Islington and Shoreditch Housing Association Limited (202210184)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210184

Islington and Shoreditch Housing Association Limited

16 February 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 repairs following the resident moving into a mutual exchange property.
The Ombudsman has decided to consider the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident lives in a 2-bedroom ground floor flat. She moved into the property by mutual exchange on 26 April 2021.
The resident first reported repair issues with the property from May 2021.
On 29 June 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord expressing dissatisfaction at the landlord’s lack of action to complete repairs.
Between July 2021 until June 2022, the landlord completed repairs in the property and the resident continued raising concerns about the repairs service, particularly delays.
On 26 July 2022, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. She complained that repairs to her property were still outstanding. She added that several staff who were involved in repairs for her property had left the organisation.
On 10 August 2022, the landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response. In summary it said:
1. It was aware there were multiple repair issues after the resident moved into the property.
2. There were several missed appointments and a lack of communication from its contractors. It apologised for this.
3. A surveyor inspected the property and further repairs were raised.
4. It completed repairs which it was not responsible for by way of recompense.
5. It was aware of an ongoing issue with an external wall, and this was being addressed with its insurers.
6. It offered the resident £1,311.42 to settle the rent arrears on the resident’s rent account. It offered a further £2,000 for the disruption caused to the resident through the period of the repairs.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 29 August 2022. She was dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered and felt it was not reflective of the inconvenience caused.
The landlord issued its final complaint response on 25 November 2022. In summary it said:
1. It would not offer additional compensation as it felt the offer at stage 1 put things right.
2. It completed tens of thousands of pounds worth of discretionary works to the resident’s home including fitting a new kitchen and bathroom. It was not obliged to do these, but did to make up for previous failings.
3. Although there were snagging issues, the bathroom and kitchen were fully operable by November 2022.
4. The landlord was aware of concerns with a structural wall in the resident’s garden since 2015. This was being monitored and lawyers were addressing ownership. Surveyors would attend soon.
The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 3 April 2023. She was dissatisfied with the length of time the repairs took to complete, the lack of communication from the landlord, and the level of compensation. As a resolution, she is seeking financial compensation in the range of £5,000-£7,500.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs following the resident moving into a mutual exchange property.

The Ombudsman considers it good practice for landlords to complete an inspection before a mutual exchange takes place. If essential works or repairs are required to the property before the move, the landlord should determine whose responsibility these are, and communicate this to the resident.
The landlord advised that it completed an electrical and gas test to the property before the resident moved in. However, it said it had no records to confirm whether an inspection of the property took place. This was unsatisfactory. Had the landlord completed an inspection, both parties would have understood what repairs were required at the onset of the mutual exchange.
The resident first reported repairs shortly after she moved into the property. Given the number of repairs reported and the evidence available, it is difficult to confirm precisely the time taken to complete every repair the resident complained of. However, the Ombudsman has considered the evidence available in relation to the main repairs reported. These will be addressed in turn below.
Following the landlord’s inspection of the property on 19 May 2021, it identified that the kitchen floor was saturated following a historic leak and required replacing. In addition, it noted that there were outstanding electrical works. It was appropriate for the landlord to raise a work order for repairs on 24 May 2021.
The landlord’s complaint response advised that the electrical repairs were completed outside of its timescales. However, the landlord failed to maintain records confirming when the works were completed. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to see the extent of the delays. Clear record-keeping is a core function of a housing service as it assists the landlord in fulfilling its obligations.
Records show that the landlord cancelled an appointment for the kitchen floor replacement in May 2021. However, it did not record a reason why this was cancelled. Further delays were caused by contractors attending on repeat occasions to measure up the floor. The flooring was eventually replaced on 25 August 2021, 3 months after it identified the need for the repair.
In instances where landlords experience delays to complete repairs, communication with residents is essential to keep them updated and maintain good relations. It was unacceptable that the landlord did not update the resident when the electric works and flooring repairs were delayed. The Ombudsman identified that poor communications was a consistent theme throughout most repairs. This led to the resident incurring time and trouble chasing the landlord for updates.
Landlord records show that the resident contacted the landlord on several occasions about repairs caused by subsidence. On 25 June 2021, she reported uneven paving slabs at the front and back of her garden, 2 large cracks in her kitchen wall, and her garden wall crumbling away. Following this report, the landlord thought the jobs were with its contractor. However, records show that this was not the case. The landlord should have clearly communicated with its contractor about the repairs it expected them to complete to avoid uncertainty.
On 3 November 2021, the landlord visited the property and identified the resident’s garden walkway was a trip hazard and health and safety issue. This was 5 months after the resident initially raised the concern. A job was raised with a target date for completion by 1 December 2021. However, records do not confirm that the repair was completed. The landlord’s lack of clear records was unacceptable.
Repairs to address the cracks on the resident’s kitchen wall were completed on 7 November 2022. Records suggest that a surveyor attended the property to inspect the cracks prior to this repair being completed. However, the findings of the inspection were not documented. In the absence of an explanation following the surveyor’s inspection, 12 months to complete repairs to the cracks was unreasonable.
The Ombudsman has been unable to confirm whether the reported crumbling garden wall was repaired. However, the resident advised that she has ongoing safety concerns about the structure of the garden wall. The landlord supplied information which suggested the landlord did not own the wall. However, as the resident raised concerns about its condition and potential safety risks, the landlord is recommended to risk assess this.
Aside from delays to complete repairs in the resident’s property, the Ombudsman identified good practice where the landlord completed repairs and works to the property which fell outside of its obligations.
The Ombudsman understands that the resident removed her kitchen (including all fittings and fixtures) whilst she was waiting for her kitchen floor to be replaced. She subsequently removed her bathroom. The landlord was not informed of her decision to uninstall these rooms. The landlord’s repairs responsibilities guidance outlines that the landlord was not responsible for providing a complete replacement of her kitchen and bathroom. However, it decided to install a new kitchen and bathroom as a gesture of good will following its previous repairs failings. The Ombudsman considers this a positive action to put things right for the resident and to improve the landlord-tenant relationship.
It is noted that the landlord replaced the resident’s boiler when the kitchen was being overhauled to avoid future inconvenience and redecorating works. In addition, it replaced the fuse box following a leak from the above property. Within its complaint response, the landlord reiterated that it had previously let down the resident which informed its decision to complete the additional works. It was appropriate for the landlord to identify where its service had fallen short and to take action to put things right for the resident.
The landlord identified snagging repairs which caused delays for the kitchen and bathroom to be completed. The outstanding works included handles to be added to cupboards, a lock to be added to the bathroom door, and strip lighting to be installed under the kitchen cabinets. The kitchen and bathroom were confirmed as fully functioning by November 2022. Although there were delays for the final repairs to be completed, the landlord exceeded its obligations by agreeing to fit the new bathroom and kitchen.
After the resident removed her bathroom and kitchen, she stayed with her daughter temporarily. The landlord advised in its stage 1 response that the resident and a surveying manager agreed to settle the resident’s rent arrears of £1,311.42 due to the disruption caused.
When considering how the landlord responded to the complaint, the Ombudsman considers not just what has gone wrong, but also what the landlord has done to put things right in response to a complaint. This includes steps the landlord has taken to address the shortcoming, prevent a reoccurrence, as well as any compensation offered.
The landlord’s compensation guidance outlines that it can award compensation payments where a person has experienced a delay, if it has failed to carry out a service within its timeframes, for right to repair, home loss, right to improve and disrepair. The landlord may consider practical action to resolve a dispute to remedy an adverse effect instead of providing financial compensation.
Within its complaint responses the landlord acknowledged there had been a lack of communication from its contractors to the resident about the repairs, delays, missed appointments, and a high turnover of staff which impacted the service the resident received. The landlord acknowledged its failings and the associated distress this had on the resident. It apologised for this which was appropriate.
The landlord offered the resident £2,000 in addition to the £1,311.42 credit to her rent account. Further, it completed extensive works to the resident’s property at its discretion and own cost. These actions were in line with its compensation guidance.
The landlord was transparent in its reasoning for not offering a higher award of compensation to the resident and explained it had spent “tens of thousands” on improvement works to the resident’s home.
The compensation offer and remedial works completed by the landlord were significant. As such, the Ombudsman considers the offer proportionate to put things right for the resident. In addition, the landlord indicated what it had learned from the complaint referring to the need for better communication. It also noted it had changed its contractors. In doing so, the landlord has offered appropriate redress to resolve the complaint and acted in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles:
1. Be fair.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.
Overall, while the compensation was less than the resident hoped for, it was proportionate to the circumstances of the complaint and in accordance with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance.

The landlord’s record keeping

As part of this investigation, the landlord was requested to provide relevant information that would reasonably be recorded and retained by the landlord. The documentation provided was limited. For example, its repair logs lacked detail as has been identified throughout this report. As such, the Ombudsman was unable to conclude what actions the landlord took in response to a number of repairs.
In addition, the landlord failed to record how or when it arrived at the rent account credit amount of £1,311.42 which was offered to the resident within the landlord’s stage 1 and 2 complaint responses. It was particularly concerning that when the Ombudsman queried how this figure was reached, the landlord said it “never agreed” to the rent rebate. The landlord should ensure it maintains clear records of what is agreed through its complaint process. Given the contradictory information, the landlord is ordered to confirm to the Ombudsman its intentions regarding awarding the £1,311.42 to the resident’s rent account.
Clear record-keeping is a core function of a housing service, not only so a landlord can provide information to the Ombudsman when requested, but also because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its obligations. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management says that “failings to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action.” These failings were evident in this case. As such, the landlord is ordered to review its existing databases to ensure it can capture required information.
Due to the above failings, the Ombudsman has identified maladministration with the landlord’s record keeping and has made orders in this regard.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress regarding the landlord’s handling of repairs following the resident moving into a mutual exchange property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration regarding the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to review its existing databases to ensure it can capture required information, and train staff on using the systems in line with this service’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (available at: KIM-report-v2-100523.pdf (housing-ombudsman.org.uk)). The landlord should share its findings with this service.
The landlord is ordered to confirm to the Ombudsman its intentions regarding the £1,311.42 offer to the resident’s rent account which was agreed through the complaints process.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.

Recommendations

The landlord is recommended to re–offer the resident £2,000 compensation as offered in its final complaint response (if not already paid).
The landlord is recommended to apply the £1,311.42 credit to her rent account as offered in its final complaint response (if not already applied).
The landlord is recommended to complete a risk assessment of the resident’s garden wall.