Kingston upon Thames Council (202206264)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202206264

Kingston upon Thames Council

15 November 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 handling of repairs to the outhouse.
2. The landlord’s communication about repairs.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
4. The resident’s concern that she had been discriminated against.

The Ombudsman has also assessed the landlord’s record keeping.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all of the evidence, the resident’s complaint about discrimination falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
On 8 July 2022, the resident emailed the landlord and commented that she was being discriminated against as a result of her “racial identity and social identity”. When this Service asked the resident why she felt discriminated against, she explained when managers from the maintenance team that the landlord used, came to her property, they would sometimes access the rear of her property to talk to contractors, without notifying her they were present. In addition, that on 2 or 3 occasions people from the maintenance team had attended her property without her knowing they were coming, and had been rude to her. She felt she was being treated like that, due to her race.
The resident’s concerns, and the serious nature of this matter, are acknowledged. However, the evidence provided to this Service does not demonstrate that the resident raised her concerns with the landlord as a formal complaint. Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to have exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale. It follows that the resident’s complaint that she has been discriminated against falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. The resident may wish to raise her concerns with the landlord now.
In the event that the resident complains to the landlord, and remains unhappy with the response she receives, she may wish to seek independent legal advice.

Background and summary of events

The landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures

The relevant statute

Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord has a responsibility to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s Health and Safety procedure says, “where asbestos is known to exist in properties, its condition will be regularly assessed and, if necessary, it will be removed, repaired or sealed”.
The “Housing Asbestos Control Arrangements and Procedures” document says, all materials within the housing portfolio “must be presumed to contain asbestos and treated accordingly unless, or until, adequate information is received to the contrary.” That work will only go ahead when safety risks have been assessed and appropriate control measures are in place.
It says “Removal of asbestos is a hazardous operation and must be carried out under strictly controlled conditions. All removal, treatment or disturbance of asbestos will only be undertaken by an approved specialist Health and Safety Executive (HSE) licensed contractor”.
The landlord’s Asbestos Policy says, “Refurbishment and Demolition surveys should always be undertaken where any works involving disturbance of the building is planned because, even if an existing survey identifies asbestos as being present, there may be hidden asbestos that that survey would not have found”.
The landlord’s Repairs Policy says, it is committed to fulfil its repairing obligations. It will carry out repairs in one visit where possible, communicate effectively with residents and it aims to deliver a repairs service “that does not unfairly discriminate on any basis”.
The timescales it sets out to respond to repairs are:
1. Emergency repairs – 2 hours.
2. Urgent repairs – 24 hours.
3. Routine repairs – 20 working days.
4. Any planned maintenance would be carried out as part of a programme of works.
The landlord’s Complaints Process says, a complaint made at stage 1 should receive a response within 15 working days (housing landlord complaints aim to have a response within 10 working days). If a resident remains dissatisfied with the stage 1 response, they can request a stage 2 review. The review would be carried out by someone not involved in the case, and a response would be issued within 15 working days (although housing complaints receive a response within 20 working days).

Summary of events

The resident, along with her three children, moved in to the property, a 3 bedroom house, by way of mutual exchange, on a secure tenancy in June 2021. She has a number of health issues and is disabled, and her son also has health issues.
The resident says her neighbour advised her, shortly after moving in, that her outhouse, had asbestos in it. On 24 June 2021, the landlord recorded a job, for an external inspection to take place of the outhouse on 5 July, as it had major cracks in the wall and the roof appeared damp. Samples were also taken from the outhouse and tested for asbestos on 15 September 2021 and a report produced the following day.
The resident chased for an update on 20 and 30 September and 14 October 2021. No evidence has been provided to show the resident received a response. The landlord’s records show that on 10 November 2021, it sought to obtain a quote to have asbestos removed from the outhouse and to have a new roof fitted, and this was provided on 18 November 2021. In the meantime, the resident spoke with the maintenance team on 9 November and it apologised for the time taken to deal with repairs. She was also advised by the maintenance team on 12 November, that she would be contacted within a couple of days about doing an asbestos test, and to claim for any damaged items directly with the landlord.
The resident chased for an update again on 15 November and further samples were taken to test for asbestos, on 16 November 2021, with a report on the dust being done the following day. The resident asked the maintenance team for a copy of the asbestos report on 17 November, but was advised it belonged to the landlord, and it asked the landlord to liaise with the resident. It is not known whether the resident was provided with a copy of the report.
The resident complained to her MP on 20 November 2021 about asbestos at her property not being dealt with by the landlord promptly, and a lack of communication, which was causing her upset and frustration. She also mentioned she had had an issue with her water supply. On 26 November, the MP referred the resident’s concerns to her local councillor.
The landlord records speaking with the resident on 23 November 2021 about the use of the outhouse, but no update was provided in terms of any repairs/work being done.
The councillor contacted the resident and also asked the landlord for an update on her complaint on 29 November 2021.
An internal email sent by landlord staff on 3 December 2021, referred to the email from the councillor on behalf of the resident, and referred to a complaint being made.
The resident chased the landlord for an update on what action was being taken, in relation to the outhouse, on 7 December. On 14 December 2021, the resident emailed the landlord again, and said nobody had responded to her complaint. An internal email was sent the following day by the landlord, to the person that had been allocated the complaint, to ask when a response would be sent.
The following day, on 15 December, an internal email sent by landlord staff, refers to it noting the resident had complained about the time things were taking, but instead of it dealing with it, it had been left to the maintenance team to address. This had caused frustration to the resident. The same day, the landlord emailed the resident and apologised for the time the repair was taking. It said it had chased the matter and someone would contact her once it could provide a date for the work to commence. It also explained her complaint had been escalated and she should receive a separate response to that.
An internal email between landlord staff on 7 January 2022 said the removal of the roof to the outhouse at the resident’s property, could not be done. It needed the permission from the neighbour, who had an adjoining outhouse, before action could be taken.
The landlord sent a stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint on 8 January 2022. It apologised for the delay and said, the outhouse had a shared roof with another property, and that presented complications in regard to party wall agreements and how the work was funded. It said it was restricted as it could not proceed without consent from the freeholder of the neighbouring property. It had been trying to deal with that, and it would be resolved as soon as possible.
On 20 January 2022, the landlord spoke with the resident, and then sent a follow up email, confirming the conversation. It said:
1. It apologised for the difficulty she had had arranging repairs since moving in and confirmed the asbestos roof of the outhouse was being dealt with and the work and clean of it, would be monitored.
2. A copy of the email was being sent to more senior landlord staff to deal with her concerns.
On 26 January 2022, the resident emailed the landlord and said the outhouse had had an asbestos clean the day before; however, she attached photographs of the outhouse, which she said showed it in a state of disrepair. She suggested it may be more cost effective for the building to be take down. The landlord responded the same day, and explained it would not remove the outhouse as it formed part of the neighbour’s property.
The resident emailed the landlord on 27 January 2022 and explained a paddling pool, that she proved she had purchased in July 2021 for £174, had been damaged as a result of being stored in the outhouse. She asked for the landlord to reimburse her for that. An internal email sent by landlord staff the following day, noted the request.
The resident emailed the landlord on 1 February 2022, and complained that nobody had contacted her from the complaints team, and that she had been left to deal with the repairs. She explained the outhouse had been cleared on 25 July, and a survey was done; but nothing more could be done until the side walls had been repaired and doors and frames need changing.
The landlord responded the same day, and said it thought someone had been in touch with her, about removing the asbestos roof and replacing it. The resident also responded the same day and explained the issue with the asbestos roof had been reported on in June 2021, but took until 25 January 2022 to be dealt with. She also explained that she was not being kept updated on timescales for when work would be completed.
The resident emailed the landlord on 17 February 2022 and said she was unhappy with the lack of communication and lack of action from the landlord. She also sought clarity about who was overseeing the work and chased for an update on her claim for the cost of a paddling pool. The landlord responded the same day and explained the person she had been dealing with, was only involved with the asbestos removal. It explained the maintenance team was managing all works after the asbestos removal and the roof had not been replaced yet, due to structural issues. In relation to the paddling pool, the resident was asked if she had contents cover and advised the matter had been referred to the maintenance team and a colleague, to advise further about a claim.
An internal email sent by landlord staff on 7 March, referred to an online meeting held with the resident as well as the councillor, and it was agreed that the complaint would be escalated to stage 2. The outstanding issues were:
1. Poor communication on progress with repairs.
2. The resident was still awaiting structural investigation into the outhouse structure and was waiting confirmation on when the roof would be replaced.
The landlord advised the resident on 9 March, that her complaint had been escalated to stage 2, and that she should receive a response within 15 working days. It said it would inform her if it was going to take longer.
On 10 and 18 March 2022, the resident chased the landlord again, about reimbursement for the paddling pool. An internal email dated 18 March, referred to the possibility a form would need to be completed in order for finance to consider a reimbursement. The resident has confirmed that the landlord reimbursed her for the cost of the paddling pool, although it is not clear when that was done.
On 24 March 2022, the maintenance team told the landlord that it would obtain a quote for rebuilding the outhouse, as a cost comparison to removing it (which it did not plan on doing). It explained that if works were agreed, the contractor was fully booked at least 6-8 weeks in advance. On the same day, the maintenance team contacted the resident to arrange access the following week, in order to get the specifications for the door and window for the outhouse.
The resident chased the landlord again on 25 March, and was advised the same day, that the person dealing with it had been off work but it would be looked in to, in their absence.
The resident escalated her concern over how long the repairs to the outhouse were taking, and how her complaint had been dealt with, to the councillor on 7 April 2022, who referred the matter to the landlord for an update the following day.
The roof on the outhouse was replaced on 8 April 2022.
On 12 April 2022, the landlord issued its stage 2 response to the complaint. It noted the complaint was about a lack of communication and a lack of progression of works to a shared outhouse roof and structure. It apologised for the delay in responding, and it upheld the complaint. It said:
1. There had been an unacceptable delay on the repairs but they were being monitored and discussed in a fortnightly meeting.
2. The roof had been renewed but the repairs to the structure doors and window had not been completed.
3. The contractor had been instructed to repair the blockwork structure, and re-render where required and renew the doors / broken window.
4. It was seeking information from the contractor to obtain an update and proposed timeline for the completion of the works.
5. It accepted there had been large gaps in its communication and it said someone would keep her informed going forward, even if it was to explain that there was a delay.
The landlord sent an internal email to other staff, as well as the councillor, on 20 April 2022 providing some background to the issues and an update. It explained the outhouse roof could not be reinstated until a structural engineer inspected the building. That had been done and a new roof had been fitted. The remaining work was being picked up by its maintenance team, and involved the installation of new doors, windows as well as some brickwork repairs and rendering. It said it had called the resident that day to apologise for the lack of communication and one person was assigned to oversee the work to completion.
On 21 April 2022, the landlord emailed the maintenance team, and asked it to set the dates for work to be done at the resident’s property, and to keep her updated.
Between 20 and 23 June 2022 the maintenance team removed render on the walls of the outhouse and replaced 3 doors.
An email from the landlord to its maintenance team on 28 June 2022, said the resident had called as she was unhappy as works were supposed to be completed by 24 June, but were not. She was then told the work would be completed the following week, but she had received an email saying the work would now take place between 25 July and 1 August 2022, due to the backlog of work. She was also unhappy having to chase to for information. It was noted the change of dates was due to contractor availability and the landlord said it wanted the work dealt with that week, as the resident had already complained.
The resident emailed the landlord on 8 July 2022 and explained she was still unhappy that work was being cancelled, appointments changed and that there was poor communication. That things had not improved since making a complaint, and the work on the outhouse had not been completed. She said her health was being affected by the stress and she was being discriminated against as a result of her “racial identity and social identity”.
The landlord responded the same day and apologised to her for the time things were taking. It said it had taken the matter up with the maintenance team and it had said it would bring the rendering work forward, if it could. It had followed this up and it had been told a new operative was starting on 11 July and as long as that happened, she would then be contacted that week to arrange a date for the rendering works. It acknowledged a new window also needed to be fitted and the painting work would be done last.
On 14 and 15 July 2022 the maintenance team completed the rendering of the outhouse.
On 15 July 2022, the maintenance team told the landlord it had spoken with the resident that day and explained the remaining schedule of works, which she was fine with. It noted her concern lay with the poor communication she had experienced regarding the works.
The maintenance team completed the painting of the outhouse on 22 July 2022. The window was replaced on the outhouse on 24 August 2022.
On 19 November 2022, the resident emailed the landlord chasing a response to her having reported that the newly rendered walls of the outhouse had water and damp. The landlord responded on 25 November and apologised for having not responded. It said it would arrange for someone to contact her the following week, to inspect it and see if the maintenance team would be called back to resolve the issue.
The resident chased the landlord again on 9 December 2022, as nobody had been out to the property to inspect the damp in the outhouse. She also emailed the landlord on 15 February 2023 to complain that despite receiving apologies, she was left to follow up on progress of the repairs. No evidence to show responses were sent, has been provided.
On 25 April 2023, the resident contacted her MP and local councillor to explain the maintenance team was going to the property the following day to rehang doors on the outhouse. She also explained the landlord was meant to have sent someone out to inspect the damp, but that had not happened. She chased the councillor on 15 May as she wanted to know the complaint procedure, due to the delays and lack of communication. The councillor referred the matter to the landlord, and it told the councillor on 19 May that it was arranging to send someone out to the property. Internal emails sent by landlord staff refer to someone leaving a message for the resident on 5 June 2023, in order to arrange a visit to the property, in order to inspect the outhouse.
On 10 and 11 July 2023 the maintenance team attended the property to fill a hole below the corrugated roof sheets and brick seal the left-hand side wall inside the outhouse.
The maintenance team advised the landlord on 26 July 2023, that it had completed repair work on the outhouse that day, in relation to the door, render, applying sealer and stabilising solution, before painting it. It told the landlord the resident had attached a washing line to the side of the outhouse, and advised it ought to be removed, as there would be no recall if the render was damaged.
The resident has confirmed that all work on the outhouse has been completed.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the outhouse.

The landlord was made aware in June 2021, shortly after the resident moved in to the property, that the outhouse was not only in need of repair, but that it was suspected of having asbestos in the roof. The landlord’s records show an appointment was made with the resident, for its maintenance team to attend on 5 July 2021. This was appropriate as it was within 20 working days as per its Repairs Policy. However, no details of that visit have been provided, and the repair history log refers to the appointment being arranged, but is not clear whether a visit went ahead. This landlord’s repair history log should clearly set out whether an appointment took place, and what work was done so that it has an accurate audit trail of the actions taken. This is something the landlord should review going forward.
The landlord’s Repairs Policy says it will carry out repairs in one visit where possible. In this case, due to the possibility of asbestos, it was not realistic for it to be able to comply with that. The landlord’s Housing Asbestos Control Arrangements and Procedures document says the work could only go ahead when safety risks had been assessed and appropriate control measures were in place. It also stipulated that due to the hazardous nature of asbestos, all work on it, had to be done by an approved specialist HSE licensed contractor. In addition, the landlord’s Asbestos Policy, said a survey needed to be undertaken in order to identify if there was asbestos on the property. This meant the landlord had to ensure the correct people attended the property and the relevant checks were made, before work commenced. Therefore, while it is not possible to establish what transpired on 5 July, or if the landlord did attend, given the suspected presence of asbestos, the repairs were likely to require several visits prior to completion.
It was on 16 September 2021, that a test/survey for asbestos was carried out and report was produced the following day. It is not known why it took over month from the first visit for this to be arranged; but it was necessary for it to be carried out. However, nothing further was done until 10 November, nearly 2 months later when the landlord sought a quote for removing asbestos at the property. Again, the reasons for the delay are unclear; however, the evidence does not suggest that the landlord was proactive in dealing with the matter.
In the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to confirm when it had received the results from the testing and advised what it intended to do next, and when. Providing the resident with such information would reasonably have helped to manage her expectations, and would have provided her with reassurance that the landlord was taking the matter seriously. As it was, the resident had to chase for an update on 3 occasions. By November 2021, nearly 5 months had passed since the repair and issue with asbestos had been reported, and this amounts to an unreasonable delay.
Another sample of asbestos was taken on 17 November, but it is not known why another was needed. The resident was directed to the landlord, if she wanted a copy of the asbestos report. The landlord received a quote to have the asbestos removed the following day, on 18 November. Although the maintenance team, offered the resident an apology, due to the length of time things were taking, there is no evidence the landlord advised when the repair would take place. This is despite speaking with her on 23 November 2021, which is not reasonable, bearing in mind she had already had to chase for information in the past.
As a result of receiving no updates on when the repair would take place, the resident complained to her MP, who sent the matter to her local councillor. The complaint was then sent to the landlord to address, on 29 November 2021. However, it was not until 15 December 2021, that the landlord contacted the resident and apologised for the time the repair was taking. It said it would contact her once it could provide a date for the work to commence.
The resident was told on 8 January 2022 that because the outhouse had a shared roof with another property, that presented complications in regard to party wall agreements and how the work was funded. The landlord said it was limited in what it could do until it had consent from the freeholder of the neighbouring property. While this was a reasonable position for the landlord to take, it is unclear why the issue of the shared roof was not noted sooner. Furthermore, there is no evidence that it took steps to liaise with the freeholder at that time, or that it explained the impact of the building being adjoined to the resident sooner.
The outhouse was cleaned on 25 January, but having been chased for a further update, the landlord explained on 1 February 2022, that it assumed someone had been updating the resident. The evidence provided shows the landlord arranged for an external maintenance team to carry out work at the property, and the resident chased it for information, but was not provided with regular updates. However, it was the landlord’s responsibility to carry out the repairs, and to monitor the work, to ensure the resident was kept informed throughout. The landlord not taking steps to ensure it was proactively updating the resident, especially considering the delays experienced by that time, was very poor.
There was also a misunderstanding between landlord staff in internal correspondence seen. It referred to having incorrectly assumed the resident had one point of contact at the landlord, to deal with all the work, when this was evidently not the case. This led to the resident chasing multiple people for updates on the repairs, and rarely getting the information she asked for, which is unacceptable.
On 1 February 2022, the resident made it clear to the landlord that she was not being kept updated on timescales for when work would be completed. Despite having been told that, she had to chase the landlord for information again on 17 February, as well as a claim for a paddling pool that had been damaged as a result of the repairs being delayed. The resident chased 3 more times in March 2022 and it was not until 8 April 2022 that the roof on the outhouse was replaced; nearly 10 months after it was first reported. It then took until 23 June for the render to be replaced as well as the doors, and the resident had to chase for updates again, on 8 July. The render was then replaced on 15 July 2022 and the painting was also done, with the window being the last thing to be replaced, on 24 August 2022.
Overall, it took 14 months for the repairs to be carried out, and it is unclear why there were so many delays. Over that period, the resident became increasingly unhappy with the time it was taking to complete the repairs. That is reflected in a gradual increase in the amount of times she chased the landlord regarding updates and progress. While the resident received a couple of apologises for the delays, the issue remained fully unresolved for over a year. Therefore, it is understandable that the apologies made carried very little weight with the resident. Given how long the issue had been ongoing, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to try and expedite the works and mitigate further inconvenience to the resident.
The asbestos had been removed by 25 January 2022, but it still took an additional 7 months for the repairs to be carried out. When the resident reported an issue with damp and the repairs that had been carried out shortly afterwards, it then took another 8 months for those further repairs to be completed. She also had to escalate her concerns with her MP and councillor again when she did not get responses from the landlord again, in order to obtain a reply. This was further inconvenience, that could have been avoided.
The evidence does not demonstrate that the landlord was proactive in carrying out the necessary repairs The landlord had a responsibility to treat the resident fairly, to put issues right and learn from the outcomes. While it is noted the landlord apologised to the resident, the resident was left to continually chase for information, so the landlord failed to learn from its mistakes. It also did not consider the impact the repairs were having on the resident; someone who had health issues and had to chase for information, as well as having had no use of the outhouse for over a year. It is noted the landlord did reimburse the resident for the cost of a damaged paddling pool; however, the resident still had to chase the landlord for this, on a number of occasions, before it was actioned.
Taking all this in to account, the landlord’s service fell short. The repair remained unresolved after the internal complaints procedure had been exhausted, for a further 4 months. It then took about another 8 months to complete additional repairs that were needed; again, prompted and chased for, by the resident. The landlord appropriately identified delays and failings in how it had responded to the resident’s concerns and reports of repair; but it did not then resolve matters within a reasonable period of time. During the internal complaints procedure, the repairs had been delayed and it would therefore have been reasonable for the LL to offer the resident some redress. As further repairs were then required, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider the situation as a whole and offer further compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the additional delay.

The landlord’s communication about repairs.

The landlord’s Repairs Policy says it will “communicate effectively with residents”. However, the evidence indicates it failed to adhere to that policy. The resident did not receive regular updates from the landlord about the repairs; rather, she had to chase it for information regularly over a two-year period. It has already been established, the landlord was contacted several times by the resident, for information. Sometimes, even when the landlord did respond, it did not provide the resident with any useful information about the work that needed to be done.
The landlord outsourced the repairs work to a maintenance company, and it seems to have incorrectly assumed that it would provide the resident with information about the repairs. In addition, it is clear from internal correspondence that an assumption was also made that one particular staff member would be the resident’s point of contact on all matters. She had to later explain to the resident, that that was not actually the case, and this reflected poorly on the landlord, as it indicated it was disorganised in its approach.
From June 2021, when the repair was first reported, through to April 2022, the resident chased the landlord at least 12 times for information, and on several occasions, she received no response. The landlord had a responsibility to ensure that the work, a live job, was actively monitored, and the resident was updated on what was happening. That is because the responsibility for the repair falls to the landlord. Any company used to carry out the repair, was instructed on the landlord’s behalf. It was not reasonable to rely on the maintenance company to keep the resident informed, or for her to have to chase for information, as often as she did.
The Ombudsman notes that on 20 April 2022, the landlord sent an email to its staff, as well as the councillor who had complained on behalf of the resident, to say it had apologised to the resident that day, for a lack of communication. This was appropriate having accepted its service had fallen short. It also said one person had been assigned to oversee the work to completion, which was sensible and a reasonable approach, to ensure consistent communication going forward. The following day, the landlord also asked the maintenance team to keep the resident updated on work. These were initially positive steps.
Work was carried out at the property between 20 and 23 June 2023. Although no evidence has been provided to show the resident was informed about this work. The resident did though, then tell the landlord on 28 June 2022, she was unhappy, because works had not been completed to the timescales she had been given. She had also been provided with different dates to complete the work, and she was frustrated with the number of changes made.
The change of dates is recorded as having been as a result of contractor availability. While the Ombudsman understands the resident’s frustration, it is evident the landlord did ensure she was told about the changes, and why they were necessary. The landlord apologised again to the resident on 8 July 2022, for the time things were taking and it also took the matter up with the maintenance team, in order to ensure it was aware of her concerns. The maintenance team also provided the resident with details of the remaining schedule of works, on 15 July, which shows it took on board the request from the landlord, to ensure the resident was updated. Shortly afterwards, the initial repairs were completed.
There was therefore a shortfall in the landlord’s communication from June 2021 to April 2022. However, there were further problems from November 2022, when the resident, who had reported issues with the repairs carried out, had to chase the landlord again for information on 19 November 2022. The landlord did apologise and acknowledge it should have responded sooner and said it would follow matters up with the maintenance team. The resident was also told she would be updated the following week. However, the evidence shows the resident had to chase the landlord again on 9 December, as nobody had been to look at the damp in the outhouse, that she had reported.
The resident then emailed the landlord on 15 February 2023 to say she was again unhappy that she was being left to follow up on progress of the additional repairs. No evidence has been provided, to show the landlord responded to that. The resident then escalated matters once more to her MP and local councillor on 25 April 2023, which shows her frustration at the lack of communication. Having told the landlord on 9 December 2022 that no one had been to the property to look at the damp in the outhouse, she explained that still nobody had been, several months on.
There is an internal email dated 5 June 2023, which refers to someone calling and leaving a message for the resident, about arranging to visit the property and inspect the outhouse. However, this was about 6 months after the resident reported further issues and demonstrates a significant lack of communication on the matter. This is especially disappointing, after the landlord identified this as a failing in its service in the past, and had taken steps previously to ensure the resident was kept better informed. This suggests the landlord had not truly learnt from the complaint, or it needed to take further steps in order to ensure its communication was improved.
In summary, the landlord’s communication fell short for around 8 months after the resident reported the repair. Having acknowledged and improved upon its communication after that, the evidence shows that when the resident reported an issue with the repair, issues once again arose. There was a significant lack of communication over several months and the landlord failed to consider the effect this had on the resident. This shows that the learning identified by the landlord from the complaint, was short-lived. It took steps to improve the communication; however, given the repeated failings, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to review its processes. It could have then understood where and why things had gone wrong and what could be done to prevent similar communication issues arising in the future. It also failed to consider whether compensation should be paid, to recognise the impact its poor service had on the resident. This is therefore something the Ombudsman has taken in to account, and the Orders made, reflect this.

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

Having chased the landlord for information on a number of occasions, the resident sent a complaint about the landlord’s service to her MP on 20 November 2021. This was sent on to a local councillor who forwarded it to the landlord to deal with, on 29 November 2021. The complaint was about asbestos at her property not being dealt with by the landlord promptly, and a lack of communication. She also mentioned an issue with her water supply.
The landlord’s Complaints Process says, a housing landlord complaint made at stage 1 should receive a response within 10 working days. An internal email dated 3 December 2021, shows the landlord had accepted the email from the councillor as being a complaint from the resident. However, having not heard from the landlord, the resident sent chaser emails on 7 and 14 December 2021.
The landlord sent an initial response to the resident, on 15 December 2021. It apologised for the time the repair was taking and said it was following up on the matter and someone would contact her once it had a date for when the work would start. It also said she would receive a separate response to her complaint.
The landlord’s stage 1 response was sent on 8 January 2022; 29 working days after the complaint was passed to the landlord. While the landlord had acknowledged the complaint in the interim, it did not adhere to the timescales set out in its Complaints Process. In the absence of any explanation for the delay, this was unreasonable. In the response, the landlord did apologise for the delay in carrying out the repairs and explained there were complications as a result of the roof being linked to another property. This was appropriate as the resident had not been previously informed of the position. The resident was also told someone would be in contact with her in the coming week.
While the landlord’s response addressed the delay in the repairs, it failed to deal with the resident’s complaint about a lack of communication, or issues with her water supply. Therefore, as well as there being a delay at stage 1, the response itself was inadequate.
No evidence has been provided to show the landlord contacted the resident the following week, as it had said it would; however, it did speak with her on 20 January and having apologised again, it said it would monitor the work.
The evidence shows that the resident ended up chasing the landlord once again for information and as a result, a meeting evidently took place between the resident, landlord and the local councillor. This was referred to in an email sent by the landlord on 7 March 2022, where it confirmed the complaint would be escalated to stage 2, as two issues remained outstanding. That being:
1. There was poor communication in relation to progress with repairs.
2. The resident was still awaiting structural investigation into the outhouse structure and was waiting confirmation on when the roof would be replaced.
The resident was told on 9 March that she should receive a response to her stage 2 complaint, within 15 working days, or she would be told if it was going to take longer. This was in line with its Complaints Process; therefore, the resident was expecting a response by 30 March 2022.
The landlord did not respond by this date, and did not advise that it needed additional time to respond. As such, the resident escalated her concerns to the councillor she had been liaising with on 7 April 2022, who then referred her concerns to the landlord. It issued its stage 2 response on 12 April, 24 working days after the complaint was escalated, and upheld the complaint.
However, while the landlord upheld the complaint, no consideration was given to the effect the issues had had on the resident; with no compensation being considered or offered, which would have been appropriate in the circumstances. In addition, having identified and apologised for its oversights, although things initially improved, when problems with the repairs occurred, the same issues reoccurred, with there being further delays in repairs and a lack of communication. This indicates the landlord had failed to sufficiently take on board learning from the complaint, despite saying in its stage 2 response, “We are continuously working to improve the service our customers receive and we will include the feedback from this complaint in our training sessions to help improve performance further.”
In addition to this, the resident told the councillor on 15 May 2022 that she wanted to know the landlord’s complaint procedure, due to the delays and lack of communication. The councillor referred this to the landlord, and it should have considered dealing with the resident’s further concerns as a new complaint. It failed to do that.
Overall, there were a number of issues with the landlord’s complaints handling, and this, along with how this affected the resident, has been taken in to account with the orders made.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the outhouse.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s communication about repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s record keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint that she has been discriminated against, is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Reasons

The landlord delayed dealing with repairs and failed to recognise the impact of this on the resident. It also did not ensure that repairs were monitored throughout.
The landlord failed to ensure the resident was updated regularly on the repairs being carried out. It also did not always respond, when the resident chased it for information.
The landlord delayed responding to the resident’s complaint and failed to take learning from the issues raised or consider offering compensation to the resident.
The landlord’s notes from visits to the property were not always clear, as they did not show what work was carried out.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified by this investigation.
2. Pay the resident a total of £1,200, comprised of:
  1. £400 for the frustration and inconvenience caused by delays dealing with the repairs to the property.
  2. £500 to recognise the inconvenience to the resident caused by a lack of communication.
  3. £300 to recognise the inconvenience to the resident as a result of its poor complaint handling.
3. Review its approach to repairs, to ensure they are accurately recorded and actively monitored until fully resolved.
4. Review the findings of this complaint and put steps in place to ensure there is always regular communication with residents throughout dealing with a repair; and that the individual needs of residents are taken into account, as necessary.

Recommendations

Review its repairs record keeping practices. It should ensure repairs staff and contractors are reminded of the importance of keeping clear notes of when visits took place and what work was carried out.
Review the learning from this complaint and its Complaint Process and whether it should have compensation guidance for its staff.