Hyde Housing Association Limited (202207040)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207040

Hyde Housing Association Limited

26 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs to the bathroom, kitchen, plastering and intercom.
2. The associated complaint and request for compensation.

Scope of investigation

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
In line with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, we may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. In her contact with the Ombudsman, the resident raised concerns regarding the balcony door. The landlord had confirmed to the resident that this was raised after the complaint, so could not be included, but it would investigate it for her. This issue is not something this Service can adjudicate on at this stage. The landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond appropriately through its complaints process. Recommendations have been made below for the landlord to confirm its position in relation to this matter.
The resident has requested compensation for the landlord’s negligence in allowing her child to be exposed to disturbed asbestos. The Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant since 13 October 2021. She lives in a high rise two-bedroom flat with her son.

Summary of events

The resident’s tenancy commenced on 13 October 2021. Within a week, she submitted an informal complaint to the landlord regarding outstanding repairs. She confirmed she knew of these during the viewing in July 2021 but was told they would be completed before signing up. The outstanding repairs highlighted were:
1. The heating did not work.
2. The resident had not been given a key to the electric cupboard.
3. The intercom did not work.
4. The extractor fan in the bathroom did not work, and there were no windows for ventilation.
5. There was no smoke detector on the top floor and no heat sensor in the kitchen.
On 19 October 2021, the landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint. It confirmed it would send the complaint to the Empty Property Team and someone would call her directly to explain the plan to proceed.
On 28 October 2021, the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated as she had not received a response to her informal complaint. She confirmed the heating was fixed and reiterated the concerns she raised in her informal complaint. The following issues were added to her complaint:
1. There were stains on the ceiling which she had been told were from a previous leak. As a result, the walls and ceiling were peeling.
2. She wanted to know which rooms had asbestos in the ceilings. She said she had asked for this information but had not received a response.
The landlord responded via email the same day and confirmed the complaint had been escalated to a formal complaint. The resident was told a team member would call her to discuss her complaint. She was advised there could be a delay in the call as it was experiencing high contact from residents.
On 16 November 2021, the landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint. It confirmed it would arrange an inspection and for the outstanding repairs to be raised. The landlord told the resident it would reply by 1 December 2021. The landlord’s internal records confirm this email was followed with a request for an inspection of the property and an update on the intercom.
The landlord confirmed on 17 November 2021 that it had closed the intercom issue on its tracker. It stated that if the repair had to be tracked through to completion, a further request was required.
The intercom was assessed on 19 November 2021 but could not be fully resolved as a new phone was needed. This was ordered the same day.
On 26 November 2021 and 1 December 2021, the landlord sent internal emails to ask if the resident had been contacted following the inspection.
On 2 December 2021, the landlord told the resident it was still waiting for the surveyor’s inspection report and that it had sent an urgent chase. A holding response was sent to resident who replied highlighting her concern with the time it was taking. She said she had only received contact regarding the key and intercom, however both issues remained outstanding. She advised that if these issues were not resolved, she would progress her complaint.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 3 December 2021. It asked for photographs of the issues that were outstanding and advised it would review these and arrange what works could be done. It confirmed an inspection had been arranged for 7 December 2021.
On 6 December 2021, the resident informed the landlord that the intercom was still not fixed. The landlord sent an internal email asking for a date as to when this would be investigated.
On 8 December 2021, the landlord chased the findings of the surveying inspection from the previous day and asked what action would be taken. It also chased a response regarding the intercom.
The landlord received confirmation on 9 December 2021 that the parts were available for the intercom. The contractor stated it had tried to contact the resident to make an appointment but had left a voicemail. The landlord chased this again on 21 December 2021 and received the information required and the actions taken to date.
On 22 December 2021, the landlord emailed the resident to confirm it was still chasing the results from the surveyor’s inspection. It apologised that the intercom was still not working. The landlord sent a second holding letter to the resident, stating it would contact her in the next couple of days.
The resident responded on 23 December 2021 and confirmed she had been contacted about the intercom. She said she was unclear why none of the work that had been upheld had been completed.
Visits were made to repair the intercom on 8 January and 10 January 2022 however the resident was not at home to allow access.
On 17 January 2022, the resident asked the landlord for an update. She asked for her complaint to be escalated due to the delay in repairs, and the time taken to respond to her complaint. She asked for the escalation to include her original complaint, plus the lack of communication and ongoing delays. The landlord agreed to call her on 18 January 2022 to discuss her email, but the resident stated it did not change the escalation request date.
The landlord returned to the property on 20 January 2022, to repair the intercom, however no further progress was made. The resident told the engineer the parts required had already been ordered.
On 25 January 2022, the landlord spoke to the resident who confirmed the electric cupboard key had still not been provided. The landlord sent an internal email asking how the complaint could be progressed. It was confirmed a meeting was to be held with the contractor, then feedback would be given.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 26 January 2022, who confirmed an inspection had been completed but no further progress had been made. The resident stated she wanted the work completing immediately as she was looking to escalate the complaint.
On 27 January 2022, the landlord returned to the property to replace the faulty handset, however the resident was on her way out. An appointment was made for 31 January 2022, however there was no access to the property on this date.
On 2 February 2022, a further visit was made to repair the intercom. A new handset was fitted however it did not work and a different style of handset had to be ordered.
The landlord sent a third holding letter to the resident on 2 February 2022 with the aim of responding by 14 February 2022. The resident highlighted this had added another 2 weeks to the deadline. She confirmed her request to escalate made on 17 January 2022 remained. She stated the landlord was not following its own complaint process and the response to her stage 2 complaint was due by 15 February 2022. The landlord confirmed receipt of the email and told her it would discuss it with management then provide an update.
Via an internal email, the landlord confirmed it had inspected the property on 2 February 2022 and confirmed the following:
1. The walls and ceilings had been affected by leaks and the resident was unable to decorate. There was no evidence of a live leak or signs of historic leaks. The kitchen of the flat above appeared watertight.
2. It would paper the ceiling of the hallway with lining paper only and would stain block and paint the storage cupboard.
3. It would paper the rear bedroom wall only and ceiling with lining paper.
4. It would install an extractor fan in the bathroom.
5. It would raise a request to overhaul the intercom.
On 14 February 2022, the landlord spoke to the resident and provided its stage 1 complaint response. The complaint response confirmed the issues raised by the resident. It confirmed an inspection had been conducted, but no further progress had been made. A second inspection had been completed and as a result, the landlord confirmed:
1. It would arrange for an electric box key to be provided.
2. It would overhaul the intercom.
3. It would install a fan in the bathroom and a heat sensor in the kitchen.
4. It would paper the hallway ceiling and bedroom ceiling with lining paper and would paper the rear bedroom wall with lining paper.
5. No works were required to address asbestos.
6. There was no evidence of a leak from the property above and when the property was handed over, it was in a lettable condition. It did not uphold this element of the complaint based on the records and pictures of the property when it was handed over.
7. It had not been proactive in its response and communication with the resident. It upheld this aspect of the complaint and offered £50 for the time and trouble pursuing the matter, and £50 for the stress, delay and inconvenience caused. The resident agreed to the compensation.
On 15 February 2022, the landlord sent an internal request asking for the resident to be updated every 2 weeks from the date of the stage 1 response.
On the same day, 15 February 2022, an engineer attended to fit a new handset for the intercom. Although the new handset rang, the audio was only one way. Access to the electric cupboard was not possible so a return visit was needed. This took place on 16 February 2022, however the repair remained outstanding.
On 8 March 2022, the resident emailed the landlord. She stated she had not received any contact regarding the repairs agreed in the stage 1 complaint response. She stated the landlord had not allowed her to escalate the complaint to stage 2 as it was “not Hyde’s procedure”. She said she had been told the compensation was solely for the delay in the complaint response. She said she had raised concerns with the contents of the letter but had been asked to wait 2 weeks so the repairs could be done. She confirmed the only repairs that had been completed were the heat sensors in the kitchen and the electric box key had been provided. The resident stated she had also discovered there had been a massive leak a few years previously that had also affected the property below her. The resident asked the landlord to accept her email as an escalation request to stage 2.
On 6 July 2022, the resident emailed the landlord. She highlighted 5 months had passed and she had not received any contact regarding the repairs or her escalation request. She told the landlord she had contacted the Ombudsman as the landlord had not kept to the agreements made.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 26 August 2022, before sending the complaint escalation acknowledgement. It confirmed it would aim to respond by 22 September 2022.
On 23 September 2022, the resident confirmed she had not received any contact regarding her stage 2 complaint. The landlord replied and apologised that the repairs were still outstanding. It confirmed a meeting had been arranged for 27 September 2022, and a call would be made to her on 28 September 2022.
The landlord and resident exchanged several emails on 26 September 2022. The landlord confirmed a contractor was attending on 27 September 2022. It also asked if she had heard anything regarding the intercom. The resident said the contractor had confirmed it was an inspection only. She confirmed the intercom had been repaired but was still intermittent. The landlord confirmed it had sent a further request for the intercom to be looked at again.
On 4 October 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to advise no one had turned up to do any of the work agreed. She said she did not have time to keep waiting in for appointments for them to be missed. She also asked for a response to her stage 2 complaint stating the deadline was well overdue.
The following day, on 5 October 2022, the landlord called the resident and followed up with an email that confirmed a meeting had been arranged for 7 October 2022 in relation to the repairs. It advised it would call her after the meeting.
On 19 October 2022, the resident emailed the landlord. She had expected a visit that day from an engineer and manager to look at the repairs from her complaint, but only the engineer attended. He confirmed he was there to look at the leaking tap, the sink and to inspect the ceiling due to the leak. He had been asked to take photographs and provide recommendations. The resident confirmed she repaired the leaking tap herself due to high water bills, and someone had already attended for the sink. The engineer took photographs of the sink and ceiling and said he would speak to his manager and come back. He returned with the manager on the phone who spoke to the resident:
1. He had been told she had some issues with “decorative” repairs and the sink. The resident maintained these were not “decorative” repairs and she had made this clear in her complaint.
2. He asked her what she wanted them to do. The resident questioned why this was still being asked after all the complaints she had been made.
3. He said the fan was working. The engineer had suggested it just needed cleaning. He said all the fans were communal so were linked, but when the engineer pulled the lever, nothing happened.
4. The resident told the manager she asked for an asbestos check shortly after moving in due to the peeling ceiling in her son’s bedroom. She said he told her he would not send his team in without an asbestos check.
5. The resident said the engineer suggested that the ceiling should be scraped and skimmed, but the manager said to patch and apply filler only. The resident said all suggested works were refused and was told notes would be fed back to the landlord so it could decide what repairs could be done.
6. The resident then said a plumber visited unannounced that day. He told her he had been informed her taps had been fitted with duct tape. He suggested the taps needed replacing and said the enamel had been damaged by the leak, but the manager had said enamel is not a repair.
7. In summary, the resident confirmed she had been told the work agreed in the response would not be done. She had not received a response to the stage 2 holding letter and the issues in the complaint had not been addressed or dealt with.
On 21 October 2022, the landlord sent the resident a holding response to her stage 2 complaint. The landlord apologised and confirmed it needed more time to check the detail. It informed the resident it was obtaining all the information needed to provide a full response to her complaint as well as confirming the actions it was committed to delivering. It aimed to respond in full by 5 November 2022.
On 26 October 2022, the landlord asked for a call to be made to the resident with appointments for 1 November 2022. These were for an electrician to repair/renew the fan and a plasterer to plaster the son’s bedroom and hallway ceilings. The plasterer was to return on 11 November 2022 to apply mist coat.
The electrician attended on 1 November 2022, to overhaul the extractor fan. The plasterer also attended however the resident had stated she had not been aware of the appointment and had not cleared the bedroom. The appointment was rearranged for 11 November 2022 with a follow up appointment on 18 November 2022 as requested by the resident. The landlord’s internal records show it had confirmed the new appointments with the resident and the case was now closed. It asked for a call to be made to confirm the appointment for the replacement grill and cover for the extractor fan.
On 2 November 2022, the landlord called the resident before sending the stage 2 response. The response confirmed the following:
1. The contractors had confirmed all the works had been booked in with the resident.
2. It had reviewed the resident’s experience and agreed it did not respond quickly enough to the repairs reported. It acknowledged the number of times it had let the resident down, and that the landlord and contractors had failed to follow the repairs through to a conclusion in a timely manner.
3. After the complaint had been submitted, it failed to address the issues raised appropriately and it did not enforce the internal complaint process correctly.
4. It was deeply sorry it took so long and appreciated why the resident felt let down. Its records showed how often she had contacted the landlord to ask for the situation to be managed with more urgency. Despite the efforts of individuals, it had not been able to find evidence to confirm the matter had been managed proactively with clear communication to the resident.
5. It confirmed the stage 1 response acknowledged it should have responded to the repairs much sooner, and £100 compensation was awarded in recognition of the poor service received.
6. The Ombudsman had contacted the landlord to confirm the resident was not happy as the repairs were still outstanding and the compensation was not acceptable. The landlord escalated the complaint.
7. The compensation was increased to £250, and was made up of the following:
  1. £50 for the delay in acknowledgement and formal complaint responses.
  2. £50 for the complaint handling failures and patience throughout.
  3. £100 for the time and trouble.
  4. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused.

In relation to the repairs, the landlord confirmed:

An operative attended on 19 August 2022. He advised he would patch repair the ceiling and block the hole under the sink, but the resident had highlighted the ceiling needed to be replastered. The manager had asked her what she wanted doing regarding the repairs.
On 26 October 2022, the resident had confirmed that she had repaired the tap and had removed the duct tape following the repair.
On 1 November 2022, the extractor fan was overhauled, and an order placed to renew the grill and cover.
As a gesture of goodwill, the landlord would plaster the hallway and son’s bedroom ceiling. Although this has been arranged for 26 October 2022, the resident had said she had not been aware of the appointment. This was re-arranged to 11 November 2022 and 18 November 2022 to mist coat.
The intercom had yet to be repaired as there was an issue with the communal intercom. The system was outdated and a new one was required. An update would be added to the resident notice board within the next 8 weeks after it was confirmed if a consultation exercise was needed.
A manager was to oversee the commitments made to ensure all repairs were completed to a good standard and within the timeframe.

The landlord’s internal records show the compensation payment was processed on 8 November 2022.
On 15 January 2023, the resident contacted the Ombudsman to ask for her complaint to be referred. She stated that the repairs agreed by the landlord were still outstanding and she had not received any contact to explain how the repairs would be progressed. There was still confusion regarding the asbestos which had contributed to delays. As a resolution, the resident asked for:
1. The repairs agreed to be completed.
2. The bathroom sink and taps to be replaced and the hole in the wall covered appropriately.
3. Compensation for high water bills, inability to uphold the resolutions confirmed in the final response letter and the 5 days annual leave taken to allow for appointments, but where no work took place.
4. The landlord to address why it felt appropriate to leave her in a property with disturbed ceilings containing asbestos yet would not allow its team to complete any work.
5. The landlord to pay her compensation so she could find an alternative company to complete the work if the landlord cannot uphold the works.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s complaint policy states:
1. For complaints that do not need a formal investigation, the resident may choose the informal complaint route. It would aim to respond in 5 working days.
2. It will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 2 working days and aim to respond within 10 working days. It aims to respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. In exceptional circumstances, an additional 10 working days may be needed. If additional time is needed, the resident will be informed, and a new date given.
The landlord’s lettable standard states it will:
1. Ensure walls, skirting boards and ceilings are free of nails, screws and are ready for decorating (some minor filling may be required).
2. Ensure the property has meters, whenever possible, and there is a key for the meter box.
3. Provide a method of ventilation either by opening windows, or by a clean and working extractor fan.
4. Provide a working smoke detector in the hall and on each floor and a wired heat sensor in the kitchen.
The resident’s tenancy agreement states:
1. The landlord will repair certain parts of the inside of the property such as walls and ceilings, but not painting and decoration and plasterwork (not minor cracks).
2. The resident is entitled to compensation if the landlord fails to carry out a repair within set times, without good reason.
The landlord’s repairs procedure states it will attend to emergency repairs within 4 hours and routine repairs within 20 working days.

Repairs to the bathroom, kitchen, plastering and intercom.

The resident raised concerns regarding the property shortly after moving in. The landlord confirmed it would send the issues to the Empty Property Team, however there is no evidence to confirm the resident was contacted. The Ombudsman has seen photographic evidence which confirmed signs of a leak in the bedroom ceiling prior to the property being repaired. Post inspection photographs suggest repairs were completed to the ceiling, but there is no evidence of a post inspection to confirm if the property met the lettable standard. It would therefore have been appropriate for it to have inspected the property at this early stage. This would have allowed the landlord the opportunity to address the issues early and to stop matters escalating.
The landlord confirmed its knowledge of the outstanding issues in the complaint acknowledgement on 16 November 2021. It told the resident it would arrange an inspection and for the outstanding repairs to be raised. Although an inspection was requested, this was not arranged until 7 December 2021 which was 2 months after the issues were first reported. The Ombudsman finds this timescale was unreasonable and contributed to the delays in repairs being addressed and frustration to the resident. There is no evidence to confirm what was discussed and agreed as a result of the inspection. There is no evidence of any repairs being raised following this inspection or any communication to the resident. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to determine if the landlord met its obligations at this time.
It is clear from the landlord’s records that from 16 November 2021 to 2 February 2022, the complaint team tried to obtain updates on the repairs and progress the complaint. There is evidence of a lack of internal communication which led to delays, unclear actions, and a lack of communication to the resident. It is evident the resident was not happy with the lack of action, but the landlord did not provide her with any reassurance that it was trying to resolve the issues.
On 2 February 2022, the landlord inspected the property for a second time. It is not clear from the evidence received why a second inspection was required, and no evidence that this was explained to the resident. Without this explanation or supporting evidence, it is questionable if this was necessary or if this delayed matters further without good reason.
In the landlord’s February 2022 stage 1 complaint response, it confirmed the repairs it would carry out. It is noted that it did not provide any timescales for these to be done. In appreciation of the wait the resident had already experienced, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to provide a timetable of the work. This would have set expectations, reduced the need for her to contact the landlord for updates and saved her time and inconvenience in chasing appointments.
Three weeks after the stage 1 response, the resident confirmed she had not heard anything regarding the repairs except for the electric key, and heat sensor in the kitchen which had been resolved. There is no evidence of a response being sent to the resident, and in July 2022 the resident had still not been contacted. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this is unreasonable and demonstrates poor contact management by the landlord. It also raises concern regarding the landlord’s ability to track and monitor progress of repairs through to completion.
Although the complaint was at stage 2 of the process, by September 2022, the resident had to contact the landlord again as the repairs were still outstanding. It is expected that the landlord has effective monitoring in place to ensure repairs are appointed and completed within the timescales outlined in its repair procedure. There is no evidence this was in place and there was a lack of communication with the resident. If the landlord had agreed to complete the repairs included in the stage 1 response, then it is expected these should be conducted in a reasonable timeframe. The landlord informed the resident a meeting was to be held to discuss the repairs. It was not explained why a meeting was needed 7 months after the landlord had committed to repairs.
There is evidence from the resident of missed appointments which led to her missing time from work. She was told there was a meeting on 7 October 2022 in relation to the repairs. As there was apparently already a meeting in September 2022, it is unclear from the evidence why this additional meeting was required and what was causing the delays. There is no evidence as to whether the reasons for this further meeting were relayed to the resident, and if she received a call with the outcome.
There is evidence of a continued lack of clarity regarding the repairs following a visit to the property on 19 October 2022. The resident has now received several home visits to inspect the problems, but little work has been completed. The repeated inspections, continuous delays, poor decision making, communication and record keeping and inconvenience caused to the resident demonstrate an inability on the part of the landlord to effectively manage the repairs.
There is evidence of further delays due to the lack of records regarding the asbestos within the property. The Ombudsman has seen evidence of an asbestos report dated July 2021. The resident confirmed a test was completed in February 2022, but the landlord said it could not find a report. The delays linked to the asbestos findings caused concern to the resident. After being told the ceilings did contain asbestos, she was worried about being left in the property with disturbed ceilings. It is unclear from the evidence what the current position is in relation to the asbestos and if the plastering work has been completed. It is expected that up-to-date reports are readily available so repairs are not unnecessarily delayed. It is therefore recommended the landlord reviews its record keeping and communication with its contractors in relation to such matters.
The final response letter from the landlord confirmed its commitment in relation to the outstanding repairs required. It is again noted that the landlord did not provide any dates as to when the work would be completed. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to provide these and, in doing so, offer the resident with reassurance that the repairs would be promptly carried out. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence to confirm the outstanding repairs have been completed.
The Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the repairs to the bathroom, hallway, kitchen, and intercom. The landlord did identify and acknowledge its failings in its final response and committed to putting things right for the resident. It is evident however that this commitment was not fulfilled and in January 2023, the resident confirmed to this Service the repairs were still outstanding.
There is evidence of poor record keeping, ineffective repair management, a lack of accountability and poor internal communication. Several inspections and meetings took place, which were reasonable, but were delayed without good reason or explanation to the resident. Although the landlord did offer compensation, it was not at the level the Ombudsman would expect given the extent of the failures identified. Further detail is included later in the report.

The associated complaint and request for compensation.

The landlord acknowledged receipt of the resident’s informal complaint in October 2021. Although the landlord’s complaint policy states it would respond within 5 working days, there is no evidence this happened. The landlord missed the opportunity to resolve the issues at an early stage and as a result, the complaint was escalated to a formal complaint.
The landlord did not acknowledge receipt of the stage 1 complaint until 16 November 2021. This was 13 working days after it was received and was outside of the landlord’s timescale to acknowledge a complaint. The landlord told the resident it would complete a full investigation and reply to her by 1 December 2021. This would be 24 working days after the complaint was first submitted. This timescale is not in line with the landlord’s own complaint policy, or the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). Without an apology to the resident, or an explanation to justify the delay, the Ombudsman finds this unreasonable.
The landlord apparently sent holding letters on 2 December and 22 December 2021. It is expected that the landlord provides the resident with an expected response date. This in turn should reduce the time and inconvenience imposed on the resident in contacting the landlord for updates. The Ombudsman is unable to verify if this information was given, as copies of the holding letters were not provided as evidence.
Due to the delays, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint, however she stated the landlord refused. The Ombudsman does not dispute this, however there is no evidence of this communication between the parties. We are therefore unable to determine the reasons behind the landlord’s refusal.
A third holding response was sent to the resident on 2 February 2022. The landlord confirmed its knowledge that the issues raised were still outstanding. Although no explanation was given for the continued delay in the response and repairs, the landlord said it aimed to respond on 14 February 2022. By this time, the complaint had been open for 66 working days. No repairs had been completed, and despite the chasers from the resident, no reasons were given to explain this. The Ombudsman finds the continued and unexplained delay unreasonable.
The stage 1 response was sent 74 working days after it was initially submitted. This was outside of the timescales outlined in the landlord’s complaint policy, and the timescales recommended in the Code. It is noted the landlord apologised for not being proactive in responding and communicating in a timely manner. It offered £100 in compensation for the delay. It addressed the complaint in full and committed to a series of repairs. However, as previously outlined, to provide the resident with assurance as to when the work would be completed, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to confirm appointment dates for the work.
On 8 March 2022, the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated. There is no evidence to confirm this was acknowledged. On 6 July 2022, the resident spent more time and effort sending a further email to the landlord. She confirmed she had not received a response to her previous escalation request, or regarding the repairs. The landlord acknowledged the escalation on 26 August 2022 and told the resident it would aim to respond by 22 September 2022. The landlord did not apologise or explain the reason for the delay in acknowledging the complaint. The acknowledgement took 119 working days from when it was first requested and 82 working days after the resident’s second request. While adding to the frustration of the resident, the Ombudsman finds this delay and lack of communication unreasonable and raises concerns regarding the effectiveness of complaint handling.
There is no evidence to confirm the final response was sent on 22 September 2022 as advised by the landlord. This caused further time and inconvenience for the resident who contacted the landlord for an update. The landlord emailed the resident to apologise the repairs were still outstanding. In line with the Code, the complaint response should not be delayed while waiting for the completion of repairs. It would have been appropriate to provide a holding response or a response which included a schedule of work that could be tracked to completion.
A holding response was sent on 21 October 2022. This was 76 working days from the acknowledgement letter, and 21 working days from when the landlord told the resident it would respond. The landlord said it had hoped to respond by 7 October 2022, but it needed more time to check the detail. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to inform the resident of the delay as soon as it was known. There are concerns regarding the landlord’s ability to effectively manage complaints and meet the deadlines set within the policy and the Code. The resident was left continuously without a response or communication. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this is unreasonable.
The final response letter was sent 166 working days from the resident’s first request to escalate her complaint, and 84 working days after her second request in July. The landlord’s response was significantly outside of the required timescales and against raises concern around the landlord’s complaint handling and compliance with the Code.
The Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the handling of the associated complaint handling. The landlord missed the opportunity to reply at the informal complaint stage which caused the escalation to a formal complaint. Throughout the complaint process, the landlord failed to acknowledge and respond within timescale and without justification. The landlord demonstrated poor complaint handling which resulted in flawed communications, missed deadlines, and increased time, trouble, and inconvenience for the resident chasing for updates. The landlord was non-compliant with the Code at each stage of the process. It is accepted that the landlord identified its own service failures within its final response, but although it did commit to completing the work, there is evidence to suggest it did not effectively follow up on this work.
The landlord offered £100 compensation at stage 1 of the complaints process and £250 at the final stage of the complaints process. These amounts were partially related to the complaint handling failings and in recognition of the impact of its failings but it is unclear if this was related to the impact of complaint handling failings or the delays in completing the substantive repairs. In any case, this compensation was below the amount that the Ombudsman would recommend given the significant repairs delays, the impact on the resident’s living conditions and the extent of the complaint handling failure.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the repairs to the bathroom, kitchen, plastering and the intercom.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the handling of the associated complaint and request for compensation.

Reasons

Repairs to bathroom and kitchen, plastering work and the intercom.

The landlord failed to complete the work once agreed and there were unexplained delays throughout. The landlord’s record keeping, decision making, unexplained delays and poor communication have contributed to the findings within this report. The landlord has not evidenced that all outstanding repairs have been completed.

The associated complaint and request for compensation.

The landlord missed the opportunity to respond to the issues promptly through the informal complaint process. Throughout the process, the landlord did not comply with the timescales outlined within its own complaint policy and was not compliant with the Code. There was evidence of ineffective complaint handling, record keeping and a lack of communication to the resident. This in turn created more inconvenience, time, and effort spent by the resident. The landlord’s compensation offers were insufficient given the circumstances of the case.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. Provide the resident with a sincere apology for the failings identified within this report. The apology should come from a member of the senior management team.
2. Pay the resident £800 compensation in total. This includes the £250 already offered within the final response (if not already paid) and should be increased to reflect the following:
  1. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the service failures in relation to repairs.
  2. £300 for the service failures identified with the complaint handling.
The additional £550 compensation ordered by the Ombudsman should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against her rent account.
Provide confirmation that all repairs within the property have been completed. If any repairs remain outstanding, the landlord should provide the resident and this Service with a full schedule of works, appointment dates for when the work is to be completed and a direct contact for the resident to liaise with pending completion of those works.
The landlord must reply to this Service within this timescale to evidence compliance with these orders.
In recent determinations made by the Ombudsman (such as case 202121443), we have already made orders that the landlord reviews its knowledge and information management practices, so this has not been repeated here.

Recommendations

In recent determinations made by the Ombudsman (such as case 202205351), we have already made recommendations that the landlord reviews its complaint handling practices. It should ensure it recognises and responds to complaints within the relevant timeframes. As a result, this recommendation has not been repeated here, but the landlord should demonstrate actions taken to address this.
The landlord should review its process regarding the storage of asbestos related information to ensure it is easily accessible.
The landlord should provide confirmation to this Service that the balcony door has been replaced. If this is still outstanding, the landlord should provide confirmation of the appointment date to the resident and this Service.
The landlord should reply to this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this report to confirm its actions against these recommendations.