:
1. It reviewed the resident’s offer of compensation within its stage 2 response from 16 June 2022 and increased it to £1250. This was comprised of:
  1. £100 for the complaint handling failures.
  2. £150 for the resident’s effort.
  3. £500 for the delays completing the repairs.
  4. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
2. It recognised there were several issues outstanding, some of which related to the original complaint. It agreed to:
  1. Arrange for a named staff member to attend and agree works with the resident to rectify the damages in her home.
  2. Reimburse the quotes provided by the resident’s contractors.
3. It reflected on its actions and should have demonstrated more accountable behaviours to acknowledge that it continued to fail the resident. It summarised the reasons why it offered an increased amount of compensation.
4. It set out actions it had taken to ensure service improvement.

Assessment and findings

Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In investigating this, the Ombudsman considers 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.
The Ombudsman has recently made several orders in other investigations into this landlord about reviewing its repairs service delivery and its knowledge and information management. Ombudsman has therefore not made orders or recommendations around these aspects of service but expects the landlord to take all relevant learning from this case into account going forward.

The landlord’s handling of bathroom repairs, including a broken window.

In accordance with the landlord’s repairs policy, the landlord is obligated to repair and maintain the sanitation facilities in the property. It is also responsible for the windows. It was therefore necessary for the landlord to investigate the resident’s report of issues within the bathroom and to take appropriate action to resolve any repairs it identified.
The resident said she reported the issue with the toilet and window in January 2021. The landlord’s records indicate the resident cancelled the work order to assess the toilet in January 2021 as she was unwell. The toilet was assessed in February 2021. As such, the landlord acted reasonably by attending on the next available date.
Records shows the window contractors closed the work order to assess the bathroom window as they were unable to contact the resident after several attempts, including by letter. The Ombudsman has not been provided with a copy of the letter the window contractor says it sent to the resident. This is a record keeping failure. If a work order was to be closed, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to show consideration of the impact of doing so and evidence that it had explained its position to the resident.
When deciding on how best to proceed with the repair, it is reasonable for a landlord to rely on the conclusions of its appropriately qualified staff and contractors. In this case, the landlord’s contractor concluded that the toilet cistern and pan needed to be replaced. The evidence available shows that the resident did not agree to this and asked for the matter to be escalated.
In June 2021, the landlord explained it would make good after fitting the replacement items and if follow-on work was needed to the flooring, it would ensure this was arranged. It said it would reraise the work order if the resident was willing for the landlord to use the materials it provided. It was reasonable for the landlord to provide more clarification to the resident considering her concerns. The resident did not consent to the works and requested for an investigation to take place to address any underlying issues in the bathroom. The Ombudsman is not questioning the reasons why the resident did not want to proceed with the proposed repairs. However, the landlord would not typically be responsible for the delay caused in this instance.
The landlord has not evidenced what happened with investigations or repairs between July 2021 and when further work orders were raised in April 2022. Further, internal emails indicate the landlord was not sure what happened during the above period. The resident explained inspections took place and works were agreed, but nothing progressed.
Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service, which assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure that outstanding repairs are monitored and managed and enable the landlord to provide accurate information to residents. Landlord and contractor staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these. The landlord’s lack of clarity on the actions of its contractors and state of repairs indicates that there were shortcomings in its record keeping, which subsequently impacted the landlord’s overall communication with its resident and the timeliness of the repairs. This also caused significant frustration and inconvenience to the resident as the landlord did not have records of its previous contractor’s inspection of the bathroom, and so this had to be repeated.
There is little evidence that the landlord gave the resident’s concerns the appropriate attention in the circumstances. The resident contacted it on multiple occasions between February 2022 and June 2022. The landlord failed to set out an action plan with defined timescales or keep her sufficiently updated. Instead, when the resident requested updates, the landlord contacted other staff members and contractors to find out the updated position. It is evident the resident spent more than a reasonable amount of time chasing for updates and trying to progress the repairs. The Ombudsman determines that the communication failings throughout exacerbated the situation, delayed the resolution of the substantive issue, and worsened the impact on the resident. This further undermined the landlord/resident relationship.
The landlord decided that as the previous contractors were no longer involved with the repairs, further inspections were necessary to establish the next actions. While this was frustrating for the resident, in these circumstances it was necessary. The Ombudsman is satisfied the landlord clearly explained this to the resident. However, the Ombudsman is minded this action should have been taken much sooner, considering the repair timescales set out in the landlord’s own policy.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (available on our website) sets out three compensation ranges we consider when determining cases. In the Ombudsman’s view, the compensation initially offered at stage 2 was not proportionate to the circumstances of the case. The increased offer of compensation falls within our highest range of compensation for situations where there has been a severe and long-term impact on the resident. Therefore, the landlord’s revised offer of compensation for its handling of bathroom repairs was in accordance with our guidance.
While the Ombudsman recognises that the landlord increased its compensation offer to an appropriate sum in January 2024, it is a concern that it did so 18 months after the completion of its internal complaint procedure. Additionally, the Ombudsman notes that while the landlord has recently offered to reimburse quotes provided by the resident’s contractors, it has not specified its future repairs liability in relation to these areas of repair. As such, an order has been made for clarification to be provided to the resident.
Overall, the landlord did not treat the resident fairly in the way it handled the bathroom repairs within the property. It acted with a lack of urgency and failed to communicate effectively. There were avoidable delays progressing repairs, a lack of active repair management and poor record keeping. The landlord failed to provide an appropriate level of service which had a detrimental impact on the resident. Furthermore, there were reports of delays and problems completing the repairs in the period after the final response which led to a second complaint, indicating the landlord did not learn sufficient lessons. It also did not offer appropriate compensation within its formal complaints process. This demonstrates a failing to put things right and learn from outcomes. As such, the Ombudsman finds maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to remove moss and debris from the roof.

The Ombudsman finds the landlord gave the resident the correct information within its stage 2 response by confirming that it would only look to get involved with the clearance of moss from the roof if it contributed to any water ingress. This is in line with its obligations under its repairs policy and Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
In the circumstances, it was appropriate for the landlord to arrange for the gutters to be cleared to ensure the moss/debris was not impacting the function of the rainwater goods.
Whilst the landlord should have set out its position sooner, the delay did not significantly impact the overall outcome for the resident. Nonetheless, the Ombudsman has made a finding of service failure in view of the delay.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The resident complained on 7 June 2021. The landlord issued an informal complaint response on 2 July 2021 – over 3 weeks later. The stage 1 response is dated 21 September 2021 – over 11 weeks later. The complaint was escalated to stage 2 on 9 February 2022. The stage 2 response is dated 16 June 2022 – over 18 weeks later.
The landlord’s policy said it always asks a resident whether they want a formal or informal response to a complaint. In this case, there is no evidence the landlord obtained agreement from the resident to deal with her concerns on an informal basis. Further, the landlord’s informal response does not inform the resident of her right to escalate her complaint.
The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord has updated its complaint policy in the period that followed this complaint. It no longer has an informal complaint stage within its internal complaint procedure.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”) is applicable to all member landlords. The Code makes it clear that a landlord must provide early advice to residents regarding their right to access this Service throughout their complaint, not only when the landlord’s complaint process is exhausted. Within this case, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord told the resident about this Service when dealing with the complaint informally. This meant the resident was not aware that she could access our dispute support service for impartial guidance during the initial stages of her complaint. This failed to meet the obligations of the Code.
It is evident the landlord failed to follow its complaint policy which resulted in a protracted process and a lack of clear and meaningful updates. The Code specifies a stage 1 complaint should be finalised in 10 working days, with no more than a further extension of 10 working days. A stage 2 complaint should be finalised within 20 working days, with a further extension of 10 working days if required. These time frames should not be exceeded without good reason. The Code serves to illustrate that this complaint was kept open for an unreasonable duration.
The Ombudsman is minded that the complaint handling delays throughout effectively blocked access to the complaints process and delayed the resident in escalating her complaint to the Housing Ombudsman Service. The landlord’s actions here were not fair or reasonable, and caused confusion, frustration, and distress to the resident. This further compounded the detriment to the resident as she was uncertain as to how seriously the landlord was taking her concerns.
The stage 1 response failed to fully address the resident’s complaints. This was contrary to the Code which states landlords shall address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice where appropriate. This meant that the landlord missed an opportunity to use the formal complaint process to address its failings and put things right.
At stage 2, the landlord acted appropriately by speaking with the resident to understand her concerns and investigating the history of the complaint. It was reasonable for the landlord to identify and apologise for several service failures, summarise the current position, and explain the next steps with the repair works.
The Code states that when responding to a complaint, the remedy offer must clearly set out what will happen and by when, in agreement with the resident where appropriate. Any remedy proposed must be followed through to completion. In this case, the stage 1 response does not set out the outstanding repairs nor confirm a timescale for completion. At stage 2, the remaining works were listed, and the landlord confirmed the resident’s contact details were provided to contractors so the repairs could be arranged. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, in the circumstances it would have been more appropriate for the landlord to take ownership of coordinating the works.
Under the dispute resolution principles, it is good practice for a landlord to evidence learning from a complaint. At stage 1, the landlord said it was working with its contractors to understand the problems and would continue to penalise them for failing its customers whilst supporting them to do better. It also said it was undertaking several actions to ensure it could respond quicker to residents who make a complaint. At stage 2, no learning was identified within the letter to the resident. This was a complaint handling failing.
In January 2024, the landlord wrote to the resident and described adjustments it had implemented to improve its service. This demonstrates the landlord reflected on its actions and made significant changes to its complaints and repairs provision. While these changes are recognised by the Ombudsman, in this case, the landlord should have done more to reference specific learning from the resident’s experience at stage 1 and stage 2, not 18 months after its final complaint response.
The landlord increased its compensation for its complaint handling failures from £50 to £100 in January 2024. It is a concern that this offer was made more than 18 months after the end of the landlord’s internal complaints process. This approach opens questions as to how effectively the landlord is using its complaints process to offer redress and whether resolutions are only being properly considered once a resident has brought a complaint to the Ombudsman.
Considering the failures identified, the missed opportunities to put things right within a reasonable period and the impact on the resident, the Ombudsman finds £100 does not fairly resolve the complaint handling aspect of this case. To this end, an additional £200 compensation has been ordered below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of bathroom repairs, including a broken window.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to remove moss and debris from the roof.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

There were delays progressing repairs and a lack of active repair management, with significant record keeping failures. The landlord repeatedly failed to provide an appropriate level of service which had a detrimental impact on the resident. It also did not offer appropriate compensation for the substantive issue until 18 months after the resident had completed the internal complaint process.
The landlord failed to set out its position at the earliest opportunity following the resident’s report of moss growth/debris on the roof, and her request for its removal. The Ombudsman recognises the landlord acted appropriately by clearing the gutters.
The landlord delayed responding to the complaint at all stages. It did not take sufficient action to put things right for the resident or learn from outcomes. Additionally, it did not make an offer of compensation for its complaint handling failures that reflected the resident’s full experience.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified within this report.
2. Inspect the resident’s property and agree works with the resident to rectify the issues in her home. It must follow up in writing so both parties have a clear understanding of the agreement. A copy of the letter/email must be provided to this Service.
3. Write to the resident to confirm its position regarding its future repair responsibility for works done by the resident’s own contractor(s).
4. Pay the £1250 compensation it had offered in January 2024 (if it has not yet done so).
5. Pay the resident an additional £200 compensation in recognition of the complaint handling failures.
6. Pay the resident £50 compensation in recognition of its service failure in addressing her request for moss removal.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this report.