Lewisham Council (202202999)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202202999

Lewisham Council

5 September 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 the landlord’s:
1. handling of repairs to a boiler and bathroom taps, including missed appointments and subsequent delay;
2. complaint handling and record keeping.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant since 2016. The resident lives at the property with her children, who were under 18 years old at the time of the complaint. There are no known vulnerabilities recorded by the landlord. However, within communications with the landlord, the resident indicated she had difficulties with mental health.
The tenancy agreement sets out the repair obligations of the landlord. The landlord will:
1. “Keep in good repair: the structure; the exterior of the building; all installations for the supply of water, gas, electricity, heating, sanitation”.
2. “Check and service gas appliances and pipe work every year to make sure they are safe”.

Relevant policies and procedures

The landlord has a 3 stage complaint process:
1. Stage 1 complaints are acknowledged within 5 working days and are responded to within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints are acknowledged in 5 working days and are responded to within 20 working days.
2. New complaint elements will be incorporated into the stage 1 response, provided they have been raised prior to the landlord issuing its stage 1 response. If new complaints are raised after issue of its stage 1 response, or would unnecessarily delay its investigation, the landlord will log these as a separate complaint.
3. The landlord’s stage 1 response will state the landlord’s decision following investigation and the reasons for it. At stage 2, the landlord will state the “outcome and any additional actions to be taken to resolve” the complaint.
4. Stage 3 complaints are investigated by an independent adjudicator. They are acknowledged within 2 working days and a final response is issued within 20 working days. If more time is needed, “the adjudicator will advise the resident”.
5. “If we decide not to follow the complaints procedure, for example we want to skip stages….we will usually discuss this with the Housing Ombudsman first”.
The landlord has a compensation, reimbursements and remedies procedure which states:
1. It will make goodwill payments where the landlord has failed to deliver on its service standard, or it agrees a mistake has been made and is trying to prevent a complaint from being made by resolving the matter at an early stage.
2. Discretionary (ex-gratia) payments may be made in recognition of time and trouble, inconvenience and distress. Awards are based on the level of impact on the resident, ranging from £0 – £50 where there has been low impact; £51 – £250 for medium impact and £251 – £1,000 for high impact.
The landlord has a repair policy which sets out its repairing obligations. The landlord’s repair priorities and response times are as follows:
1. Emergency repairs are responded to in 24 hours. The landlord will attempt to complete the repair if it can. If this is not possible, it will carry out work to make safe and carry out any follow-up work as an urgent or routine repair.
2. Urgent repairs are responded to within 3 working days.
3. Routine repairs are responded to within 20 workings days.
4. Exceptions to the above include where:
  1. follow up works could not be achieved in a single visit
  2. coordinating works involves multiple trades or contractors
  3. inspections are required to make a diagnosis to initiate a repair or order materials
  4. the landlord needs to proactively monitor an ongoing or complex repair, such as damp or a structural issue
5. Where it is “unable to complete a repair on a single visit, or within our expected timeframes, we will proactively keep the tenant updated with progress including arrangements for repeat or rearranged visits”.
The landlord’s repairs guide indicates that if the landlord cannot gain access to the property at the agreed time, it will phone the resident. If it is unable to make contact, it will leave a calling card. The resident “will need to contact us to rearrange the appointment”.
The landlord has a gas safety policy, which states:
1. “Any gas appliance that fails the safety check will be disconnected from the gas supply and the tenant instructed not to use it until it can be removed, repaired or replaced”.
2. It will ensure that “safe alternative temporary heating arrangements are made”, where issues identified “at the at the safety check would result in no heating being available in the property”.
The landlord’s safeguarding policy states that “all contracts to deliver services in [the landlord’s] properties…contain clauses obliging contractors to adhere to [the landlord’s] safeguarding policies and procedures. The landlord has an access policy, which also applies to its contractors. This states that “a responsible adult, (over the age of 18), must be present to allow us access”.

Scope of investigation

We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider and resolve the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred.
Paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states, “the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the [landlord] as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising”. This investigation focuses on events from 10 November 2021 until 15 September 2022. This being 6 months prior to the formal complaint being made, up until the landlord’s complaint process was exhausted.
Accordingly, complaints raised about outstanding historical works prior to 10 November 2021, fall outside of the scope of this investigation. This includes the landlord’s failure to paint a kitchen ceiling and follow on works subsequent to a damp and mould inspection. As the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint about outstanding historical repairs within its stage 3 final response, this service has assessed the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about this, as an additional element within complaint handling.

Summary of events

The landlord’s records indicate that a works order was raised on 9 April 2022, following a report from the resident about having no heating. The landlord’s gas contractor attended on the same day, finding a pressure fault on the boiler. The boiler was topped up and left working.
The landlord’s gas contractor attended the property on 29 April 2022, to carry out an annual gas safety check. The gas certificate indicated the boiler was not safe to use. The appliance was “at risk” due to a high flue gas analyser reading. It also noted that the valve was noisy, and parts were required. A warning notice was issued. A job to complete follow-on works was logged on 3 May 2022. The resident made an appointment for the works to be carried out on 10 May 2022.
The landlord’s gas contractor attended the property on 10 May 2022 at 4pm, in accordance with the resident’s instructions. However, only the resident’s daughter was at home, who was under 18 years old at the time of the complaint. The resident was asked to rebook the appointment to a different time when she could be at home. A new appointment was booked for 16 May 2022.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 10 May 2022. The resident indicated:
1. She had tried to submit a complaint but had been given an incorrect email address.
2. She had called the landlord numerous times, only to be met with long call waiting times of up to 1.5 hours. At times she had been disconnected before anyone answered.
3. The landlord had advised her to book repair appointments online, however when she had done this, no-one would turn up. She believed this was because online appointments were not confirmed.
4. The boiler was not functioning properly, but it had been difficult to secure an appointment. The boiler had not been fixed properly. The annual gas safety check found carbon monoxide leaking from the boiler and was deemed unsafe to use.
5. The meter was charging £10 a day. The resident believed this was because the boiler was faulty. Although the landlord was aware, it had done nothing to resolve this.
6. The resident sought managerial input, resolution, and compensation. While she had asked for a manager to help move things forward, no contact had been received.
The landlord emailed the resident on 13 May 2022, apologising for the delay in acknowledging the resident’s stage 1 complaint. The landlord said that it would respond by 27 May 2022.
The landlord’s records indicate that follow up work to the boiler was completed on 16 May 2022. Parts were replaced and the system was tested.
On 17 May 2022, the resident emailed the Housing Ombudsman and copied in the landlord. The resident explained that her complaint was about repairs and the condition of the property. She explained that she had had difficulty arranging a boiler repair and stated that her gas bill had tripled. She explained inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of replacement shower taps. The resident said that her kitchen was in a poor condition, however the landlord would not replace it. She said that the landlord had failed to complete redecoration works in the kitchen, nor had it attended to damp and mould. The landlord had given her an incorrect complaint email address and the landlord’s call waiting times were excessive.
The landlord’s gas contractor tried to contact the resident on 19 May 2022, following her complaint about the gas boiler. Unable to make contact, its contractor emailed the resident on 19 May 2022, stating:
1. A “high flue gas analyser reading” was recorded at its annual gas check and a warning notice was issued. Despite advice given, the resident refused to switch off the boiler. Its contractor said, “although there were high readings, this did not mean that the boiler was leaking carbon monoxide. The boiler is room sealed, which means no carbon monoxide would leak unless there were other seals that became faulty. As these were not faulty, there would have been no exposure to carbon monoxide”.
2. In respect of the gas meter charging £10 per day, this was not due to the boiler being faulty. “The boiler is gas rated when we carry out the checks”. The rates were not shown to be high and were correct. “This means that the increased amount of gas you are using could be due to the rise in the energy suppliers increasing their fuel process, or the additional usage of gas appliances. We have replaced the part of the boiler and carried out the necessary checks and all are complete and correct”.
3. The resident was told to contact the landlord’s complaint caseworkers if the information provided did not resolve the resident’s concerns.
The landlord gave its stage 1 response on 20 May 2022, concerning outstanding repairs and issues with the heating system. The landlord did not formally state a decision in regard to the resident’s complaint. In summary, the landlord:
1. Apologised for the delay providing its response.
2. Said that its operatives attended the property on 29 April 2022 to “secure your walls” and then again on 17 May 2022, “to carry out repairs to your bathroom taps”. It had also been in contact with the resident regarding the boiler and heating issues. It said that it had tried to contact the resident on 20 May 2022, to see if the repairs had been carried out, but was unable to get through.
3. Said the resident should contact its complaint caseworkers if the information provided did not resolve the resident’s concerns.
The resident emailed the landlord’s gas contractor on 24 May 2022. The resident stated:
1. The gas charge may not be high, but her boiler was faulty, and it was not investigated or repaired in a timely manner.
2. At the annual gas check, its gas engineer explained the boiler was leaking carbon monoxide at the exterior of the property. The resident asked for details of what was wrong with the boiler, what repairs had been carried out and an explanation for why the fault was not identified on 9 April 2022.
3. The landlord had delayed completing work to the boiler, which had caused inconvenience. She had left her 16 year old child in the property to provide access for the repair, but its engineer had refused to complete the work due to their age. The resident asked for a copy of the landlord’s policy stating that a 16 year old was unable to provide access to a contractor.
The landlord’s gas contractor responded to the resident by email on 26 May 2022, in which it stated:
1. Its contract with the landlord did not allow it “to work in any premises where children were under the age of 18, without a supervising adult in attendance”.
2. It had visited the property on 9 April 2022. The boiler showed an error code which indicated that the boiler had low pressure. The boiler was topped up, checked for leaks and left in working order.
3. At the annual gas check on 29 April 2022, a warning notice was issued “due to high readings on the flue checks and at risk the appliance”. Batteries were replaced in the thermostat, which was left in full working order. The gas valve was found to be noisy, which required replacement. The valve was ordered, and an appointment was scheduled to install this on 10 May 2022. As there was no adult present, the appointment was rebooked for 16 May 2022, when works were completed.
The landlord has stated that it raised a works order on 29 April 2022 to remedy issues with the resident’s shower tap. Its operative attended on 6 May 2022, who advised that a new bath mixer tap was required. These works were booked for 11 May 2022, however on arrival its operative was unclear on what was required, so rebooked the repair for 17 May 2022. It is understood that this work was completed on 17 May 2022, however this service has not seen evidence of this.
The landlord emailed the resident on 30 May 2022. It said that it was responding to an email sent to the Housing Ombudsman Service on 17 May 2022, which it was copied into. It said that its stage 1 complaint was addressed on 21 May 2022, and it attached copies of responses from its gas and repairs team. It asked the resident to let it know if her issues had not been resolved, or if she remained dissatisfied with the outcome of her complaint.
The resident responded to the landlord on 1 June 2022. The resident said that the landlord had not fully addressed her complaint. The resident listed several outstanding matters, which included: having to take 3 days off work to replace bath taps; inaction of the landlord following a damp and mould inspection carried out 2 years ago; the condition of kitchen walls, ceiling and floor caused by mould, and a lack of maintenance.
The resident reported a smell of gas to the landlord on 6 June 2022. The landlord attended the property out of hours on the same day.
The landlord emailed the resident on 8 June 2021. It said that it was sorry to hear of ongoing issues and for its delay in acknowledgement. It said that it would escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 and would provide a response by 29 June 2022.
The landlord’s internal communications between 27 June 2022 and 29 June 2022, reflect the landlord seeking an update in connection with the resident’s report about damp and mould. It identified a works order raised on 20 September 2021 for an inspection which was carried out on 1 October 2021. However, no follow-on work had been ordered because its surveyor’s inspection report had been lost when his phone crashed. The landlord did not have any back up system in place at the time. On becoming aware that works were outstanding, the landlord attempted to phone the resident on 27 June 2022 to address this. It also sent a text message to the resident. The landlord has since indicated to this service that the resident did not respond to its attempts at contact.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 29 June 2022 with its stage 2 response. The letter did not set out the complaint definition or confirm its decision. In summary, the landlord:
1. Said it was sorry to hear that it had not addressed the issues raised in the resident’s stage 1 complaint, and that the resident was still experiencing damp and mould.
2. Indicated that it’s damp and mould team had tried calling the resident and had sent emails, but the landlord had not received a response. It had also tried phoning the resident to book in an appointment for follow-on works, but had been unable to reach her. The resident was asked to make contact with its repairs teams to make an appointment.
3. Apologised for “the wait time to get through to [the landlord]. It said “we are currently reviewing our repairs service to ensure we have the correct resources. This includes implementing additional staff to ensure calls are dealt with in an efficient and timely manner”.
4. Said that its “complaints caseworkers will work with you to deal with any remaining issues. If after contacting us your complaint is still unresolved, you can ask for your complaint to be reviewed by the independent adjudicator at stage 3 of the complaint’s procedure”.
The resident contacted the landlord on 12 August 2022, describing continued dissatisfaction with the landlord’s complaint handling. The resident said:
1. The landlord had not addressed or satisfied the resident’s various complaints.
2. The landlord had been made aware of a new leak in the upstairs bathroom. Although this had stopped this still needed inspecting. The leak had caused severe damage to the kitchen walls, which need to be replastered and painted, alongside the ceiling.
3. There was a fault on the boiler, relating to pressure, which stopped the boiler from working every other day.
4. The landlord’s call waiting times were long and calls drop out. The resident waited for over an hour to get through to the landlord on 11 August 2022. But the nearest appointment it could offer was not until 2 September 2022. The landlord indicated that the leak could wait until September because it was not active, however she said this was not acceptable.
5. The property was in a “horrible state of mould and my kitchen is absolutely appalling”. The resident said that this was affecting her mental health and was making her feel depressed.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s dissatisfaction on 12 August 2022. It advised that the matter was being looked into, following which it would provide a response.
The resident emailed the landlord on 16 August 2022. The resident asked how she could expedite the repairs needed, as she had not received a response from the landlord as previously indicated and issues were escalating. The resident reminded the landlord of the various complaints she had made and requested for a manager to contact her to arrange an inspection. The resident repeated that the situation was stressful and detrimental to her mental health.
The landlord emailed the resident on 16 August 2022, asking the resident to provide her availability for a supervisor to carry out an inspection. It said that it was also looking into the issues raised in her stage 2 complaint.
The resident reported a smell of gas from the boiler to the landlord on 16 August 2022. The landlord’s contractor attended the property on 17 August 2022. A “gas tightness test” found “no drop”. The job notes state that the boiler was “all working fine”.
The resident confirmed on 17 August 2022, that she could be available for the landlord’s inspection on 23 August 2022. She also said she had no hot water. This service has seen no evidence to show if the landlord responded to the resident’s report of no hot water.
The landlord issued another stage 2 response on 19 August 2022. The landlord said:
1. In respect of repairs required to the shower taps, a works orders was raised on 29 April 2022 and an appointment was booked for 6 May 2022. An operative attended and advised that a new bath mixer tap was required, rebooking the appointment for 11 May 2022. However, the new operative was unaware of what was required and rebooked the repair for 17 May 2022, when the new bath mixer tap was installed. It apologised for a scheduling error, resulting in the original operative not attending.
2. In regard to kitchen ceiling repairs, a works order was raised on 13 July 2020 for plastering works following a leak. An operative attended on 17 July 2020 to complete this work, however it acknowledged that the resident had chased for the ceiling to be painted on a few occasions for which it apologised. A works order was raised on 14 August 2020, which was passed to its contractor for completion. It was carrying out a full investigation into why the works were not completed in a timely manner. A date would be provided for works to be completed.
3. Concerning the renewal of the kitchen, the landlord said it was due to survey the kitchen in 2027. Kitchens were only renewed every 20 – 25 years. It attached a copy of its handbook, which provided more information on repairs and planned works.
4. In relation to damp and mould, the landlord said that it had seen some correspondence with its damp and mould team regarding inspections. It was unclear if any inspections had been carried out, which it was investigating. However, it had arranged for an inspection to be carried out on 23 August 2022, following which an appointment would be made to finalise any works required.
5. It was experiencing high call volumes, which had impacted call waiting times. This was an internal issue that had been addressed. It apologised for any stress or inconvenience caused
6. The resident should contact its complaint caseworkers if the information provided did not resolve the resident’s concerns.
Although this service has seen no evidence of a damp inspection being carried out on 23 August 2022, later communications from the resident indicate that an inspection was completed. No inspection report has been provided to this service and it is unclear what follow-on action was agreed.
The landlord’s records suggest that an appointment was booked for 1 September 2022. The resident claims this appointment was booked to investigate issues with the boiler. However, before the appointment had taken place, the landlord was called out to another report that the boiler had shut down. The landlord’s records indicate that the boiler was reset on 27 August 2022, after the “gas had run out”.
The landlord’s independent adjudicator emailed the resident on 31 August 2022, acknowledging the resident’s complaint of 12 August 2022 as an escalation to stage 3 of its complaints process. It said that its target response was 10 September 2022, but having just returned from annual leave, a response time of 17 September 2022 was more realistic.
The resident wrote to the landlord’s independent adjudicator on 14 September 2022, referring to a conversation with the adjudicator a couple of weeks before. This service has not seen contemporaneous notes from this conversation. The resident told its adjudicator in her email:
1. The landlord had booked an appointment to look at the boiler on 1 September 2022, with the expectation that it may need to be replaced due to it malfunctioning every other day. The resident had the day off of work to accommodate the appointment, but nobody turned up. The landlord told her that the appointment was cancelled because it thought the issue had been resolved on 27 August 2022.
2. The out of hours team reset the boiler on 27 August 2022 and suggested that the gas may have run out, but this was not the case. The boiler had stopped working again at the time of writing and the resident again had no hot water.
3. The issue with the boiler had been ongoing for over 6 months despite complaints made. The landlord had still not resolved all of the issues despite the landlord carrying out a property inspection nearly 2 weeks ago.
The landlord’s repairs records indicate that it responded to the resident’s report of no heating or hot water on 14 September 2022. The landlord’s notes reflect that it was unable to complete the booking as the resident’s call terminated. The landlord told the resident on 16 September 2022 in a voice mail, that an operative would attend later that day. The outcome of this is unknown.
The landlord issued its stage 3 and final complaint response on 15 September 2022. The resident’s complaint was upheld. It accepted that there was “significant delay in restoring the kitchen ceiling, delay in following up damp and mould issues, unacceptably long waits when calling the call centre, and a failure to trace and remedy leaks into the kitchen”. It acknowledged that the resident had “suffered avoidable stress and distress…had to live with damp and mould, ongoing leaks, and an unfinished kitchen ceiling, for much longer than should have been the case”. The landlord’s independent adjudicator:
1. Repeated the response given by the landlord’s gas contactor on 20 May 2022. In addition, the adjudicator stated that “the problem with the boiler was with the gas it was discharging though the flue to the outside”. “Your family was protected by the boiler seals, which were not faulty”. The adjudicator said that it was reasonable and “compliant with current thinking on safeguarding” to require an adult to be present when repairing the boiler. It suggested that the repair would have been completed sooner had the resident been at home on 10 May 2022.
2. Stated that repairs to the shower taps should have been completed within 3 working days, but took 11 working days. The landlord accepted it had made an administrative error for which it had already apologised.
3. Indicated that the landlord had accepted there had been a failure in service, in relation to damage caused to the kitchen ceiling. Redecoration works were ordered in August 2020 but had not been carried out. It noted that there had been a new leak since then.
4. Said the landlord had already accepted “that it had not completed the damp and mould survey as intended and undertook to arrange a new inspection”, although this had not yet taken place.
5. Noted when the property was void in 2016, the landlord “considered the kitchen to be acceptable”. The landlord’s “general policy of expecting a kitchen to last 25 years is not completely unreasonable”, as it had to “distribute its resources prudently”. However, “given the multiple leaks” since the property was last void, it would be reasonable to reinspect the kitchen sooner than planned.
6. Said the landlord had already acknowledged the issue of call waiting times, which had been addressed internally. However, it noted there had been a recent issue, “which suggested there was more work to do”.
7. Stated the landlord’s gas contractor had addressed concerns about the size of the resident’s gas bill on 20 May 2022. It said as the boiler had been gas rated, any increase was “not the result of a faulty boiler”.
8. Indicated that further investigation was required, after noting the resident had been experiencing leaks and the boiler regularly lost pressure. The adjudicator said, while the boiler may not be faulty, the need to frequently repressurise the boiler was suggestive of a water leak elsewhere in the heating system.
9. Said the landlord should consider taking action, in line with the following recommendations:
  1. Arrange a damp inspection and commit to carrying out necessary works within a clear and rapid timescale.
  2. Trace and remedy the most recent leak and carry out remedial works. This was to include checking the central heating system to establish why the boiler kept tripping and replacing the toilet plan.
  3. Inspect the kitchen to consider whether leak damage justified earlier kitchen renewal.
  4. Pay £500 to acknowledge the impact of its delays.
  5. Run a check on its repairs system to identity any incomplete jobs more than 4 weeks old, and follow up as appropriate.
  6. Review its call centre arrangements to make sure these were adequate for the volume of calls experienced.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to a boiler and bathroom taps, including missed appointments and subsequent delay

It is understandable that the resident would have concerns for the safety of her family given that the boiler was deemed unsafe at the annual gas check. The resident was particularly concerned about this because the landlord’s contractor had worked on the boiler just 13 days before. However, the annual gas check would involve a variety of checks, which the previous engineer would not have carried out in response to an error code, that indicated an issue with boiler pressure.
After deeming the boiler “at risk” on 29 April 2022, the landlord’s gas engineer appropriately advised the resident of the need to switch off the boiler and not to use it until further notice. This was in line with the landlord’s gas safety policy. If the gas engineer was unable to obtain voluntary agreement from the resident to disconnect the appliance, the landlord should have taken the necessary steps to cap the gas supply. Although the landlord’s gas contractor later clarified that the resident was not placed at any risk, at the time, its engineer believed the appliance was unsafe and recorded it so. Its engineer should have acted appropriately to the situation. While the resident’s actions were an aggravating factor in this matter, the landlord’s failure to leave the gas appliance safe was a serious failing, which caused the resident worry and could have placed the resident at risk.
It is vital that residents are given clear information about why an appliance must be disconnected, how and when a repair or replacement will take place, and what the resident should do in the meantime, while taking the circumstances of the household into consideration. It is unclear from the evidence seen by this service exactly what the resident was told, however there is also no evidence that temporary heating was offered to the resident in the interim. This was inconsistent with its gas safety policy and was unfair to the resident.
It is understandable that the landlord could not complete the remedial work on the day of the annual gas check if it needed parts. It is noted from the landlord’s website that it has taken learnings from past complaints and its gas contractors now keep a stock of replacement parts on their vans. Nevertheless, the landlord was required to completed follow-on works in a reasonable timeframe. The landlord’s expected timescale for completion of urgent work was 3 working days. In this case, there was an overall delay of 8 working days.
Part of this delay can be attributed to the resident’s own availability to provide access. However, additional delay was caused when the appointment for follow-on works had to be rescheduled to a time when an adult could be present to provide access. This service considers that it was reasonable to expect a responsible adult (over the age of 18 years) to be present when carrying out the repairs. This is usual practice across the sector and was in line with the landlord’s access policy. While the additional delay was unfortunate, it was not unreasonable in view of the landlord’s commitment toward safeguarding.
Of particular inconvenience to the resident was the persistent need to repressurise the boiler and the intermittent boiler breakdowns, which were ongoing issues throughout the duration of the complaint. This was likely to be particularly frustrating the resident, as the landlord had particularly high call waiting times during this time and issues with its IT, that made reporting repairs unduly time consuming. It is noted that the landlord apologised for this at the time and has since brought its call waiting times down.
Although the landlord responded to the resident’s repeated reports of boiler malfunctions, no evidence has been seen to indicate that the landlord fully investigated an underlying cause, prior to recommendations being made by its adjudicator on 15 September 2022. This was particularly unreasonable given the resident had indicated several times that the boiler was tripping every other day. Furthermore, an inspection which might have afforded the landlord such opportunity was cancelled in error, causing the resident to lose another day off work unnecessarily. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about ongoing issues with the boiler was inadequate and perpetuated the resident’s frustration and distress.
It is not in dispute that there was delay completing repairs to the resident’s bathroom taps, which amounted to 8 working days. This was recognised in the landlord’s second stage 2 and stage 3 responses. While the resident was caused some inconvenience, which included having to take additional days off work, the landlord took steps to put things right, which included an offer of compensation.
When considered cumulatively, this service finds maladministration.

The landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping

The circumstances around how or why the resident was given an incorrect email address to raise a complaint is unclear, but inevitably this delayed the resident raising a complaint. While the delay may have been short, it nevertheless caused the resident frustration.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), states that landlord’s must publicise their complaints policy and process in leaflets, posters, newsletters, online and as part of regular correspondence with residents. Therefore, the correct contact details should have been readily available to the resident. While the landlord’s 2023 self-assessment against the Code indicates that information on complaints is made available on its website and is included in newsletters, it makes no reference to its inclusion as part of regular correspondence with residents. An order is made later in respect of this.
After the resident raised her stage 1 complaint, the resident raised additional complaint elements on 17 May 2022 about bathroom taps, the condition of the kitchen, outstanding redecoration works in the kitchen, and damp and mould. As the landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s email until after it had issued its stage 1 response, this service has assumed that the new complaint elements did not form part of the landlord’s stage 1 investigation. It is however noted that the landlord’s stage 1 response included an update in connection with repairs to “walls” and “bathroom taps”, however it is unclear why these were referenced.
The landlord’s stage 1 response did not follow the expected format set out under the Code or its own complaint policy. It did not provide a clear complaint definition, nor did it fully address the resident’s original complaint. It did not explain the landlord’s decision, nor did it set out how and when it would resolve outstanding issues of complaint. It also unnecessarily apologised for its delay in providing a response, despite its response being issued within expected timescales under its policy. The landlord’s stage 1 response fell short and left the resident uncertain of a resolution.
In accordance with its complaints policy, if the landlord had decided to “skip a complaint stage”, it should have “discussed this with the Housing Ombudsman first”. However, the landlord’s decision not to escalate the new complaint elements through all complaint stages, was made without discussion with this service. Nonetheless, in accordance with the Code and its own policy, as the stage 1 response had already been given, the landlord should have logged the new complaint elements as a separate stage 1 complaint. This service accepts that the impact of this on the resident was low, since there was still an opportunity for the landlord to review its decision at stage 3, which it did.
The landlord’s first stage 2 response again fell short, as it did not follow the expected format of a complaint response. It did not state the landlord’s decision or address all elements of the resident’s complaint. The landlord’s second stage 2 response addressed most of the outstanding matters of complaint, identified failings and set out the actions that the landlord must take. However, after identifying there had been failings, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not consider offering financial redress in view of the failings it itself had identified.
When the resident expressed continued dissatisfaction with the landlord’s first stage 2 response on 12 August 2022, it should have sought clarification from the resident if she wanted to progress the complaint to stage 3 of its complaint process, or advised how she could progress the complaint directly to this service. In accordance with the Code, complaints should only go to a third stage “if the resident has actively requested this”. Yet, without clarification or explanation, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s email of 12 August 2022 and provided a second stage 2 response outside of its policy. Separately, the landlord’s independent adjudicator also responded to the resident’s email of 12 August 2022, stating that it was investigating the resident’s complaint at stage 3. The landlord’s complaint handling was inconsistent with the Code and its own complaint policy and was likely to have caused unnecessary confusion for the resident.
The landlord’s independent adjudicator upheld the resident’s complaint at stage 3 and provided reasoning. There was an acknowledgement that things had gone wrong, an explanation was given where no fault was found, and well considered recommendations were made. This included an offer of financial redress. In accepting its adjudicator’s recommendations and to better manage the resident’s expectations, the landlord should have written to the resident explaining how it intended to deliver against each recommendation and provide an anticipated timescale for completion. This service has seen no evidence of this, which was unreasonable and prolonged the resident’s uncertainty.
This service has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about outstanding repairs dating back to 2020 and 2021. It is not in dispute that there was significant delay in restoring the kitchen ceiling and delay following up damp and mould issues. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint at stage 3 in connection with these matters and made recommendations to ensure they were resolved. The landlord also looked wider than the original complaint when providing its stage 3 response, noting that the resident had reported a new water leak. In view of the outstanding damp and mould investigation and unresolved issues with boiler pressure, it was sensible that an appropriate recommendation was included to investigate this.
The landlord’s stage 3 response attempted to put things right and offered £500 compensation in recognition of the impact on the resident from delays in repair handling. However, the landlord’s offer of redress did not quite reflect the failings it itself had identified through its investigation.
This service also has concerns surrounding the landlord’s record keeping. There were noticeable gaps and omissions in the landlord’s records, as highlighted throughout this report. There was also an absence of contact records, inspection record sheets and contemporaneous case notes. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contact and evidence of its actions and transactions, relating to each casefile, which can be provided to the Ombudsman upon request. Failing to create and record information accurately, results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate and contribute to unsatisfactory communication and redress.
Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling was inadequate, which caused uncertainty and confusion for the resident, as well as increased time and trouble progressing the complaint. Additionally, the landlord’s record keeping was inadequate. When considered cumulatively, this service finds maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of boiler and bathroom taps, including missed appointments and subsequent delay.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s management and complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord did not take appropriate steps to leave a gas appliance in a safe condition, following issue of a gas safety warning notice which stated that the appliance was unsafe to use. The landlord did not offer the resident temporary heating in accordance with its policy. The landlord did not investigate if there was an underlying reason for persistent faults on the boiler in a timely manner. Missed appointments added to the resident’s overall inconvenience and there were unnecessary delays carrying out repairs to the resident’s bathroom taps.
The resident was initially prevented from making a complaint after being given incorrect contact information to make a complaint. There was repeated failure to address all relevant aspects of the complaint, leading to unnecessary delay resolving the complaint. The landlord’s stage 1 and 2 complaint responses did not follow the expected format of a complaint response, leaving the outcome of the complaint uncertain. Additional complaint elements were considered at stage 2 which had not been investigated at stage 1. The landlord issued a second stage 2 response outside of its policy, while simultaneously investigating the complaint at stage 3. The landlord did not explain how and when it would complete the recommendations made at stage 3. There were also noticeable gaps and omissions in the landlord’s records.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must pay compensation of £1,000 direct to the resident, which is reduced to £500 if the landlord has already paid £500 compensation previously offered. This award is made in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and is broken down as follows:
1. £700 in recognition of the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of repairs to the boiler and bathroom taps, as well as associated delays;
2. £300 in recognition of the time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report.
2. Review its actions against the recommendations from the stage 3 complaint response and provide outcomes. The landlord must confirm its expected completion date for any outstanding works or actions arising from those recommendations.
The landlord must provide evidence to this service that it has complied with the above orders, within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must initiate and complete a review of the learning in this case and advise this service of its intentions. This review must include as a minimum:
1. A review of any missed appointments in this case and consider how performance can be improved in the future.
2. Enhancements to its gas safety policy, to clarify the landlord’s response in the event of residents refusing to cooperate with a gas safety warning notice.
3. Enhancements to existing processes, to ensure that the landlord looks wider than an individual repair report and looks for themes and trends, which would allow the landlord to investigate and treat underlying causes of repeat repair requests within a timely manner.
4. A review of the landlord’s complaint handling. The review must:
  1. Consider how the landlord publicises its complaints policy, the Complaint Handling Code and the Housing Ombudsman Service. The landlord must satisfy itself that residents are made aware of how to make a complaint in regular correspondence. Thereafter, to update its self-assessment with the Complaint Handling Code.
  2. Consider the format of its complaint response letters, in accordance with the expectations set out in the Complaint Handling Code.
5. A review of the landlord’s record keeping in this case to identify learnings. Thereafter to consider how these learnings can be brought into its operations. The landlord may find it helpful to refer to the Ombudsman’s recent spotlight report on knowledge and information management.
The landlord must bring into its operations any identified improvements within 3 months of the date of this report.