LiveWest Homes Limited (202218852)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218852

LiveWest Homes Limited

16 January 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

1. The complaint is about:

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a decant.
The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is a secured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom house and tenancy started on 4 November 1996.

3. The landlord’s repair records stated that a leak from the bedroom to the sitting room below at the property was reported by the resident on 27 September 2019. A repair to the roof is noted as completed on 22 January 2020.

4. On 24 June 2020, the repair records for the property stated that work was raised to reinstate the ceiling in the bedroom.

5. A repair was noted by the landlord from the resident on 27 January 2021 to fill in access holes following a pest control visit to the property.

6. On 25 February 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord to follow up on a report she had made on 26 January 2021 about rats accessing her property. She said she had paid for a pest control company who had identified that repair work was required to block up access. The resident said that the landlord had since not attended two repair appointments. She said she had asked for all communications to be in email or post but this had been ignored. She also said that she had been awaiting the repair to a ceiling since 2019. She added that the landlord had visited the property to attend to the ceiling a number of times but the repair was not carried out. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 8 March 2021 and said a response would be provided within 5 working days.

7. The landlord’s internal records stated it had a conversation with the resident around 10 March 2021 about her complaint. The resident also raised concerns during the call about the following:

A fan in the kitchen was not working and this had resulted in mould to the kitchen cupboards.
No heating in the kitchen or bedrooms for 25 years.
Mould within the property due to the lack of heating.
A leak from outside where a plant was growing into the living room ceiling.
A repair was required to the flooring in the airing cupboard which was where rats had been coming into the property.
The bedroom had no ceiling following the leak in 2019.

8. The landlord visited the property with a contractor on 30 March 2021 and made an assessment of the work required. The landlord’s records noted that a structural engineers report was raised following this visit, to report on potential subsidence and cracking.

9. On 19 April 2021, the landlord contacted the resident and advised it was awaiting a surveyor report and quotation for the works. The landlord contacted her again on 19 May 2021 and advised it was still awaiting a report from a structural engineer. It said on 26 May 2021 that this report would take 6 weeks.

10. A structural engineers report was completed at the property on 29 July 2021.

11. The resident reported rodents in her property on 25 September 2021. She said the rats were coming in from next door and the entry points needed to be filled.

12. The landlord wrote to the resident on 27 September 2021 in regard to her stage 1 complaint. The landlord said the surveyor’s report stated essential work was required to repair cracks. It said it would be in touch with a schedule of works. It also said it had raised works for the following:

Reinstatement of the ceiling in the bedroom.
Installation of a new fan in the kitchen.
An investigation into the lack of heating into the kitchen and bedroom.
Issues with damp and mould.
Treatment of ivy coming into lounge.
Flooring in the airing cupboard.

13. The landlord’s records stated that the structural report completed at the property on 29 July 2021 was received by the landlord on 6 October 2021. The records noted that the report confirmed recommended structural work and confirmed the property was safe.

14. On 21 October 2021 the landlord completed an asbestos survey at the property. The landlord’s records noted that no asbestos was detected.

15. The resident contacted the landlord on 27 October 2021 in response to a telephone call from the landlord about the repairs and a decant while the work took place. The resident said that as agreed previously, the best method of communication was written. The landlord responded on 1 November 2021 and apologised for not keeping to the agreement on preferred communication.

16. The resident confirmed to the landlord on 5 November 2021, that she would prefer the works and decant to start in the new year.

17. On 10 November 2021, the landlord provided the resident with a scope of the works and advised that the work would take 4-6 weeks to be completed. It also said a second quotation for the work would be required, and the resident may receive a call from a contractor to arrange a visit to the property. The landlord said the following works would be completed:

Crack stitching.
A complete redecoration after hell bars and cemties were fitted.
The plaster to hallways and stairs to be hacked off and replastered.
The back bedroom was to have cemties fitted, the walls and ceiling plastered.
The boiler was to be removed to repair the cupboard.
Removal of the bathroom to add a new wall plate, joist, flooring, and bathroom.
Removal of the kitchen ceiling and to then plasterboard and plaster.
Removal of carpets while the work was carried out, and relaying on completion.

18. On 11 November 2021, the resident asked the landlord if the central heating installation would also be part of the work proposed. The landlord confirmed on 16 November 2021 that the central heating would also be replaced as part of the work and as a result the timeframe would increase to around 8 weeks for completion.

19. The landlord instructed a second contractor to provide a quotation for the works. A visit to place at the property around 7 December 2021.

20. The landlord contacted the resident on 28 January 2022 to arrange for a third contractor quote for the work. It said this was required for its procurement process. The appointment was made for 1 February 2022, and the resident contacted the landlord on this day to advise the contractor had not arrived.

21. The resident wrote a further letter of complaint to the landlord on 14 March 2022. She said the following:

The landlord had failed to carry out repairs within a reasonable timeframe.
The landlord had not completed the repairs to prevent pests entering the property.
The landlord had failed to provide heating in the property and she had lived in the property for 25 years without heating in the bedrooms. She said this had been highlighted on a number of occasions but no action had been taken.
The ceiling in the back bedroom had fallen through following a reported leak in 2018 and remained unrepaired.
The bedrooms were infested with bugs linked to the disrepairs.
In 2019 a leak from the airing cupboard caused the flooring to collapse and water leaked through to the living room.
In October 2019, the roof collapsed and a temporary one remained in place. Scaffolding, tools, and debris had been left outside the property following this until July 2020.
Several contractors had visited the property and identified work.
The roof had been inspected 4 times, but no action taken.
She had been informed that she would be moved into temporary accommodation while repair work was carried out. She had requested to defer this until the start of 2022. The landlord then told the resident on 28 January 2022 that it was arranging for a third contractor to visit. The contractor did not attend the visit and the landlord did not confirm the rearranged appointment.
The outstanding repairs had caused physical and emotional damage to her.

22. The resident chased the landlord for a response to her complaint on 29 March 2022. The landlord responded on the same day and said it had been passed to the relevant team. On 5 April 2022 the landlord acknowledged the complaint and confirmed the resident’s case had been handled as a formal stage 1 complaint since the resident first raised the issues.

23. On 11 April 2022 the landlord issued a “positioning statement” to the resident in relation to the stage 1 complaint. It said that due to the extent of the work, it had needed to gain a third quote. This was received on 8 March 2022. The landlord said it was awaiting a schedule of works and a starting date from the contractor. The landlord also said it was adding a 10-working day extension to the complaint.

24. On 28th April 2022, the landlord confirmed the arrangements for the decant with the resident. The landlord said both the electric and gas meters had been topped up and previous debts cleared. The following day the landlord confirmed the repair work would take 10 weeks to be completed.

25. On 6 May 2022 the resident said she had been unable to move into the decant property. On her arrival to the property there was no electricity and the landlord had not attended to fit her cooker. The resident said she had to reconnect her broadband to her property and was not able to work for 2 days due to this. The landlord’s records stated that it attempted to top up the meters and advised the resident that an emergency job had been raised to connect the cooker. It also advised the resident that a request had been made for rooms without carpet to be carpeted. The resident asked the landlord to log the complaint in addition to her current repair one.

26. On 9 May 2022 the landlord said it had arranged for the cooker to be connected that day and was resolving the electricity and gas with the suppliers. It also told the resident it was not within its policy to put carpet down in the decant property. On the same date the landlord was unable to start the planned works on the property because the resident had not been able to move into the decant property.

27. The landlord’s records confirmed that the resident was fully decanted on 15 May 2022.

28. The resident followed up with the landlord on 16 May 2022 for an update on her complaint. She also asked if the landlord would be responding separately to her complaint raised about the decant. The landlord responded the next day and said it was awaiting an update on the works from the contractor and that it had logged the issues with the decant within the current open complaint.

29. On 1 June 2022, the resident followed up on the repair complaint with the landlord. She said she was unclear on the expected timescales with regards to the resolution of the complaint. The landlord responded on 6 June 2022. It said it aimed to respond to complaints within 5 working days but in some circumstances it needed to extend this. It said the resident could escalate their complaint to Stage 2. It said when escalated, a full stage one response would be provided. The complaint would then be reviewed by a senior manager within 5 working days, and a response provided within 7 working days.

30. The resident responded on 6 June 2022 and advised that she remained unclear on the expectations in relation to the timeframes. She said on 11 April she was advised of a 10-day extension. The resident chased the landlord for a response to this on 15 June 2022. The landlord responded on that day. It offered £25 as an apology not responding to the resident’s email on 6 June 2022. It said the complaint response had been extended because the repair works were still outstanding on the property and it did not have a completion date in order to resolve the complaint. It said it had added a further 20 days extension to the complaint.

31. On 15 June 2022 the landlord’s contractor started the planned work to the property.

32. The resident responded to the landlord on the 16 June 2022. She said she was concerned that the landlord was unable to confirm the end date for the work. She said she had been enduring the conditions she had reported in the decant property on the basis that she was to be there for 10 weeks. The landlord responded on 20 June 2022 and said it would be in touch with an update soon.

33. The resident reported to the landlord on 24 June 2022 that animal fouling was occurring on the stones in the front garden of the decant property. She said that she was unable to open windows due to this. The landlord responded on the same day to acknowledge receipt of the report.

34. On 28 June 2022 the landlord’s repair records stated that the resident reported the bathroom light in the decant property flickering. The repair was completed on 5 July 2022.

35. The resident contacted the landlord on 11 July 2022 to request an update on the progress of the repair works. She also said that a resolution for the stones in the front garden of the decant property was needed urgently as the matter was escalating. The landlord responded the following day and said it had arranged for the stoned area to be cleaned and deterrent to be applied. It said it would look to replace the gravel if this did not resolve the issue. It also said the work on the resident’s property was to be completed on 24 August 2022. It said this timescale was longer then originally planned due to the delay at the start of the decant.

36. On 13 July 2022, the landlord issued an interim stage 1 response letter. It said the following:

Due to the delays with the decant property, the work to the resident’s property had been delayed and would now be completed on 24 August 2022.
It would attend to the gravel in the front garden of the temporary decant property on 15 July 2022.
Once the works were completed it would review the complaint against the compensation policy.
A further 20 working days extension was to be added to the timeframes for a response to the complaint.

37. On 14 July 2022 the resident reported further issues to the landlord in regard to the temporary property, this included the following:

The bathroom light switch was broken.
Part of the back garden was sectioned off due to poisonous plants and the fencing was unsecure.
The shower did not reach the desired temperature.
The fridge was freezing items.
The floorboards were unsuitable, filled with holes and grit.

38. The landlord raised a repair for the bathroom light and fridge freezer on 15 July 2022. The landlord’s repair records stated the repair to the light was completed that day. In relation to the floorboards, it said it could purchase some rugs for the resident. The landlord apologised for contractors not attending to the front garden as planned. The resident responded on the same day and accepted the offer of rugs.

39. On 22 July 2022, the landlord told the resident that the front garden would be cleaned as planned the following week, and the gravel would be removed. It said the fridge needed to be replaced.

40. On 26 July 2022, the landlord confirmed it would order a new fridge for the resident as the one in place could not be repaired.

41. The resident reported to the landlord on 4 August 2022 that the water in the bathroom was slow to drain. The landlord raised a repair on 8 August 2022.

42. The landlord told the resident on 10 August 2022 that rugs would be delivered to the decant property the following day. The resident contacted the landlord on the same day and said she was disappointed with the delay in dealing with the complaint. She said it was not good enough that she was receiving rugs 3 weeks prior to leaving the temporary accommodation. She also said she had been without a functioning fridge for 2 weeks.

43. The landlord’s internal correspondence stated that on the same day a visit had been made to the resident’s property. The work was noted to be completed to a good standard and the property left in a clean state.

44. On 12 August 2022, the landlord said it had experienced difficulty sourcing a fridge suitable for the space. It said this had now been ordered and would be delivered on 17 August 2022.

45. On the same day the landlord issued an updated positioning statement on the stage 1 repairs complaint. It said:

The works to the resident’s property had been completed ahead of schedule and it would be in contact to arrange a visit with the resident to ensure she was satisfied with the work carried out.
It apologised for the delay in the delivery of rugs and replacement fridge at the temporary property.
A further 20-day extension was added to the response timescale of the complaint.
It appreciated the complaint had been ongoing for a long time. The resident could request the complaint be escalated to stage 2 if she was unsatisfied with the handling of the complaint.

46. The resident responded on 15 August 2022. She said the initial reason for the complaint was the historical failures to complete repairs at the property. The resident also said a separate complaint had been made about the decant process and the condition of the temporary property. This included:

After decanting to the temporary property, the resident discovered it had no access to electricity or gas, and an engineer had not been booked to connect her cooker. The resident had to live between two properties while this was resolved.
There was a strong smell of urine throughout the property.
The bedroom and hallway flooring was not in a suitable living condition. Rugs had been received after 10 weeks but were unsuitable.
The bathroom light had been repaired and the resident was left without a bathroom light for 24 hours.
The resident reported a fault with the fridge and a replacement was not actioned until 3 weeks after it was deemed unrepairable.
The front and back garden had health and safety issues. This included fences, poisonous plants, and faeces.
Draining in the bathroom toilet and shower was an ongoing concern.
The shower did not reach the desired temperature.

47. The resident asked for the repairs complaint to be escalated to stage 2. She said the landlord had summarised the complaint on several occasions but had not captured the underpinning reasons. She also said she was disappointed with the number of extensions added to the complaint response and it had been a 6 month wait for a response on her original complaint. She said the issues raised with the decant was a separate complaint.

48. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 escalation on 15 August 2022. It said it aimed to provide its stage 1 response by 22 August 2022.

49. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 18 August 2022. It said the following:

It upheld the resident’s complaint about the time taken to complete repairs and apologised for not keeping in contact about the delays.
It upheld the resident’s complaint about the suitable appointment times and communication. It acknowledged that the resident’s contact preferences had not been taken into consideration and unsuitable appointments had been arranged. The landlord also acknowledged that it had missed appointments in February 2021.
There had been a delay in arranging a survey for the required work. The work identified by the survey required further inspections to be carried out. The landlord had also required 3 quotations for the work to be completed.
The work had been due to start on 9 May 2022, however due to the problems with the temporary property, this did not start until 15 June 2022.
Following a surveyor visit to the property, the following work had been completed:
1. The heating upgrade to the property.
2. Replacement of the kitchen ceiling and new plastering.
3. New joists and ceiling in the bedroom.
4. New flooring and joists in the bathroom.
5. Helifix tie bars throughout the landing.
6. Plastering to bedroom cupboard.
7. New led work and guttering to the rear section.
8. New basin in the bathroom.
The landlord offered the resident compensation of £925 broken down as follows:
1. £25.00 for not following preferred contact methods.
2. £75.00 for missed appointments.
3. £150.00 for delays which hindered works.
4. £25.00 for the miscommunication when decanting.
5. £150.00 for complaint handling failures.
6. £500.00 for distress and inconvenience.
The complaint had been escalated to stage 2 of its complaints process.

50. On 22 August 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident and confirmed the complaint had been escalated to stage 2 of its complaints process. It said it aimed to respond by 1 September 2022. It confirmed that the complaint regarding the decant property had been raised separately.

51. The landlord sent a stage 1 complaint acknowledgement to the resident on 23 August 2022, in relation to the complaint about the decant. The landlord said its response was due by 29 August 2022. It wrote to the resident on 30 August 2022 to extend the response deadline to 6 September 2022.

52. The landlord issued a stage 2 response to the repairs complaint on 12 September 2022. It said:

In response to the resident’s concerns about the landlord not fully understanding the complaint, the repair work had become the focus for action rather than the responsibility of the landlord.
It had not adhered to the guidelines set out in its complaints policy regarding timescales.
It had failed to provide fortnightly updates.
The resident had to chase the landlord for action to be taken.
It offered the resident further compensation of £200.00. This consisted of £150 for further complaint handling failures, £25 for the failure to provide fortnightly updates, and £25 for the resident having to repeatedly contact the landlord for action.
The resident had been able to move back into her property on 31 August 2022 following the completion of all works identified.

53. The resident responded to the landlord on 14 September 2022. She said that the offer did not reflect the distress, loss of earnings, loss of the property, the delayed responses, and the unsuitability of the decant property.

54. On 21 September 2022, the landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint about the decant. It said the following:

In regard to the decant property not having gas and electricity, it said there was an issue with the provider and the payments the landlord had made were not activated across to the meters.
The landlord was not made aware of the smell of urine in the property and it said all properties are cleaned prior to occupation.
The information the resident received about the decant property being fully carpeted was incorrect. It said this was a miscommunication.
The bathroom light was repaired as soon as the landlord could resolve the issue.
The fridge was gifted as part of the decant. When the resident reported this as not working, the landlord arranged for an engineer to attend. Following a report that it was not viable to repair, the landlord arranged for a new fridge to be delivered.
Once the fouling on the gravel outside was reported, the landlord arranged for a company to clean this and then remove the following week. The landlord said it had to fence off the Japanese knotweed when the resident moved in, and this was part of a treatment plan as it was unable to remove this from the garden. Due to the issues with the front and back garden, the landlord offered the resident a 20% reduction in rental cost for the 17 weeks she was decanted.
As soon as the issue with the drainage was reported, the landlord arranged for a contractor to resolve this.
Once aware of the issue with the shower temperature, the landlord raised a repair and this was attended to on 18 August 2022.
The landlord offered the resident compensation of £553.00, broken down as:
1. £328.00 for non use of the garden area for the 17 weeks, calculated as 20% of the rental costs.
2. £100 for the miscommunication when decanting.
3. £25 for complaint handling failures.
4. £100 for the delay in the complaint response.

55. The resident escalated this complaint on 21 September 2022. The resident said some of the service failures had not been identified. The resident said that if the property had been cleaned as suggested and it would have been noted then that the property did not have electricity and gas. The resident said she sent photos of the damaged flooring but rugs were not provided until near the end of the decant period. The resident said the bathroom light did not break twice, but the original repair was inadequate. In regard to the fridge freezer, the resident said her original fridge did not fit at the decant property and therefore she had agreed to temporarily downsize to the one provided by the landlord at the decant property. The resident said she reported the fridge as broken on 14 July 2022. The resident said she wanted an investigation into the service failures which acknowledged the financial and personal impact on her.

56. The landlord confirmed the escalation to stage 2 on 28 September 2022.

57. On 7 October 2022 the landlord provided its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint about the decant. In addition to its response at stage 1, the landlord said:

It partially upheld the complaint about the lack of access to electricity and gas when moving into the decant property. It said all properties are cleaned before let and that this may have not highlighted the issue with the meters at the time. It said the issue was out of its control and it had taken steps to try to resolve it, however this had fallen short of service levels. It said the issue would now be addressed with the voids team to ensure meters are checked after being topped up.
The providing of white goods was not part of its normal service for rented homes. It could therefore not acknowledge the delay to the replacement fridge as a service failure. It did acknowledge the inconvenience caused to the resident during this time and partially upheld this part of the complaint.
It offered a further £200 compensation in addition to that offered at stage 1. This was for an acknowledgement of the detrimental impact of it not meeting reasonable expectations of service.

58. The resident’s complaint was accepted by this Service for investigation in November 2022. The resident confirmed to this Service that the mould in the property remained outstanding, and rodents were continuing to access the airing cupboard.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

59. The resident raised a further complaint to the landlord on 15 September 2022. This was in relation to mould in the back bedroom, an incorrectly fitted bathroom door, a leaking shower, and damage to her carpet. This complaint was not escalated to stage two of the landlord’s complaint process. In accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme and in the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. The resident may be able to refer the new complaint to the Ombudsman if she remains dissatisfied once the complaint has exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.

60. The resident raised during the complaint process that her property had not had heating in the bedrooms or kitchen for 25 years. While the historical issues provided contextual background to the current complaint. This investigation has primarily focused on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from February 2021 onwards, that were considered during the landlord’s recent complaint responses. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords normally within six months of the matters arising. This is so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.

61. In her complaint, the resident referred to the situation impacting upon her health. While this Service is able to assess the service the landlord provided, and any overall distress or inconvenience this may have caused it is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on the resident’s health and wellbeing. However, the Ombudsman has considered the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

The landlord’s obligations, policies, and procedures

62. The tenancy agreement says that the landlord is obliged to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the property. The resident is responsible for keeping the interior of the property in a good decorative order including floor coverings.

63. A landlord’s repair responsibilities are set out in law within the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The landlord is obliged to keep in repair and proper working order the installations specifically mentioned in section 11. This provision extends to boilers and heating systems. This is confirmed in the tenancy agreement, which states that the landlord is responsible for the heating and hot water systems at the property.

64. The landlord is obliged by the Decent Homes Standard to provide a reasonable degree of thermal comfort in all properties. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (the HHSRS) offers landlords a risk-based tool to enable them to consider potential hazards. Landlords have a responsibility to keep properties free from category one hazards, which includes excess cold.

65. The landlord’s current repairs policy states that for emergency repairs it will attend within 24 hours, and it aims to provide appointments for responsive repairs within 28 days. It also says that the landlord may arrange for an inspection of the property if it is unclear on the work required. It says the inspection and subsequent work will be completed within 28 days for routine repairs and 90 days for larger repairs. For major works, the landlord says it will agree specific completion targets usually within 90 days. In relation to pests in says that it is responsible for the removal of any larger pets such as rats in a resident’s home.

66. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time stated that a stage 1 complaint response will be sent within five working days, and a final stage complaint response will normally be sent within seven working days. It says that, in both cases, if an extension is needed, this should be agreed with the resident, and an explanation provided.

67. The Complaint Handling Code sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint. It also explains that a stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days from the request to escalate. If it is not possible for a landlord to respond within these timeframes, an explanation, and a date of when the response will be received is required. This should not exceed a further ten working days without good reason. The Code also states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions.

68. The landlord’s compensation guidance states that it will consider financial compensation where it is unable to take action to restore the situation or a resident has incurred financial loss. It has discretion under the guidance to offer residents up to £500 compensation plus a partial refund of rent for reasons including a high-level impact from multiple issues not being resolved.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property.

69. The resident experienced a significant delay in the completion of the repair work. The repair work to the heating, kitchen ceiling, bedroom ceiling, structural work to the to the landing, work to the bathroom and bedroom cupboard, was completed in August 2022. This was a 17-month time frame in total from the resident’s complaint raising the initial repair work in March 2021. It was noted that the structural work was identified in September 2021, and this took the landlord 11 months to complete. In regard to the repair to the bedroom ceiling, this was longer. From the records provided by the landlord it was evident that this was an outstanding repair since 2019. The timeframes were inappropriate and not in line with the landlord’s current repairs policy or industry best practice.

70. It was reasonable for the landlord to obtain specialist reports given the extent of the structural work required. However, there were significant delays in obtaining the reports. The landlord told the resident in April 2021 that it was awaiting a structural report, this was not obtained until September 2021. It was also reasonable for the landlord to obtain quotes for the work in consideration of the level of work required. However, the third quotation was not arranged until February 2022. This was 4 months after the landlord told the resident in September 2021 that it had identified the work required and would be in touch with a schedule of works. The timeframes here were inappropriate and had caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident who had to live with the outstanding repairs for an excessive period.

71. The landlord did not complete all of the work raised by the resident in her complaint. It confirmed to the resident on 27 September 2021 that it had raised works which included the installation of a new fan in the kitchen, and works for the issues with the damp and mould. The resident confirmed to this service that she returned to her property following the decant to find this part of the work had not been done. This was a significant failure of the landlord to complete this repair work in an appropriate timeframe or complete the work it said it would on a number of occasions. This had caused the resident further distress, and also the inconvenience of having to take the time to follow up again on these repairs. The resident also confirmed that the damp and mould was still outstanding at the time of brining her complaint to this Service. As such an order has been made for the landlord to investigate this outstanding repair work.

72. It was a concern that the resident mentioned in her complaint that she had been without heating to the bedrooms or kitchen for 25 years. It was not clear from the evidence provided when the resident first raised this with the landlord prior to March 2021. The heating replacement was completed in August 2022. This was arranged following the resident specifically following up with the landlord on adding this to the schedule of works in November 2021. This was 17 Months after the resident brought the issue as part of the complaint. The landlord had not evidenced that it had discussed with the resident, the need for any temporary heaters or solutions in the meantime to ensure the property was heated to an adequate temperature. This was a significant failure by the landlord to ensure the property was of a decent standard while the resident waited for the work to be completed. The timeframe taken to attend to the heating in the bedrooms and kitchen was not in line with the landlord’s obligations or its repair policy.

73. The resident raised her concerns about the outstanding repair to the flooring in the airing cupboard, which was causing rats to enter the property, in January 2021. The resident said in her complaint that the landlord had missed two repair appointments to attend to this. The landlord confirmed it had raised this work 7 months later in September 2021. The resident reported again to the landlord on 14 March 2022 that these repairs had not been completed.

74. The landlord had included work to the airing cupboard in its schedule of works completed in June 2022 to August 2022. However, it was not clear if this was in relation to the filling in of the access points. The landlord should have attended to this repair prior to this in order to prevent an escalation of the infestation. The resident also confirmed that this remained an issue at the time of bringing her complaint to this Service. This was an excessive timeframe for an outstanding repair that had caused the resident significant distress.

75. The landlord had acknowledged in its complaint responses that there had been delays in addressing the repair issues reported. It offered the resident £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused and £150 for the delays which hindered the repair work. However, this did not take into account the full detriment to the resident or acknowledge that part of the repair work in the resident’s initial complaint had not been completed and remained outstanding 17 months later.

76. The landlord acknowledged in its final response that the resident had to follow up with the landlord on the progress of the repairs reported on several occasions and that it had failed to provide the resident with fortnightly updates. The landlord here had not demonstrated a good level of customer service. This failure resulted in further frustration for the resident, who had to take the time and trouble to follow up with the landlord. She was also unsure of the progress of the repair works and how long she would be decanted.

77. The landlord also acknowledged there had been occasions when it had not contacted the resident through email as requested. The resident was clear about preferred method of contact, her working hours and the impact the high number of appointments had on her. Due to the amount of work to be completed, multiple surveys and repair appointments were required, in order for the repairs to be completed. These caused significant inconvenience to the resident in having to allow access and take time off work.

78. In relation to the communication failures the landlord acknowledged this service failure in its final response on the repairs. The compensation offered of £100 in total to account for this was not proportionate in consideration of inconvenience caused to the resident by repeatedly following up with the landlord over a period of 17 months.

79. The landlord missed 2 repair appointments in February 2021 and a further contractor appointment in February 2022. It was particularly frustrating for the resident when the landlord missed appointments and unsuitable ones had been made. The landlord’s failure here caused the resident further frustration and had a detrimental impact on the landlord and resident relationship. It offered the resident £75 compensation for this which was appropriate.

80. Overall, for the reasons identified above, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the resident’s property. There was an inappropriate delay to completing the repair work, and part of this was not completed. The communication errors, missed appointments, and failure to provide timely updates on the progress of the work as promised had a significant detrimental impact on the resident over a prolonged period of time. The landlord attempted to put this right for the resident through its offer of compensation of £825. However, it had not acknowledged the work which remained outstanding. It had also not fully accounted for the continued excessive period of time to complete all the repairs it said it had raised.

81. As such, an order for the landlord to pay the resident a further £375 of compensation has been made to reflect the distress and detriment caused to the resident. This has been calculated in consideration of the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for cases where the landlord’s failures have had a significant impact on the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about a decant.

82. The landlord acknowledged the miscommunication regarding the flooring in the decant property and providing carpets. It confirmed that it did not fully carpet decant properties. The landlord did offer to provide rugs for the resident to use in the areas without carpet. However, it was noted the rugs were not provided until 11 August 2022. The landlord offered the resident £100 compensation in relation to this. This was reasonable given the short-term impact on the resident.

83. The replacement fridge was provided to the resident on 17 August 2022, this was 33 days after the fault was reported. The landlord referred to the fridge as being gifted to the resident and outside of its service offer. The resident said the landlord had provided her with a fridge in the decant property because due to the size of the kitchen, the resident’s own fridge would not fit. It was accepted that the landlord did not usually provide white goods in its properties. However, given the circumstances of the move and that it was aware of the reasons the resident had not been able to take her own fridge to the property, it was fair for it to replace or repair the faulty fridge it had supplied. The landlord should have attended to this within a reasonable timeframe. The resident was without a working fridge for over a month. This caused further inconvenience during an already difficult time.

84. In regard to the smell of urine reported in the complaint. The landlord confirmed that the property was cleaned prior to the resident moving in. The landlord said it was unable to resolve this at the time because it had not been reported. This was a fair response, given that the landlord was not aware of this issue until August 2022.

85. It was evident that the resident followed up with the landlord on several occasions on the reports of the fouling to the gravel in the front garden. While it was accepted that the landlord did not have control over this. This had impacted on the resident’s access to outside space. The landlord offered compensation of £328, which was 20% of the resident’s rent for the period of the decant due to the limitations of usage to the front and back gardens. This was fair, in consideration of the timeframe of the detriment to the resident.

86. The landlord demonstrated that it attended to repair the faulty bathroom light within its repair service standards. While it was appreciated that the light needing a second repair would have been frustrating. It is acknowledged that there are occasions when a repair will require a repeat visit. The landlord also demonstrated that it attended to the reports of problems with the drainage in the bathroom and the shower temperature. It repaired these issues within its repair timescales.

87. It was clear that the resident experienced significant inconvenience and distress when she was unable to move fully into the decant property on 6 May 2022. This also had an impact on the repair work, which then had to be further delayed. This meant the decant was for a period of 15 weeks, rather than the 10 weeks planned. This also impacted the resident’s work, as she then had to wait for the services including broadband to be reinstalled at her property. The resident had to live between two properties for a period of time while the issues were resolved.

88. The landlord acknowledged in its final complaint response that it could have done more to prevent the issue with the meters. It said it would implement the checking of all meters after they have been topped up going forward .The landlord here had demonstrated that it had learnt from the situation and reviewed how it could avoid this happening in the future.

89. The landlord acknowledged failures in its response to the resident’s concerns about the decant. It attempted to put things right with an offer of compensation of £628. £200 of this account for the landlord not meeting expectations of service. However this did not reflect fully the detriment to the resident of its failure to ensure the decant property was ready for occupation. This caused both significant distress and inconvenience to the resident. She was unable to move into the decant property, and it also further delayed the decant by 5 weeks. This amounted to service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the decant property. Therefore, an order has been made for a further £175 of compensation to be paid to the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

90. In regard to the resident’s complaint about the outstanding repairs. The landlord took over 17 months to issue its stage 1 response. The response was only provided once the resident requested to escalate the complaint to stage two. The landlord told the resident that she could escalate her complaint in order to receive a response at stage 1. This resulted in the resident escalating her complaint without being able to have considered the landlord’s stage 1 position. This was confusing, unfair and did not follow the process set out in the landlord’s complaint policy This was also not compliant with the timescales referenced in the landlord’s complaints policy or The Code.

91. The Code was developed to enable landlords to resolve complaints raised by residents quickly and fairly. The timeframes for responses were introduced to prevent a delay in completing the complaints process until the substantive issue was resolved, as was the case here. If the landlord had responded through its internal complaints procedure within a reasonable timeframe, it may have been able to identify the overall failures and have addressed these much sooner.

92. The landlord also issued multiple extensions to the stage 1 repairs complaint. The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord issued interim responses, however this was not appropriate and resulted in a protracted complaints process. These responses were also not sufficient for the resident to escalate her response or bring her complaint to the Ombudsman sooner.

93. In handling the resident’s complaint without a formal response for 18 months, it was unable to effectively offer or address her requests for compensation. It was of concern that the landlord would suggest that compensation would be awarded only after the works had been completed. This approach further delayed an outcome for the resident, and prolonged her distress until the landlord concluded its complaint process. This was not appropriate and added to the resident’s concerns that the landlord had not understood her complaint fully.

94. Not only was the complaint process delayed, but communication regarding the delay and timeframes was poor and the landlord’s responses were confusing in terms of the process itself. At stage 1 of the repairs complaint process, the landlord issued both positioning statements, and interim responses. This led to confusion on the part of the resident as to what stage she was at. This caused further frustration and distress. The resident also had to take the time and trouble to follow up on the progress of her complaint over an excessive time period.

95. There was a further delay in its stage 2 response, which was issued 20 working days after the complaint escalation was made. It was noted that the landlord did inform the resident of an extension until 6 September 2022, however a final response was not issued until 12 September 2022.

96. The landlord also did not comply with its complaint handling timescales in its responses to the resident’s complaint about the decant. The landlord separated the decant complaint from the repair complaint on 22 August 2022. It was evident that the resident first asked for a complaint to be raised about the decant property on 6 May 2022. As such, the resident had waited 4 months for a formal response on these concerns. The stage 2 response was provided within 12 working days which was also outside of the timeframes within the policy. It was noted that the landlord did inform the resident of an extension to the complaint timescales on both occasions.

97. The delayed response at stage 1 of the decant complaint was excessive and resulted in the resident taking the further time and trouble to follow up on this to receive a response. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to record the complaint about the decant property as a separate complaint on 6 May 2022. As a result of this failure, it missed the opportunity to address the concerns of the resident within the timescales set out in its complaints policy.

98. The landlord had also not addressed all of the resident’s concerns within her complaint. It did not provide a reason for the lack of heating in the bedrooms for 25 years within its complaint response. The landlord’s complaint responses focused on the work it was completing or had completed rather than demonstrating an investigation into the delays. This caused the resident further frustration with landlord as it had not demonstrated that it fully understood the resident’s complaint about this issue.

99. The landlord did acknowledge in its final response on the repairs complaint that it had focused on the specific repairs rather than the failure to complete the repairs and the impact of this on the resident. While this demonstrated the landlord had identified this following the resident’s escalation of the complaint, it did not attempt to put this right for the resident by offering any further explanation or compensation.

100. The failures identified above, indicated maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. While the landlord attempted to put things right through offers of compensation, the £300 offered for complaint handling failures when addressing the repairs complaint and £125 offered in its final response to the decant complaint, did not go far enough. This compensation did not reflect the inappropriate delay at stage 1 of the repair complaint and the failure to record the complaint about the decant appropriately. It also failed to consider the full and significant level of detriment caused to the resident by the confusing and protracted complaints process. The resident experienced distress and inconvenience over a prolonged period of time. As such, a further amount of compensation of £175 has been ordered which is in line with the remedies guidance of this Service for circumstances which have adversely affected a resident. A finding of severe maladministration may have been determined had the landlord not gone a significant way towards putting the issue right through its offer of compensation.

Determination (decision)

101. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:

Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property.
Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a decant.
Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

102. There were significant delays in the landlord actioning the repair work required. The delays were not appropriate or in accordance with its obligations. This had a detrimental effect on the resident who continued to live with outstanding repairs in her property for a prolonged period of time.

103. The landlord acknowledged failures in its response to the resident’s concerns about the decant. The redress offered was not sufficient to account for the full impact of the decant property not being ready for the resident to move into.

104. The landlord kept the repair complaint going for over 17 months, which was unreasonable and inappropriate. This protracted complaints process was unfair and confusing. The landlord had here delayed the process for the resident. Although the landlord acknowledged service failure in its complaint handling, it had not offered sufficient redress.

Orders and recommendations

Orders.

105. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to arrange for a senior member of its staff to apologise to the resident, for the failings identified in this report.

106. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to arrange to inspect the property and complete a full assessment of any outstanding work required, to include but not limited to the damp and mould and rats accessing the property. The landlord is to provide the resident with a reasonable timeframe for any outstanding repairs identified, in line with its repair policy.

107. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £2703 in compensation. This amount includes the £1125 of compensation offered during the repairs complaint process and the £753 offered in its final response on the decant complaint. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident, and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises of:

£1200 for the delays, distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s delays in its handling of repair work to the resident’s property.
£75 as previously offered for missed repair appointments.
£25 as previously offered on 15 June 2022 for a delayed response to the resident.
£803 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the decant.
£600 for the distress, time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s complaint handling.

108. The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations.

109. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its approach and handling of cases where multiple repairs are reported in a property to ensure that each repair issue raised is followed through to completion.