Islington Council (202222432)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222432

Islington Council

31 October 2023

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to:
  1. Repairs to paving slabs.
  2. Electrical repairs.
  3. Reports of a leak and associated works.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord, a local authority. The tenancy commenced in July 2000.
The property is a 1 bedroom ground floor flat.
The landlord’s records state that the resident has limited mobility, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), heart issues and learning difficulties.
In February 2020 the resident raised a stage 1 complaint about a leak to his property and the landlord issued a review response in April. It had awarded £625 compensation which was credited to his account. The resident did not escalate his complaint. This report has therefore focussed on events after that date and complaints which had exhausted the internal complaints process.

Summary of events

Having received a report of a leak, the landlord raised a works order on 28 January 2021 for a roofer to inspect and rectify a recurring leak coming through the ceiling during heavy rain. The job is shown as cancelled but also has a start date of 5 February logged against it.
On 15 February 2021 the landlord raised a works order to strip the roof felt and battens. The recorded start date is 12 March and completion date 9 April.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 18 May 2021 to report that ongoing leaks into his living room had caused damp and mould. His lighting had to be removed for health and safety reasons. He said it had impacted his physical and mental health, causing great “distress and anxiety.” He said that when he initially reported his concerns to the landlord they were dismissed, leaving him feeling unsupported.
Following another report of a leak the landlord raised a further works order on 21 June 2021, adding that the leak persisted despite works having been carried out. The start date is recorded as 18 September and the end date as 27 October.
The resident wrote to the landlord to express his dissatisfaction about the ongoing leaks into this living room. The letter is undated but based on the landlord’s response, it is reasonable to conclude that it was sent on or around 27 August 2021. He said he had made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord in May but had yet to receive a response. Since then, his property had incurred further damage following a leak on 18 June. When the landlord attended on 2 July it could not identify the cause of the leak and had not been back since. He described the distress the situation had caused and the negative impact it had on his health.
The landlord opened a stage 1 complaint, referred to as complaint ‘A’, on 27 August 2021 and issued its response on 17 September 2021 as follows:
1. It received the complaint on 27 August 2021 and discussed it with the resident on 9 September.
2. The resident had submitted his complaint by posting it into a post box in person in its offices and it appeared it had not been received. It said it expected residents to query the progression of the complaint if no action was taken within a reasonable timeframe. It also asked him to submit any further complaints online or by email.
3. A routine appointment was raised on 28 January 2021 for a leak. It attended on 5 February and concluded that contractors should be appointed to strip out the roof, felt and battens.
4. A works order was raised accordingly on 15 February 2021. The contractor attended on 12 March and erected scaffolding. Works were completed in March and the scaffolding was removed on 9 April.
5. A recall works order was raised on 21 June 2021 for the contractor to carry out repair works. A supervisor would attend on 18 September to check all works were completed and provide an update to the landlord.
6. It said that covid-19 restrictions had impacted on its repair response times.
7. Investigating a leak could be a process of elimination and it was satisfied it had taken appropriate action on each occasion in relation to the new leak.
8. Once the contractor had confirmed that the leak has been resolved it would arrange to inspect the property to identify whether any remedial works were required.
9. It partially upheld the complaint because of the inconvenience caused by the leaks, although all works were completed in a “timely manner,” and they were “not as a result of works or omission of works by the council.”
On 18 October 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord to request to escalate his complaint for the following reasons:
1. The landlord had wrongly assumed that the matter was resolved because he did not escalate his complaint. He could not do so unless he knew that the leak had not been repaired, which could not know until the next heavy rainfall. In fact, the leak had reoccurred during the last heavy rainfall.
2. The landlord should not have relied on whether or not the complaint was escalated. Instead, it should have instructed a surveyor to inspect the roof and sign off the repair.
3. The scaffolding was not struck on 9 April 2021, it was still there at the time of the complaint.
4. Covid-19 restrictions were lifted in July 2021 and the resident felt the landlord should have resolved the issue by now. He felt the leak should have been prioritised as an emergency and urgent repair from the start.
A works order was raised on 12 November 2021 to inspect the plaster in the living room following the leak. It was cancelled because the contractor failed to attend.
The landlord competed a review of the resident’s stage 1 complaint ‘A’, and set out its response on 12 November 2021, as follows:
1. The works were carried out in March 2021 and the scaffolding struck in April. The scaffolding that was currently in situ had been erected on 18 September. The works were completed on 29 October and the scaffolding would be removed in due course.
2. It reiterated that works on the leak were completed in a “timely manner” and leaks were “not as a result of works or omission of works by the council.”
3. It confirmed it was working through the backlog of repairs which had accrued due to covid-19 restrictions.
4. It apologised that the leak was ongoing but confirmed that the works were completed with no further reports of water ingress received.
5. Compensation was not deemed applicable.
6. It phoned the resident that day to raise a works order to assess any remedial works required as a result of the leak. An appointment was agreed for 6 December 2021 between 12.00pm and 4.00pm.
The resident emailed the landlord on 9 December 2021 to express his dissatisfaction with its stage 1 review, adding that:
1. If the repairs had been completed in a timely manner, it would not have kept coming back to try to resolve the issue.
2. Works were completed in March 2021.
3. The scaffolding was not taken down on 9 April 2021, it was taken down on 3 November.
4. An appointment arranged for 6 December 2021 was cancelled at the last minute due to staff sickness and the resident wasted his day waiting for them.
The landlord emailed the resident on 10 December 2021 to advise him that he could escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the complaints procedure. It said that it had rearranged his appointment for 6 December 2021 to 11 January 2022 due to sickness. It had texted him at 2.45pm to inform him and apologised it had not been able to do so sooner.
On 2 February 2022 the resident wrote to the landlord requesting compensation. He also reiterated his request to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process.
On the same day, the resident contacted the landlord to report that some garden slabs had lifted and were uneven. The landlord had inspected 22 February and concluded that approximately 4 slabs needed levelling.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 3 February 2022 to acknowledge receipt of his stage 2 complaint. It confirmed that due a high volume of complaints, it could not start its investigation at that time. It said it would send a formal acknowledgement letter when the investigation began. The landlord provided a further update on 4 March to say it had not yet started the complaint investigation.
On 17 March 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to report a partial loss of power. It attended that day and concluded that there was a fault on the ring main. A new order was required to carry out a partial rewire to the ring main and between the customer consumer unit (CCU) and lounge socket. The records show that an order was raised on 19 March but say it was cancelled.
The resident made an online stage 1 complaint, referred to as complaint ‘B’, on 4 April 2022, as follows:
1. He had an appointment booked for 30 March for the partial rewire but no one attended.
2. An appointment made for a plasterer and electrician on 14 March was cancelled twice, due to covid-19 restrictions, and had been rearranged for that day. He did not know what time they were due to attend and when he tried to find out he was told the system had crashed so he did not receive any help.
3. A surveyor attended his home on 22 February to inspect the paving slabs and said he would provide the resident with an update within 7 days. He had not heard anything further from the landlord, despite him chasing.
4. He suffered from physical and mental health issues.
On 9 May 2022 the landlord issued its stage 1 response to complaint ‘B’ and said:
1. It was sorry for the delay in its response and offered £25 compensation.
2. It issued a works order on 19 March 2022 to carry out a partial rewire to the ring main and between the CCU and lounge socket. An appointment was arranged for 30 March but was allocated incorrectly hence it was not attended to.
3. A new works order was raised on 4 April 2022 with an appointment agreed for 13 May.
4. A works order to inspect the slabs was raised on 2 February 2022 and took place on 22 February. Notes against the order showed that the resident had chased the repair on 9, 18 March and 12 April.
5. It apologised for the delay and said the matter had been referred to senior management and that the repairs team would contact the resident.
6. It had tried to arrange for the plasterer and electrician to attend together to carry out works to living room ceiling. Some appointments had to be rescheduled for reasons beyond its control. Most recently an appointment for 4 May, when the electrician attended but the plasterer did not, had been scheduled for 6 and 8 June.
7. It apologised for the delay and “lack of action” and for the inconvenience caused.
8. The complaint was upheld because the level of service was “not of the standard that it aspired to.”
9. It offered £300 compensation for the resident’s time and trouble in making the complaint and for the inconvenience the delay caused.
On 9 May 2022 the landlord raised a works order to level the garden slabs however, the records say it was cancelled.
On 11 May 2022, the landlord raised a works order to attend to carry out plastering works on 6 and 8 June 2022. The end date is recorded as 14 September. The contractor noted it could not access the ceiling on 8 June because there was no mobile tower on site.
The landlord raised another works order for the paving slabs on 17 May 2022 which is recorded as completed on 24 May.
In June 2022 the resident wrote to the landlord to advise that the plastering works were outstanding because when it attended in June it did not have the necessary platform to carry out the work. No one had been back since.
On 6 July 2022 the landlord raised a further works order to carry out the partial rewire at the property which is recorded as completed on 14 July.
On 28 July 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to chase the compensation payment. He advised he had learning difficulties and could not respond to emails. He requested payment by cheque. The landlord’s records show that it paid the resident £325 compensation on 8 August.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 5 September 2022 to report that the plastering and redecoration works remained outstanding.
On 20 September 2022 the landlord issued its stage 1 response, referred to as complaint ‘C’, as follows:
1. It had attended the property on 19 May 2022 and completed the works to the paving slabs. It reiterated the earlier apology and said that the delay had been taken into account when calculating compensation.
2. When it attended on 13 May 2022 the electrician concluded that the job was for 2 operatives over 2 days. A works order was raised on 6 July and an appointment agreed for 15 July. The works had been completed and there had been no further issues raised. It acknowledged the delay in raising in the works order and allocating the works for which compensation was awarded.
3. It confirmed that it had addressed the residents’ concerns about the plastering works in its stage 1 complaint response and awarded compensation for the 6 month delay.
4. On 21 November 2021 it raised a works order to inspect the plaster following a water leak, with a target date for 10 December. Appointments were scheduled for 6 December, 11 January and finally 6 January 2022 (this is assumed to be a typographical error and should read February). As stated in in its stage 1 response of 9 May 2022, some appointments had to be rescheduled due to reasons it had no control over, such as unavailable resources.
5. It had advised that on 11 May 2022 an appointment was booked for 6 and 8 June. However, when the operative attended on 8 June the job was larger than anticipated and a platform was required. An operative attended an appointment on 14 September but there was no tower on site and it was a 2 man job. It had requested the resident be contacted to expedite the repairs. It offered an apology for the further delay.
6. In addition to the £325 compensation already offered in its stage 1 complaint response of 9 May 2022, it offered an additional £25 compensation for the delay in the electrical works. It also offered an additional £125 (£41.66 x 3months) for the 3 month additional delay in progressing the living room ceiling plastering repairs. This was for the period from June to the end of September 2022, when it expected the repairs to be completed. It also offered £50 for time and trouble for having to make a complaint.
7. The complaint was upheld.
The landlord’s internal records say that it had emailed the resident on 20 September 2022 as to how he wished the £200 to be paid but as of 18 January 2023 he had not replied.
The landlord raised a works order on 23 September 2022 for a roofer to inspect and rectify the leak affecting the living room. No defects were found during its visit on 10 October. It noted that the roof had recently been refelted and new wave boards and trays fitted.
During October 2022 the resident wrote to his MP to ask for his assistance in resolving the outstanding issues.
On 10 October 2022 the landlord raised a works order to carry out a damp assessment of mould on the ceiling to consider possible thermal boarding required.
On the same day, the resident wrote to the landlord to say that an operative had attended his property on 14 September 2022 but had not been able to complete the works and had not been back since.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 12 October 2022 to chase the response to complaint ‘A’. He added that he had experienced further leaks since August 2022 which had left water stains on the walls. He urgently requested the leak be fully repaired and that he be provided with an update on his complaint. He expressed his frustration with the ongoing issues, confirming that he had a learning disability which the landlord should make adjustments for. The resident also wrote a further letter to the landlord on the same day, in relation to complaints ‘B’ and ‘C’. He said that the plastering works were outstanding.
The landlord replied on 19 October 2022 and apologised for the delay. It confirmed that it had opened a stage 2 complaint and would respond within 20 working days.
In an email dated 25 October 2022 the landlord’s energy advisor emailed the repairs team to confirm the ceiling had been repaired but the leak was ongoing. The repairs team replied to confirm it had raised a works order for the leak for 4 November.
The resident emailed the landlord on 7 November 2022 to follow up on an appointment on 11 October which it had not attended. He had emailed to report it, but no one had got back to him. The contractor who attended his appointment on 31 October was late. He said he had an appointment earlier that day and again no one came. He asked the landlord to provide an update.
The landlord’s surveyor carried out a damp assessment of the mould on the ceiling on 8 November 2022. It noted the following:
1. There was no damp problem and the resident said that following a visit on 10 October the roof leak had been resolved.
2. There was staining around the light fitting and in some corners in the living room.
3. Damp meter readings could not be taken from the ceiling as it was out of reach. The walls were dry, assessed as no risk of condensation and therefore thermal boarding was not considered necessary.
4. The previous roof leak, which the resident said was now resolved, had affected the plasterboard ceiling creating damp patches.
5. It concluded the damp areas in the living room were related to the previous roof leak which the resident advised had been fixed.
6. There was no mould seen on the living room walls or ceilings.
On 9 November 2022 the landlord raised a works order to replace the damaged plasterboard ceiling around the light fitting. Works were also required to stain block and paint the ceiling in the corners and junctions with walls. This is shown as completed on 24 April 2023.
An energy assessment, instructed by the landlord, was carried out on 28 November 2022. It noted that there was “widespread mould” at the property which was concerning because the resident suffered from COPD and had suffered a heart attack in recent years. A call back was requested. The assessor’s notes said that the “mould issue was so widespread he was feeling chesty while he was there.”
The resident wrote to his MP again on 13 December 2022 to say that the leak remained unresolved despite appointments booked in by the landlord. He said he had also not received compensation offered to him.
Sometime after 13 December 2022 the resident wrote to the landlord because he had not received a response to his last letter. He said that despite sending various contractors to his property the plastering was not finished. He was of the view that the landlord lacked professionalism and had provided a “poor standard of service” which had caused him “significant distress.” He asked the landlord to tell him what the problem was and how it would be resolved. He also wanted his ceiling to be replastered and decorated. He said he had not received the compensation payments. He said the leak was ongoing and asked the landlord to prioritise his stage 2 complaint.
The resident’s MP contacted the landlord on his behalf on 5 January 2023, requesting that it contact him to arrange the outstanding works. The landlord replied to the MP on the same day. It confirmed that an appointment was booked with the resident for 6 February to carry out remedial works.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response to complaint ‘A’, on 11 January 2023. The landlord concluded that its repairs team acted appropriately in the circumstances and “often” complied with its timescales. However, it upheld the complaint because of took repeated visits to resolve the issue. It offered an additional £250 in recognition of the time and trouble, inconvenience and distress caused and for the reoccurring leaks. The compensation was to be paid in addition to that offered at stage 1. It also offered a further £100 for the delayed complaint response.
The landlord’s internal records show that it had emailed the resident on 20 September 2022 as to how he wished the £200 to be paid but as of 18 January 2023 he had not replied.
The resident emailed the landlord on 26 January 2023 to seek confirmation of the date of the appointment with the plasterer. The landlord replied the next day to confirm that an all day appointment had been booked for 6 February.
On 3 February 2023 the landlord raised a works order for a surveyor to attend the property to carry out a damp assessment of “widespread mould issue” at the property.
On 6 February 2023 the landlord raised a works order for an electrician to remove the light fittings for plastering works to commence. This is marked as completed on 23 March.
The resident contacted this service on 10 February 2023 to confirm that he had exhausted the landlord’s complaints process and asked that his complaint be investigated. He was seeking for the landlord to ‘put things right’ and provide compensation.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 10 February 2023 to say he had not received his compensation and that he would be contacting this service regarding his ongoing dissatisfaction.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response to complaints ‘B’ and ‘C’ on 23 February 2023. It confirmed the response related to the resident’s complaint about its handling of electrical works, repairs to the ceiling and redecoration in the living room. It said as follows:
1. It received a stage 1 complaint on 4 April 2022 about the nonattendance of operatives, delayed repairs, failure to reply to correspondence. The landlord responded on 9 May offering £325 compensation for the delay in completing works with agreement for them to be resolved.
2. It received a stage 1 complaint on 5 September 2022 about failure to pay the compensation offered at Stage 1. The landlord responded on 20 September, acknowledging that some of the repairs remained outstanding but the paving slabs and electrical works had been completed. An additional £200 compensation was offered for the delayed works, bringing the total to £525. It committed to expediting the plaster repair.
3. Its records showed the repair was not booked in until 6 February 2023 and was then abandoned because there were “insufficient operatives and tools” arranged for the repair. It had since been rebooked 23 March. A surveying appointment had been brought forward to the next day to carry out an inspection of the damp and mould in the property. The operative would also investigate the damage to the plasterboard ceiling in the living room.
4. It apologised for a further failure to complete a repair in reasonable time, and for the stress and inconvenience this caused. It said its findings would be fed back to services and management for learning and as example for ongoing reviews of repair policy and procedures.
5. In addition to the compensation already offered, it awarded a further £100 for the delayed response, £250 for ongoing inconvenience of the 6 month additional delay in progressing the living room ceiling plastering repairs. The period in question was October 2022 to end of March 2023 (£41.66×6 months=£249.96 rounded up to £250). It also offered £50 for time and trouble in having to complain.
6. The landlord carried out a damp assessment 24 February 2023. It noted that there was mould on the front door on the inside. There was no mould or damp in the living room. It recommended the following works:
  1. Mould treatment to timber door and frame,
  2. Paint the shower room and repair or replace the extractor fan.
  3. Roofers to inspect and clear the external gutters.
The landlord raised a works order that same day for a 3 stage mould treatment to be carried out on the front door on the inside and around the door frame, which was completed on 22 March 2023. It also raised an order to repair or replace the fan in the bathroom which was completed on 31 March.

Events post internal complaints process

The resident emailed the landlord on 6 March 2023 to report that the rewire had not been completed. When it last attended it told him it was a job for 2 people. He confirmed he was worried about his safety because the electric kept tripping and he could smell burning rubber. He said the plug and socket was very hot and he thought there could have been a fire if it had not tripped out. The landlord replied the same day to say it had chased the contractor and that the resident would get an update shortly.
The resident wrote to his service on 17 April 2023 to express his dissatisfaction with the level of compensation offered to him by the landlord and the lack of progress regarding the outstanding repairs.
On 11 May 2023 the landlord raised a job for a painter to stain block and paint the ceiling in the corners and junctions with walls where it was affected by the previous leak. The recorded completion date is 14 July 2023. On 24 May 2023 the landlord raised an order to attend to repair the light circuit that was previously disconnected for plastering work. This is shown as complete on 7 June.
The resident wrote to this service on 16 June 2023 to say that a plasterer attended his property towards the end of March 2023 but did not complete works as expected. Therefore, the works remain outstanding. The plasterer disconnected his light in the ceiling of his living room and did not reconnect it. Despite requests to the landlord, this remains disconnected. Redecoration had been scheduled for June/July.
On 29 August 2023 the landlord inspected the property for any outstanding works and damp and mould. It concluded that full redecoration was required in the lounge. The landlord raised the works order on 30 August and there is no completion date against the record. In a telephone call with this service on 29 September 2023 the resident said that the redecoration was booked in for 12 October.
In an email to this service, dated 2 October 2023, the resident said it would have assisted him to have had more telephone contact with the landlord and for it to have confirmed in writing to him by letter the action it intended to take. He sought telephone calls if they were unable to attend an appointment. He also clarified that his complaint related to all the repair issues that were the subject of his complaints to the landlord, partly because the rewire remained outstanding.

Assessment and findings

It is noted that the resident has stated that he considers that the issues have exacerbated his physical and mental health. However, it is beyond the expertise of this service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the leak and the resident’s medical condition. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.

Landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures

Its repairs guide says:
1. If the same maintenance problem reoccurs within 12 months of it carrying out a repair which was to fix the problem, it will treat this as a recall to the original repair job. It will aim to visit the resident and refix the problem within 5 working days of being informed about it.
2. It aims to respond to routine repairs (classed as non-urgent repairs), such as minor repairs to plasterwork, within 20 working days.
During the complaints process investigated in this report, the landlord revised its corporate complaints policy from May 2022 onwards. A 2 stage process was in place throughout, a follows:
1. Up to April 2022 it aimed to provide a response to stage 1 complaints within 21 working days. It carried out a complaint review if an escalation request to stage 2 was received and aimed to respond within 10 working days. Its response time for stage 2 complaints was 28 working days of receipt of the complaint.
2. From May 2022 onwards it aimed to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. There was no longer a stage 1 complaint review included in the process.
The landlord’s compensation guidance sets out that compensation can be considered for:
1. Time and trouble between £100 to £300.
2. Distress between £100 to £300.
3. For severe or prolonged stress this is increased to up to £1000.
The Equality Act 2010 provides a legislative framework to protect the rights of individuals and to advance equality of opportunity for all. As a local authority, the landlord would be required to comply with the provisions for public bodies under the Act. Under the Act the landlord had a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments where there is a provision, criterion or practice which puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled.

Repairs to paving slabs

Having received a report from the resident on 2 February 2022, the landlord inspected on 22 February and said it would provide an update within 7 days. The landlord failed to do so which was inappropriate. Furthermore, the resident was caused time and trouble in chasing the landlord for an update by making a stage 1 complaint, dated 4 April.
In its stage 1 complaint response of 9 May 2022, the landlord appropriately acknowledged that the resident had chased a response on 9, 18 March and 12 April. It appropriately apologised and said it would expedite works which were completed 10 days later, on 19 May.
The resident first reported the issue with the paving slabs on 2 February 2022. The landlord’s repairs guide says it aims to respond to routine repairs within 20 working days. The slabs were re-laid on 19 May, 76 working days later, well exceeding the landlord’s response times which was a failure.
In its complaint response of 9 May 2022, the landlord said it had taken the delay into account in the overall offer of £300 compensation however, it did not specify how much. The total compensation was for the delay and “lack of action” and for the inconvenience caused by delays to the partial rewire, the paving slabs and plastering works associated with the leak. In the absence of any other evidence, this investigation has reasonably concluded that the compensation was split equally across the 3 repair issues. It reflected the “resident’s time and trouble in making the complaint and for the inconvenience the delay caused.”
This investigation considered that while the landlord’s handling of the repair could reasonably have been improved, it has recognised the impact on the resident and has taken proportionate steps to put things right by appropriately offering compensation. As such an offer of reasonable redress has been made in the circumstances.

Electrical repairs

The resident contacted the landlord to report a partial loss of power on 17 March 2022. It responded appropriately by attending the property that same day. Its repair records show that an order was appropriately raised on 19 March however, they go on to say it was cancelled.
In his stage 1 complaint of 4 April 2022, the resident reported that he had an appointment booked for 30 March but no one attended. In its stage 1 complaint response of 9 May the landlord said an appointment was made for 30 March but it was allocated incorrectly hence it was not attended to. The landlord did not apologise and did not consider offering compensation which was inappropriate given the inconvenience caused to the resident.
A further works order was raised on 4 April 2022 with a completion date of 13 May. The notes against 13 May say it was a 2 day job, for 2 operatives, so the works did not go ahead as planned. A further works order was not raised until 6 July. It is unclear why the landlord waited almost 2 months to raise the order. This delayed the process further and increased the resident’s frustration. It made an appointment on 15 July and in its stage 1 complaint response of 20 September the landlord said that the works were completed as planned.
The resident first reported the issue with the electrics on 17 March 2022. The landlord’s repairs guide says it aims to respond to routine repairs within 20 working days. It believed that the repair was completed on 15 July, 86 working days later, well exceeding the landlord’s response times which was a failure.
In its complaint response of 9 May 2022 the landlord offered £300 compensation, some of which was for its failings in relation to the electrical works. In its stage 1 complaint response of 20 September the landlord appropriately acknowledged the delay in raising the works order and allocating the works for which it offered a further £25 compensation. However, this did not reflect:
1. The significant length of the overall delay.
2. The inconvenience caused to the resident by having to book a further appointment following the landlord’s attendance on 13 May.
Furthermore, the resident emailed the landlord on 6 March 2023 to report that the rewire was outstanding and he was concerned it could be a fire risk. The landlord replied the same day to say it had chased the contractor and would update him accordingly. On 2 October 2023 the resident told this service that the rewire remains outstanding, 19 months after the issue was first reported. An order has been made for the landlord to contact the resident to complete the rewire as a priority.
The failings identified amount to maladministration. Taking into account the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, an order had been made for the landlord to pay the resident an additional £175 compensation.

Leak and associated works

The landlord raised a works order on 28 January 2021 for a roofer to inspect and resolve a leak coming through the living room ceiling during heavy rain. The repairs record says that the job was cancelled and there is no end date. However, the evidence shows that a contractor attended on 5 February and concluded that works to the roof were required. A works order was raised on 15 February for a roofer to ‘strip out’, recorded as started 12 March and completed 9 April. The works did not resolve the issue and a works order for a recall was raised on 21 June, the start date was recorded as 19 September and the end date 27 October.
The landlord’s repairs guide says that it will refix recall works within 5 working days of being informed about it. It is acknowledged that in this case scaffolding was required to complete the works and therefore a target of 5 working days was difficult to achieve. However, it took the landlord 92 days to complete the repair which was significantly over its target time and was therefore an unreasonable delay. Furthermore, it is clear from the resident’s stage 1 complaint made on or around 27 August 2021 that the landlord had not updated him on the works. The resident reported that the lack of communication had caused him distress which had impacted on his health. It also caused him time, trouble and inconvenience because he had to make a complaint to try to resolve the matter.
In its stage 1 complaint response dated 27 August 2021 the landlord made no apology for the delay and said that covid-19 restrictions had impacted on its repair response times. Taking into account that nonessential businesses reopened in April 2021, and the roofing works were outside with minimal contact, this does not reasonably account for the delay. It appropriately upheld the complaint because the leak was ongoing. However, it stated that the works were completed in a “timely manner” which, for reasons stated above, was not an accurate statement. It also said that the leaks were “not as a result of its own works or omission of works.” The contractor works on behalf of the landlord so that it can fulfill its repair obligations to its residents. Therefore, any failure by the contractor equates to a failure by the landlord because they are one and the same. It is not appropriate for the landlord to suggest otherwise.
A works order was raised on 12 November 2021 to inspect plastering in the living room following the leak. It was cancelled because the contractor failed to attend. On 12 November 2021 the landlord made an appoint for 6 December to inspect the property and assess remedial works following the repair of the leak. The appointment was cancelled at the last minute due to staff sickness. The landlord appropriately apologised for the late notice but offered no compensation for the missed appointment which was unreasonable. It appropriately rearranged the appointment, for 11 January 2022 however, this was also cancelled and subsequently rearranged for 6 February. This caused further frustration and inconvenience to the resident.
In his stage 1 complaint of 4 April 2022 the resident said that an appointment for a plasterer and electrician had been rearranged twice and had been booked for the day of his complaint. In its stage 1 complaint response, of 9 May, the landlord said it had tried to book a dual appointment but due to “circumstances beyond its control” some had to be rescheduled. It appropriately apologised for the delay, “lack of action” and inconvenience caused. It offered £300 compensation for the resident’s time and trouble in making the complaint and for the inconvenience the delay caused. The stage 1 response also responded to concerns about the outstanding paving slabs and rewire repairs and the compensation was for those repairs also. It is unclear how much compensation was offered for the failures associated with the plastering and redecoration works, this investigation has reasonable concluded that it was apportioned equally to each repair issue.
On 11 May 2022 a works order was raised and an appointment was arranged for 8 June however, the operative concluded that the work required 2 operatives and a mobile tower so it could not resolve the matter on that day. In a letter to the landlord, sent in June, the resident said he had not received any further updates. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident. This was inappropriate because the resident did not know when the work would be completed, causing further frustration and distress.
In its stage 1 complaint response, dated 20 September 2022, the landlord confirmed that an operative attended the appointment on 14 September. However, the mobile tower was not delivered to site so the operative was unable to complete the work. It appropriately offered an apology for the further delay and requested the resident be contacted to expedite the repairs. It offered compensation for delay in the plastering works from June to end September 2022 of £125. This was based on £41.66 x 3months, from when the delay started to when works should have been carried out. It is not clear where the figure of £41.66 came from. By this stage of the complaints process, the landlord’s attempts to arrange to replaster the ceiling had been ongoing since 12 November 2021 and included 5 missed appointments on 12 November and 6 December 2021, 11 January, 8 June and 14 September 2022. The complaint response was issued nearly 1 year after the first failed appointment in November 2021.
On 10 and 12 October 2022 the resident chased the landlord for a further appointment to carry out plastering works because he had not heard anything further to the cancelled appointment on 14 September. During October 2022 he also wrote to his MP to request his assistance in resolving the outstanding repair. This was a further example of poor communication by the landlord because it failed to keep the resident updated on the progress of his outstanding repair which was inappropriate, causing him distress.
On 10 October 2022 the landlord raised a works order to carry out a damp assessment of mould on the ceiling to consider if possible thermal boarding was required. It is unclear what prompted this order being raised. However, there then followed communications regarding the possible presence of damp and mould in the property. The landlord’s surveyor carried out a damp and mould survey on 8 November and concluded there was no evidence of a damp problem. It noted that no mould could be seen on the living room walls or ceiling. Any evidence damp patches were the result of the previous roof leak which had since been resolved.
However, an energy assessment conducted by the landlord on 28 November 2022, 3 weeks later, noted there was “widespread mould” which was so bad the assessor was feeling “chesty” when he was at the property. The evidence shows that the landlord delayed following up on this report until 3 February 2023, when it raised a works order for a surveyor to attend to carry out a further damp assessment. The assessment was carried out on 24 February 2023, 3 months later. When it attended on this date it noted that there was no mould or damp in the living room. It appropriately raised a works order to address mould which had occurred on the inside and around the door frame.
Given the resident’s diagnosis of COPD, and the assessor’s observations of widespread mould, it is extremely concerning that the landlord delayed carrying out a further inspection by 3 months. In this case the subsequent inspection showed no evidence of mould in the living room so detriment to the resident was low however, the landlord could not have known that at the time and therefore its response was inappropriate. The Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould (2021) highlights the impact that damp and mould can have on health and well-being. It requires landlords to take a zero tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions. The landlord should review its response to damp and mould in this case in the context of the spotlight report.
The landlord raised a further works order on 9 November 2022, to repair the plasterwork and carry out remedial redecoration. The evidence suggests the investigation into damp and mould at the property delayed the progress of these works. It was appropriate for the landlord to ensure that the property was free from ongoing damp and mould before carrying out these works however, it failed to communicate with the resident to ensure he was kept informed of progress. This was inappropriate because once again he could not be assured that the matter remained ‘in hand’ and did not have any idea of timescales. This caused him frustration and time and trouble in making a further complaint to his MP on 13 December 2022 and chasing the landlord again on the same day.
On 5 January 2023 the landlord informed the resident’s MP that an appointment had been booked for 6 February to carry out the remedial works. In its stage 2 complaint response, dated 11 January 2023, the landlord said its repairs team acted appropriately in the circumstances and “often” complied with its timescales. However, it upheld the complaint due to repeated visits to resolve issue. It offered an additional £250 compensation in recognition of time and trouble, inconvenience and stress caused and for the reoccurring leaks. It did not acknowledge any failures in relation to its communication with the resident which was inappropriate. Therefore, the resident could not be confident that the situation would improve going forwards.
On 26 January 2023 the resident sought clarification from the landlord that an appointment had been made for 6 February which it confirmed. However, the repair logs only show that a works order was raised on 6 February to remove the light fittings for the plastering works and the completed date recorded against it is 23 March. In its stage 2 complaint response, dated 23 February, the landlord confirmed that the job was “abandoned” because of “insufficient operatives and tools” and was rebooked for 23 March. It appropriately offered an additional £250 compensation for inconvenience and £50 for time and trouble to complain. The landlord is responsible for monitoring performance of its repairs service however, it failed to identify what had gone wrong, and what it would do differently next time to ensure that this did not occur again, which was a failure.
On 11 May 2023 the landlord raised an order to stain block and paint the ceilings therefore it is reasonable to conclude that works to repair the plasterboard had been completed by that stage. The repair records show an end date of 14 July. However, when the landlord inspected the property on 29 August 2023 it concluded that full redecoration was required in the lounge, including the ceiling. This suggests that its repair records were inaccurate and that the order raised on 11 May had not been completed by the end of August, when a further works order for redecoration was raised on 30 August. In a call to this service on 29 September the resident said that the redecoration was yet to be completed and that an appointment had been made for 12 October. This is a delay of 5 months from when the landlord first raised the order on 11 May.
Taking January 2021, the date of the first report of a leak, as a starting point, it has taken the landlord 34 months to resolve the leak and carry out remedial works to the plaster and redecorate. The protracted resolution of these issues has involved multiple failed appointments. This has been due to:
1. Staff sickness.
2. Incorrect allocation of works.
3. The job requiring more resources than originally anticipated.
4. Not having enough resources to carry out the work without good reason for example, equipment not arriving on site or “unavailable resources”
The landlord is responsible for ensuring that its contractor’s processes support its requirement to meet its repair obligations to its residents. It is responsible for monitoring the performance of its contractor, including addressing instances where service standards are not met.
Section 6.1 of the Code states that where something has gone wrong the landlord should provide an explanation as to why and identify lessons learnt so that it does not reoccur again in the future. At stages of the process the landlord has appeared to ‘shift the blame’ onto its contractor which is not appropriate. In its stage 1 complaint response of 20 September, it said that appointments had to rescheduled for reason outside of its control, such as “unavailable resources.” An order has been made for the landlord to review the case at a senior level to identify lessons learnt and how it can prevent a reoccurrence in the future.
Section 4.4 of the Code says that a complaint should be resolved at the “earliest possible opportunity” which can include identifying whether there are any urgent actions required. The resident was caused distress, time, trouble and inconvenience in making 3 stage 1 complaints which were subsequently escalated to stage 2. He contacted his MP twice and chased the landlord for a response on numerous occasions. The landlord did not use the complaints process to expedite a resolution to the outstanding leak and associated works which was unreasonable.
Where there is an admitted failing by a landlord, this service’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account 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 landlord has offered approximately £775, comprised of the following:
1. £100 at stage 1 dated 4 April 2022.
2. £125 at stage 1 dated 20 September 2022.
3. £250 at stage 2 dated 11 January.
4. £250 plus £50 for time and trouble at stage 2 dated 23 January.
The delays, poor communication, failed appointments and poor planning have caused distress, time and trouble and inconvenience to the resident. The landlord has apologised however, it has not used the complaints process to resolve the resident’s complaint or to identify lessons learnt which means its apologies hold little weight in terms of redress for the resident.
The failures identified in this report amount to severe maladministration. The Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies (compensation) says that compensation of over £1000 is appropriate where the landlord has repeatedly failed to provide the same service which had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident; demonstrating a failure to provide a service, put things right and learn from outcomes. Taking into account the failings and the guidance, an order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident £500 in addition to the compensation set out above.
The Housing Ombudsman has recently published a special report on the landlord. In its response, the landlord has confirmed that its improvement plan will focus on “getting repairs right.” This includes:
1. Learning from mistakes.
2. Implementing new processes on missed appointments and cancellations.
3. Increasing preventative investment around damp, mould and leaks.

These measures should ensure that the same failures which occurred in this case do not reoccur in the future.

Complaint Handling

The resident made a stage 1 complaint in May 2021 but did not receive a response. At the point at which he chased the response the landlord opened formal complaint ‘A’, on 27 August 2021. It subsequently issued its response on 17 September. It is unfortunate and frustrating for the resident that the first complaint seemed to have been misplaced due to being hand delivered. However, the landlord appropriately addressed this in its response. Furthermore, when it realised the complaint had been overlooked it acted promptly to put things right. However, its response was 5 days overdue which compounded the earlier mistake causing further frustration for the resident. It failed to recognise and/or apologise for the delay which would have been appropriate.
It is also noted that the stage 1 complaint review was carried out by the same officer that provided the original stage 1 complaint response. There is no evidence that this caused a detriment to the resident. However, while the complaints policy does not specify who should carry out stage 1 reviews, a member of staff reviewing their own complaint response is inappropriate. This is because the resident cannot be satisfied that the reviewer has had objective oversight and sufficient impartiality.
The resident asked to escalate his complaint on 18 October 2021. The landlord carried out a stage 1 complaint review and issued its response on 12 November 2021. While the inclusion of a review stage was in accordance with its policy at the time, the policy was not compliant with the Code. The Code states that a landlord’s procedure will ideally only have 2 stages, to ensure that the process is not “unduly long”. In May 2022 the landlord updated its policy and removed the review process. However, this protracted complaint procedure caused the resident further time and trouble in pursuing the complaint. Furthermore, the landlord took 20 days to provide a response to the review which was 10 days over time. It failed to recognise and/or apologise for the delay which was inappropriate.
The resident made further requests to escalate his complaint on 9 December 2021 and 2 February 2022. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint in a holding letter dated 3 February and 4 March. Section 5.1 of the Code says that “exceptionally, landlords may provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be received.” The letters gave no indication of when the resident might expect a response which was inappropriate and not in line with the Code. This caused distress and frustration to the resident.
Section 4.4 of the Code says that “a complaint should be resolved at the earliest possible opportunity, having assessed what evidence is needed to fully consider the issues, what outcome would resolve the matter for the resident and whether there are any urgent actions required.” Rather than expedite the stage 2 complaint response and use the complaints process to resolve the outstanding issues the landlord continued to fail to provide a response. In an effort to progress the leak and associated works the resident went to the time and trouble of making further complaints. He also used the complaints to raise dissatisfaction about additional, unrelated works. The landlord therefore opened up 2 further stage 1 complaints under different case references.
In addition to raising further complaints, the resident chased the original stage 2 complaint response on 12 October 2022. The landlord replied on 19 October to confirm it had opened the complaint and would reply within 20 working days. The resident contacted the landlord to chase again on 13 December. The landlord issued its stage 2 response to complaint ‘A’ on 12 October 2022. This was 219 days after the resident’s request to escalate his complaint after the outcome of the stage 1 complaint review. The extended delay was unreasonable and caused the resident frustration, distress and time and trouble.
Section 4.10 of the Code states that landlords should keep residents regularly updated about the progress of the investigation, even where there is no new substantive information to provide. Therefore, while the landlord provided updates on 3 February and 4 March 2022 it failed to provide the resident with periodic updates between March and October. This would have reassured the resident that his complaint had not been forgotten. That it did not do so was a failure.
The resident made his second stage 1 complaint, ‘B’, on 4 April 2022. The landlord issued its complaint response on 9 May, 25 days later and 15 days out of time. The landlord appropriately acknowledged the delay, offered an apology and compensation. The resident’s third stage 1 complaint, ‘C’, was responded to within the landlord’s timescales.
This investigation has not seen evidence of the dates the second and third stage 1 complaints were escalated and therefore, it has not been possible to fully assess the response time of the stage 2 complaint response issued on 23 February for complaints ‘B’ and ’C’. However, the landlord apologised and offered compensation its delayed response therefore it is accepted that there was a delay of some sort.
With the exception of the delay in the first stage 1 complaint response, complaint ‘A’, the landlord appropriately apologised for the delays in its complaint responses. However, section 6.1 of the Code states that where something has gone wrong the landlord should provide an explanation as to why and identify lessons learnt so that it does not reoccur again in the future. Not only did it fail to do so, but it also repeated the same mistakes throughout the complaints process. This has a significant detrimental impact on the resident who was trying to access the complaints process as a means of resolving a protracted repairs issue. The frustration, time and trouble and inconvenience he experienced during the process compounded the distress already caused to him by the repair failures which was not acceptable.
Where there is an admitted failing by a landlord, this service’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account 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.
All but one of the remaining complaint responses were issued out of time. In the case of the first stage 2 complaint response the delay was significant and unreasonable. Furthermore, the policy does not refer to the use of holding letters at this stage of the complaints process.
The landlord offered a total of £225 compensation for the complaint handling delays as follows:
1. No compensation for delayed stage 1 response, complaint ‘A’.
2. £25 for delayed stage 1 response, complaint ‘B’.
3. £100 for delayed stage 2 response, complaint ‘A’.
4. £100 for delayed stage 2 response, complaints ‘B’ and ‘C’.
The Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies (compensation) states that redress of between £50 to £100 is appropriate for minor failures. The compensation for the delayed stage 2 complaint responses was consistent with the landlord’s compensation guidance for ‘time and trouble’.
While it was appropriate for the landlord to offer compensation, it did not take into account the:
1. Cumulative impact of the repeated failure to comply with its complaints process.
2. Considerable time and trouble caused to the resident throughout the complaints process, including making 2 new complaints in the absence of the first stage 2 complaint response and contacting his MP.
3. The landlord’s compensation guidance allows for payments of up to £300 to be made for time and trouble. Having also considered our own remedies guidance, an order has been made to pay the resident a further £225 to adequately reflect the detriment caused to him by the complaint handling failures, broken down as follows:
  1. £50 for the delayed stage 1 complaint, complaint ‘A’.
  2. An additional £25 for the delayed stage 1 complaint, complaint ‘B’.
  3. A further £150 to reflect the distress caused by the cumulative impact of the repeated complaint handling failures.

Request for reasonable adjustments

During the process the landlord’s communication in relation to all of the repairs was poor, both in terms of the lack of updates provided to the resident and the way in which it communicated with him. Section 2.5 of the Code says that landlords may need to adapt normal policies, procedures or processes to accommodate an individual’s needs in order to comply with the Equality Act 2010. On 28 July and 12 October 2022, the resident told the landlord that he had learning difficulties and struggled to respond to emails. However, there is no evidence that the landlord considered this request. It failed to ask the resident how it could make reasonable adjustments to communicate with him effectively which was unreasonable.
The resident contacted the landlord on 28 July 2022 to chase payment of the compensation which was paid on 8 August. Compensation is a means of offering redress for something which has gone wrong. Therefore, it is important that the landlord ensures that the process of providing compensation does not give cause for further complaint. The resident also chased payment on 13 December however the landlord said it had contacted him to clarify how he wished payment to be paid but had not received a reply. There is no evidence that the landlord considered checking with him via other means, given his difficulties about replying to emails, which was inappropriate.
The failures identified amount to maladministration. An order has been made for the landlord to pay compensation of £400.

Determination (decision)

Under paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress in relation to its response to repairs of paving slabs which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to electrical repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its response to reports of a leak and associated works.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s for reasonable adjustments.

Reasons

The level of compensation offered to the resident acknowledged the landlord’s failures and reflected the level of inconvenience caused to the resident. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord made reasonable redress.
The delays and poor planning caused time, trouble and distress to the resident. The resident has reported that the electrical works have not yet been resolved despite his concerns about safety.
The delays, poor communication, failed appointments and poor planning caused distress, time and trouble and inconvenience to the resident. The landlord has apologised however, it has not used the complaints process to resolve the resident’s complaint or to identify lessons learnt which means it apologies hold little weight in terms of redress for the resident.
In all but one case, the landlord’s complaint responses were unreasonably delayed, causing significant distress, time and trouble to the resident.
During the process the landlord’s communication in relation to all of the repairs was poor. It failed to consider the resident’s request to make reasonable adjustments in the way in which it communicated with him.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £2250, comprised of:
1. £400 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the landlord’s failure to complete the partial rewire. The landlord may deduct the £125 compensation it offered if this has already been paid.
2. £1225 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the failures relating to the leak and associated works. The landlord may deduct the £775 compensation it offered if this has already been paid.
3. £225 for the adverse effect caused by the complaint handling failures identified in this report.
4. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments.
Also within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this case. A copy of the letter should be provided to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
2. Telephone the resident to:
  1. Establish the position with regards to the rewire. It should make an urgent appointment to resolve any outstanding remedial works. This should be communicated to the resident by phone and confirmed in a letter. A copy of the letter should be provided to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
  2. Discuss his request for reasonable adjustments, ensuring that his request and the landlord’s subsequent response is recorded on its database. The date of the conversation and any arising actions should be confirmed to the Ombudsman, also within 4 weeks.