London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202231020)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202231020

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

30 September 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s concerns in respect of moving to the property and the handling of repairs.
2. Response to the resident’s reports of issues with the boiler.
3. Knowledge and information management.
4. Complaint handing.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured non-shorthold tenancy, at the property which is a 3 bedroom house. She moved into the property on 27 June 2022. She was not previously a tenant of the landlord and advised that she moved as her former property was in “disrepair”. From 2022-23 the resident’s rent was £151.86 per week. She lives with her 4 children. At the time of moving into the property her children were aged 13, 9, 3 and a newborn. She had advised the landlord that one of her children was in remission from cancer. The landlord has a vulnerability of “illness” recorded for the household.
The resident’s tenancy agreement states as follows:
1. The landlord is responsible for repairs to the exterior and structure of the property.
2. It will keep in repair and in working order all fixtures and fittings for sanitation, the supply of water, gas, electricity and space and water heating.
3. It will normally give at least 24 hours’ notice of an appointment, unless it is an emergency.
The landlord’s home and maintenance responsibilities guide states that residents are responsible for fittings, curtain rails and fixings.
The landlord’s repairs policy (2022 – June 2023) states as follows:
1. At the point of let, a property will meet its void standard.
2. If a resident is vulnerable it is able to adjust its service standards where a delay would put them at risk.
3. For routine day to day repairs, it aims to complete the repair at the earliest mutually convenient appointment.
4. For emergency works, where there is an immediate danger to the occupant or members of the public, it will attend within 24 hours.
5. For emergency works that occur out of hours, it will attend within 4 hours to ‘make safe’. The follow-on repair will then be completed at the earliest mutually convenient appointment.
The landlord’s voids home standard policy states that it will meet all legal and regulatory standards including the decent homes standard and building and fire safety regulations.
Landlords are required to look at the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System does not set out any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential hazards. Insecure external doors and windows and associated locking mechanisms, along with a lack of working heating and hot water are all potential hazards that can fall within the scope of the Housing Health and Safety Rating System. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, and take steps to minimize the risk of a hazard.
The decent homes standard states that a decent home meets the following criteria:
1. It does not contain 1 or more category 1 hazards under the HHSRS.
2. It is in a reasonable state of repair.
3. It has reasonably modern facilities and services.
4. It provides a reasonable degree of thermal comfort (having both effective insulation and efficient heating).
The right to repair scheme states that the following repair issues should be actioned within the following timeframes:
1. Total or partial loss of space or water heating between 31 October and 1 May – 1 working day.
2. Total or partial loss of space or water heating between 30 April and 1 November – 3 working days.
3. Insecure external window, door or lock – 1 working day.
The landlord’s compensation policy states as follows:
1. Where appropriate, compensation will be offered as part of its stage 1 or stage 2 complaint decision. The final award of compensation will be reviewed once all work/issues have been resolved to ensure that it is proportionate.
2. It offers set compensation in the following circumstances:
  1. £10 – failure to respond to a query within 10 working days where it is identified as part of a complaint investigation.
  2. £20 – failure to keep an appointment without at least 24 hours’ notice.
3. Where a resident is not able to use a room(s) and/or outdoor space because of a repair issue that is the landlord’s responsibility, and which causes prolonged and unreasonable disruption, it will consider a partial refund of rent. A resident’s specific situation or vulnerabilities must be considered when making the offer.
4. Loss of outdoor space will be considered all year round. It will not be considered for planned works or repairs unless there have been unreasonable delays.
5. Where a resident has suffered a loss of service/facility i.e. heating and hot water and they have not been resolved within given timeframes, it will consider discretionary compensation.
6. It will pay back any relevant out-of-pocket expenses that have been incurred by a resident due to service failures caused by the landlord. Evidence should be provided by a resident to demonstrate this.
The landlord has a 2 stage complaints policy. At stage 1 it will acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days. It will respond within 10 working days of logging the complaint. At stage 2 it will respond within 20 working days. If additional time is required at either stage, it will keep the resident informed. Its policy does not include complaints over 6 months old unless there are exceptional circumstances.

Summary of events

On 17 June 2022 the landlord carried out a void inspection at the property. It noted that works had been completed to specification and a quality check had been carried out. There was no snagging or extra works required.
The resident moved into the property on 27 June 2022. 2 weeks prior to this her youngest child was born by way of caesarean. It is not clear if the landlord was aware of this at the time. She advised the landlord on 3 July 2022 as follows:
1. The boiler was not working and there was no heating or hot water.
2. The back garden needed cutting back.
3. No–one had got in touch in respect of other repairs she had reported.
4. Her and her children had been locked in the house again (it is not clear when this had happened prior). Her daughter had to climb out the window to open the front door from the outside as the resident was healing from her caesarean and it was not safe for her to climb out of the window.
On 4 July 2022 the landlord raised a job in respect of the boiler and it was uncapped that same day.
On 6 July 2022 the resident advised the landlord as follows:
1. Contactors had attended that day and had weeded the garden.
2. The heating was coming on despite it and the thermostat being off. It was very hot in the house.
3. 2 windows in the bedroom were faulty and would not close properly.
4. The following were outstanding:
  1. Front gate.
  2. Chipped kitchen window.
  3. Front door lock.
The landlord raised jobs as follows:
1. 11 July 2022 – issue with the heating. (It marked this as complete that same day.)
2. 2 August 2022 – levers on 2 bedroom windows had snapped.
3. 2 August 2022 – a chip in the kitchen window.
4. 2 August 2022 – issue with the boiler/heating.
5. 2 August 2022 – tree roots were pulling up the concrete garden path slabs.
On 5 August 2022 the landlord marked the job for the boiler as complete. It marked the job for the windows levers as complete on 27 September 2022. No details were provided for either job.
On 17 October 2022 the landlord raised a job for there being no pressure in the boiler. It marked this as complete on 20 October 2022. On 24 October 2022 it marked the job for the garden path inspection as complete. No details were provided for either job or the outcome of the inspection.
On 2 December 2022 the resident submitted a complaint (complaint A). She stated that the heating engineer had not attended some of the appointments. At other times it had attended without giving any notice. When she had spoken to the heating engineer about making a complaint, it had not contacted her back. She requested compensation and an apology.
That same day (2 December 2022) the landlord raised a job for the heating and hot water not working properly. It noted that the resident had a 5 month old baby. On 13 December 2022 the landlord raised a job for the windows and air vents being stiff. It noted this was allowing a cold draught into the property.
That same day (13 December 2022) the resident called the landlord and stated as follows:
1. She had been given contradictory advice from heating engineers. One had advised that a pipe may need to be replaced in the boiler. The other had stated it may be an issue with a valve. She had been chasing the engineers but had had no response.
2. Her and her family had all been on antibiotics, which she believed had been due to the lack of heating and the draught throughout the property.
3. She had a 6-month-old child as well as another child in remission from cancer.
That same day the landlord raised a job in respect of the heating and hot water. It marked this as complete that same day.
On 15 December 2022 the landlord requested an inspection of the garden.
On 20 December 2022 the landlord noted that the resident had reported that the key was stiff in the front door lock and it would not turn, impacting the opening of the door. A contractor attended on 21 December 2022 and completed works to the door and lock. Photographs and a report of this work was provided to this Service. The following day (21 December 2022) the landlord marked a job for the heating and hot water as complete.
On 22 December 2022 the landlord raised a job to deliver temporary heaters to the property. It marked this as urgent as there were vulnerabilities at household. The following day (23 December 2022) the landlord noted that the engineer had replaced parts on the boiler that day and as such the temporary heaters were not required.
On 28 December 2022 the resident submitted a complaint (complaint B) and stated as follows:
1. There had been a fault with the boiler and heating system since she had moved in. Her and her children were suffering with the cold and the draughts. The heating engineer had been scheduled to attend on 27 December 2022 but had not done so. The heating company had advised they would call her back and arrange more temporary heaters, however she had not heard from them.
2. The property had needed an unreasonable amount of repairs since she had moved in. There had been multiple contractors attending which meant she could not rest with her newborn baby. She listed the repairs which had and had not been resolved.
3. Resolved repairs:
  1. Chipped kitchen window and broken windows in the front bedroom.
  2. Swollen front door and faulty front door lock.
  3. Keys for gates and outdoor cupboards.
  4. Uncapping the gas.
  5. Overgrown garden.
  6. Broken fence.
4. Unresolved repairs:
  1. Boiler could not maintain pressure and had a suspected leak.
  2. Central heating valve was jammed (replaced but unresolved).
  3. Heating turned on with hot water, causing concerns of cot death.
  4. Unsafe trees.
  5. Shutter vents on all windows were broken and had tape placed over them.
  6. Corroded kitchen sink tap (inadequately repaired).
  7. Broken kitchen cupboards.
  8. Plaster had blown due to possible leak in bedroom. Her daughters could not occupy their room.
5. She had not had responses to her complaints.
6. The issues had impacted her mental health and she had not been able to adequately rest since moving into the property.
7. She had had to buy heavy curtains for all the windows which had cost £500. She could not afford these but stated that her children did not deserve to suffer.
The landlord responded to complaint B at stage 1 that same day and stated as follows:
1. There were 4 jobs outstanding. In respect of these it advised as follows:
  1. Window vents – an order had been raised and its sub-contractors would arrange an appointment in the New Year.
  2. Kitchen tap – an appointment had been booked for 21 January 2023.
  3. Damaged kitchen cupboards – it had received the contractor’s quotation and report. This was awaiting authorisation. The contractors would be in contact after the New Year to arrange an appointment.
  4. Blown plaster on bedroom ceiling – an asbestos test was required prior to any works being carried out which had been arranged. A plasterer was due to attend on 31 January 2023.
2. It apologised that works had not been carried out to standard or completed by the time the resident moved in.
3. Works to the boiler had been completed on 23 December 2022. It would respond separately to that complaint.
4. The level of service the resident had received was not reflective of the high standards it aimed to provide. Repairs should have been managed more effectively and completed more swiftly. It would feed this back.
5. The complaint would remain open until all works had been completed. At which time compensation would be considered.
On 30 December 2022 the resident advised the landlord as follows:
1. Since moving into this property she had incurred “major financial pressures” and “mental and physical strain”. She had to use additional electricity and purchase curtains. She felt she had to purchase these to protect her children from the draught coming in through the faulty vents whilst having no heating.
2. The situation had had a detrimental impact on her mental health. One of her children had also been particularly affected as she was 3 years post chemotherapy after having being diagnosed with Acute Lymphoblastic Leukaemia in 2017.
3. The landlord had not inspected the property prior to her moving in.
4. Her daughters could not occupy their bedroom due to the issue with the ceiling.
5. She had felt rushed to move in, 2 weeks after having a caesarean.
6. The landlord had not addressed the outstanding works to the trees.
On 3 January 2023 the landlord responded at stage 1 to the complaint in respect of the boiler (complaint A). It stated as follows:
1. It apologised that the level of service was not what it would have expected. It had taken learning from the complaint.
2. It had paid the resident £950 compensation and the gas works had been completed.
On 22 January 2023 the resident advised the landlord that the heating was still coming on with the hot water. She stated this was costing her more money. She also advised that the number of contractor appointments had impacted on her enjoyment of the property. The landlord raised a job for this on 24 January 2023.
On 31 January 2023 the resident escalated both of her complaints to stage 2. She stated that works were still outstanding. Her daughters were having to share a room as the bedroom ceiling had a large bubble and could fall through. Her daughter was awaiting an assessment for AHD and the issue had impacted her daughter’s behaviour. That same day the landlord advised that it would escalate her complaint in respect of the boiler.
On 3 February 2023 the resident advised the landlord that she had spoken to her local Mayor and MP and would be seeking legal advice. She stated that not being able to use the garden was a “major stressor” for her daughter.
On 13 February 2023 the landlord sent an email which appears to be a follow-on to its stage 1 response for complaint B. It advised the resident as follows:
1. As the property was in a conservation area, it could not cut back the trees without the council’s permission. It had submitted an application in September 2022 and the council had 6 months to respond. As soon as this was granted it would arrange the works.
2. A contractor would contact her that day to arrange an appointment for the windows.
3. Works to the kitchen taps, kitchen cupboard doors and bedroom ceiling had been completed.
4. As the works should have been carried out prior to the resident moving into the property, it offered £940 compensation, made up as follows:
  1. £420 for inconvenience.
  2. £420 for distress.
  3. £100 for time and effort.
5. This would be offset against any arrears.
On 14 February 2023 the resident reiterated her escalation request and stated as follows:
1. She confirmed that works to the kitchen tap, kitchen cupboards and bedroom ceiling had been completed as of 10 February 2023.
2. The ceiling work had been brought forward from March to February 2023 which she had agreed to, however the landlord had not taken her childcare commitments into account in doing so.
3. Since moving to the property, contractor appointments had taken place or had been booked for at least 24 occasions (she listed these). She also advised that this was not a complete list of appointments.
4. The situation had “pushed [her] into a depression”.
5. The children could not use the garden as the way one of the trees had been cut was hazardous. She was concerned this could cause a “impalement injury”.
6. The compensation did not reflect the impact on her and her children.
The landlord advised that same day (14 February 2023) that due to an increase in complaints and staff shortages, there was a delay in it responding to complaints. It apologised for this but advised that the complaint had been escalated. That same day it noted internally that it had spoken to the resident. The resident had asked if she could move to a 4 bedroom property on medical grounds as her daughter’s could not share a room. It noted that it had discussed a mutual exchange and the local authority options for moving with the resident. It had advised her that she would need to wait until the end of June 2023 before being eligible to apply for a mutual exchange.
On 16 February 2023 a heating engineer carried out works and noted that the issue appeared to have been resolved.
On 17 February 2023 the resident contacted the landlord and advised as follows:
1. The lack and delay in communication was compounding her distress.
2. The handover process when she moved in had been “forced and very disjointed”. She had been contacted by the landlord a few days after having a caesarean and had been made aware that she had been short listed for the property. No timescale had been given for moving and she had not been given the opportunity to view in advance. As a single parent with limited family support, moving had been “extremely difficult”. She had been “tremendously unwell” at the time with severe anaemia and had been at higher risk of post-natal depression.
3. She reiterated the impact of the number of contractor appointments and the time spent chasing the repairs.
4. She had contacted her doctor regarding depression and feelings of “mental instability and vulnerability” due to how the issues had been impacting her children, one of which had undergone professional support in 2021 for suicidal feelings.
5. The heating engineer had attended the day before. She felt that such frequent appointments were an invasion of her privacy and noted that she was breastfeeding.
6. The household had been placed at risk of overheating during a heatwave in 2022 as she had no control of the heating system. This had caused “heightened stressed, depression” as she was concerned of the risk of cot death. She had to turn the boiler off completely which meant she did not have easy access to hot water to clean her caesarean wound.
7. The landlord had not offered compensation for missed appointments.
8. She requested a rent rebate as from December 2022 to 6 February 2023, 1 bedroom could not be used.
9. The garden path was not level and multiple slabs were lifting due to the tree roots.
10. She reiterated that she had had to purchase heavy curtains using her credit card.
That same day (17 February 2023) the landlord offered an additional £300 for complaint handling and for time and effort. This brought the total compensation to £1240 (for complaint B). It advised that it would not reimburse the cost of curtains as curtains were a residents’ responsibility. That same day it raised a job in respect of the garden path.
On 22 February 2023 the landlord’s records indicate that an appointment was not attended by contractors. No further information was provided. On 27 February 2023 it noted that an appointment for that day was not on the operatives’ schedule. It had rebooked this for 8 March 2023 and noted that the resident was not happy. On 8 March 2023 the landlord noted that works to the heating had been carried out and the system had been left working.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 9 March 2023. She reported that 2 engineers had attended on 8 March 2023 but had only stayed for 10 minutes to measure the windows. It noted that it had given her a £50 energy card voucher. That same day (9 March 2023) it marked the garden inspection as complete.
The resident contacted this Service as the landlord had not responded to her complaints at stage 2. On 28 March 2023 this Service asked the landlord to respond within 20 working days.
On 19 April 2023 the landlord responded at stage 2 in respect of the repair issues (complaint B). It stated as follows:
1. Due to a backlog of complaints, the case had not allocated until 29 March 2023 following the request from the Housing Ombudsman. It apologised for the delay.
2. Kitchen Tap – a job had been raised on 2 December 2022 following a report that it was leaking and corroded. A contractor had attended on 14 December 2022 and installed a new tap. During a visit by its voids team on 21 December 2022 it had been established that the taps were loose and needed tightening. This had been carried out on 12 January 2023.
3. Damaged kitchen cupboards – a job had been raised on 2 December 2022 and a contractor attended on 21 December 2022 to establish what works were required. Repairs had been completed on 10 January 2023. The operative had noted that the resident had been happy with the work.
4. Blown plaster on the bedroom ceiling – this had been reported by the resident on 21 December 2022. A work order had been raised that same day to complete asbestos testing and this had been carried out on 11 January 2023, resulting in a negative test. A contractor attended on 30 January 2023 and established that the dry lining tape had blown. On 6 February 2023 an operative had replaced 3 meters of dry lining tape. It had completed redecoration works on 10 February 2023.
5. Window vents – a work order had been raised on 13 December 2022 to establish repairs required. On 3 February 2023 the resident advised that she had not heard from the contractor. It had emailed the contractor requesting they contact the resident to arrange an appointment. The resident subsequently advised that the contractor had missed pre-arranged appointments on 22 and 27 February 2023. The resident had requested that a separate complaint be raised regarding these. This was actioned and the resident had been awarded a £40 e-voucher as compensation (£20 for each missed appointment). The contractor attended on 8 March 2023 and the quote was authorised on 10 March 2023. The landlord spoke to the contractor on 29 March 2023 who advised it was awaiting parts. The appointment was booked for 2 May 2023 to complete the repairs.
6. Moving to the property – the move had been via a choice based letting process. The property had been advertised as available in May 2022. On 14 June 2022 the resident had placed a bid and was shortlisted. On 23 June 2022 the resident had completed the sign-up papers and keys were released 1 week prior to the tenancy beginning on 27 June 2022. Works had been completed before the resident moved in, including the installation of a new kitchen. It acknowledged that the new kitchen tap had been faulty and that some of the kitchen cupboard doors had become loose and had fallen off.
7. The garden had been cleared shortly after the resident moved in however the removal of trees required council consent. As such it could not compensate for the loss of garden space as it was available to use. Additional defects that the resident became aware of such as the handle breaking on the bedroom window and the chip in the kitchen window were rectified when the resident made it aware.
8. An appointment for a plumber to attend due to low water pressure had been rearranged at the resident’s request. Any missed appointments in connection with the boiler/heating would be dealt with within that separate complaint response.
9. Conflicting information as to whether the bedroom was safe – it acknowledged that the resident had been concerned for her daughter and therefore did not use the bedroom. It had adjusted the compensation as a gesture of goodwill for the confusion and lack of communication over the suitability and safety of the bedroom.
10. The calculations made at stage 1 (within the email of 13 February 2023) had been to compensate for distress and inconvenience caused to the household.
11. It acknowledged that there had been 2 occasions where it had failed to respond to emails in line with timescales. It had considered this in its adjusted offer of compensation.
12. It was unable to offer compensation for the cost of curtains as this was the resident’s responsibility and choice to make.
13. The level of service had not been reflective of the high standards it aimed to provide. Repairs and communication should have been managed more effectively and delivered more swiftly. It would consider these as areas it could implement changes to improve service delivery.
14. It offered £1800 compensation, made up as follows:
  1. Stage 1 compensation totalling £1240, made up as follows:

1) £400 complaint handling and time and effort.

2) £420 distress.

3) £420 inconvenience.

Stage 2 compensation totalling £560, made up as follows:

1) £20 complaint handling.

2) £20 delay in replying to correspondence.

3) £120 distress.

4) £120 inconvenience.

5) £280 gesture of goodwill for loss of bedroom space.

This would be offset against the current arrears of £822.
It signposted the resident to the Housing Ombudsman.

That same day (19 April 2023) the landlord responded at stage 2 in respect of the complaint about the boiler repairs (complaint A). It stated as follows:
1. Its records indicated that the resident had been satisfied with the stage 1 response and had accepted the £950 compensation (offered on 3 January 2023).
2. Following the visit from the heating engineer in December 2022, the resident had reported that the boiler was again not working correctly which had resulted in additional heating costs. It acknowledged the frustration caused by this. It had awarded further compensation for the additional usage.
3. The repair should have been managed more effectively and it apologised.
4. It offered additional compensation of £310, made up as follows:
  1. £40 complaint handling delay.
  2. £180 inconvenience.
  3. £90 distress.
On 21 April 2023 the resident advised that there were “discrepancies and false information” in the complaint responses. She stated as follows:
1. The window arms had been broken not the handles, therefore the windows could not close. This had not been fixed until mid to late August 2022.
2. The landlord had delayed the work to the trees as it had not authorised the job. She had had to chase this.
3. The move had been rushed. The landlord had not been able to give her a date when the works would be complete for her to give her previous landlord notice.
4. She was “exhausted and overwhelmed” with battling over what was a “very basic right”.
On 24 April 2023 the landlord advised the resident that it had awarded compensation at the ‘high level’ of its guidelines. If advised that she had the option of contacting this Service.
On 3 May 2023 the landlord noted internally that 12 new air vents had been installed. Windows had also been overhauled and left in full working order.
On 30 May 2023 the landlord recorded internally that the garden was not level and top soil was required on both sides of the path.
On 23 June 2023 the resident referred her complaint to this Service. She stated as follows:
1. The household had been put at risk since living in the property. This had “pushed” her into a depression and a year on she was still dealing with issues.
2. Herself and her children had “suffered mentally and physically” due to the conditions. The extreme cold had resulted in them all having chest infections and she was recovering from pneumonia. The boiler had been broken and windows did not close. This had left her vulnerable and had been a safety concern.
3. She should receive a rent rebate for the loss of use of the garden.

Correspondence following the referral to this Service

On 7 November 2023 the landlord noted that the resident had advised that not enough garden topsoil had been delivered and there was a 3 inch gap on both sides of the path which was a trip hazard.
On 17 November 2023 the landlord noted that the boiler had lost pressure and had shutdown. It marked this as complete on 20 November 2023.
On 6 December 2023 the landlord noted internally that the side of roof had dropped, the facia and soffit had collapsed and the verge had dropped.
On 24 January 2024 the resident reported that the hot water was causing the heating to come on. This had been rectified in 2023 by flushing the system however the issue had returned. The landlord advised on 5 February 2024 that a new boiler had been due to be installed in January 2024 however its contractor had been unable to make an appointment with the resident. It asked her to contact the heating engineer to do so. That same day the landlord noted that the resident had submitted a complaint in respect of the roof. She had also reported that the garden was a hazard as the path was not level.
On 7 February 2024 the resident reported mould in the property.
On 13 February 2024 the resident advised the landlord that the new boiler (installed 8 February 2024) had stopped working and she had no heating or hot water.
On 27 February 2024 the landlord noted that the resident had reported a gap in the kitchen window which was letting cold air in. It marked this as complete on 8 March 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

It is noted that the resident raised the issue of the impact of the repair issues on the health of the household. Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions, or lack of action, have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider any personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. This Service will however consider the landlord’s handling of the repair issues, and any distress and inconvenience this may have caused. This Service would expect the landlord’s response to consider the resident’s reports on how she believed the issues were impacting the health of the household. Such issues reflect the detriment experienced as a result of potential failures by the landlord.
The resident raised concerns about other repair issues following the completion of the internal complaints process. As these issues did not from part of the formal complaint to the landlord under consideration, this is not something that this Service can investigate at this stage as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to these reports. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to get this matter resolved. She may then approach the Ombudsman if she remains dissatisfied. As such the following matters do not form part of this investigation:
1. Roof repairs.
2. Gaps near the edges of the garden path.
3. Mould.
4. The new boiler (installed 8 February 2024) having stopped working.
5. Gap in kitchen window.

Response to the resident’s concerns in respect of moving to the property and the handling of repairs

For clarity each aspect will be addressed separately below.

Move to the property

It is noted that the resident stated that she felt the move to the property had been “forced”, however this Service has not seen any evidence in support of this. Within its stage 2 response, the landlord outlined the timeframe of the resident’s bid being accepted and her moving in. It is noted that there was a period where the resident had access to both her previous property and the new property of the landlord. This provided her with reasonable time to move into the property. It is appreciated that the resident had given birth around 2 weeks prior to moving in, however this Service has not seen any evidence that she had requested additional support or time to move in from the landlord due to this. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to expect the resident to move to the property as per the timeframe it had provided her.
The resident advised this Service that a void inspection had not been carried out prior to her moving in. The landlord provided this inspection to this Service which confirmed that the inspection had taken place on 17 June 2022, prior to the resident moving in. The findings of the inspection however raise concerns as to its thoroughness, as it did not identify any works as being required. This was not the experience of the resident when she moved in around a week later. It is acknowledged by this Service that some types of repair only become noticeable once a resident starts occupying the property. However, the landlord did acknowledge within its complaint responses that works should have been completed during the void period. It is not clear why these had not been identified during the inspection, however this does support that the landlord was not aware of the repair issues until the resident raised them. These repair issues are considered separately below.

Front door

It is not clear when the resident had first experienced being locked in the property due to an issue with the external door lock, however she advised the landlord on 3 July 2022 that her and her children had been locked inside again. This had resulted in one of her children having to climb out of a window to unlock the external door. This was a significant health and safety issue, particularly in light of the vulnerabilities of the household, namely the presence of children including a newborn and the resident having had surgery around a month before.
In line with the landlord’s repairs policy, the landlord should have considered the hazard this created and identified this as an emergency repair, to be actioned within 1 working day. This Service has not seen any evidence of the landlord’s response to this report and the resident advised the landlord again on 6 July 2022 that it had not been resolved. The landlord therefore failed to demonstrate that it had considered the health and safety risk posed by the faulty external door lock. It also failed to show consideration of its responsibilities to minimise the risk of hazards under the HHSRS. This was not appropriate and exposed the household to unnecessary risk.
It is not clear if any works were carried out to the front door lock following the resident’s report and no evidence of such was provided to this Service. The resident reported the issue of the lock being stiff again, around 6 months later, on 20 December 2022. On that occasion the landlord responded with appropriate urgency and the issue was resolved the following day (21 December 2022).
This Service would expect the landlord to have records of how it had responded to the resident’s report from July 2022. By not having such records, the landlord could not demonstrate that it had responded appropriately or in line with its repairs policy or obligations under the HHRSR, to reduce risk to the resident. It also could not show that it had considered the vulnerabilities of the household or how these impacted the potential risk. This was a significant failure.

The garden

The resident reported on 3 July 2022 that weeds in the garden were overgrown and needed cutting back. This had not been identified during the void report the month before, however the landlord responded appropriately and contractors carried out weeding on 6 July 2022. This response timeframe of 3 days was appropriate and in line with its repairs policy.
It is not clear when the resident reported that tree roots were pulling up the concrete slabs in the garden, however the landlord inspected the garden on 2 August 2022. No records were provided to this Service of the outcome of this inspection or if any works were identified or carried out as a result.
The landlord advised the resident on 13 February 2023 that it had applied to the local council (in September 2022) to cut the trees back as the property was in a conservation area. It is noted that the resident had advised the following day (14 February 2023) that she was concerned that her daughter could be injured by a tree. Although this Service has not seen the landlord’s application to the council, such an application was appropriate as the landlord could not cut the trees without such permission.
The resident reported the uneven path again on 17 February 2023 and the landlord arranged an inspection for 9 March 2023. Although this was marked as complete, no details of the findings or works carried out were provided to this Service. The landlord therefore could not show that it had responded appropriately to this hazard.
The landlord concluded at stage 2 that it would not compensate the resident for loss of use of the garden as it had been unable to act pending the council’s approval. Whilst this was accurate in respect of the trees, this did not address the resident’s concerns about the uneven garden path which she had raised between August 2022 and May 2023. The landlord should have addressed this part of her complaint and should have considered how the risk posed to the household (which included young children) from an uneven path, impacted on their use and enjoyment of the garden over this time period of around 6 months. There is no evidence that it did so and as such it missed an opportunity to put things right for the resident.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it can consider a partial refund of rent where a resident is not able to use outdoor space because of a repair issue that is the landlord’s responsibility, and which caused prolonged and unreasonable disruption. The landlord was responsible for keeping the garden path in a good state of repair and for minimising hazards in line with the HHSRS. As such, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider the resident’s request in line with its compensation policy to acknowledge the loss of use of full enjoyment of the garden. The landlord’s compensation policy also states that it will consider household vulnerabilities during such consideration. There is no evidence that it considered the resident’s reports of how the lack of usable outdoor space was impacting her children or the worry this hazard caused her. This was not appropriate and was a failure of the landlord. This Service has considered compensation for this below.

Bedroom windows

The resident reported that 2 of the bedroom windows were faulty and would not close properly on 6 July 2022. Insecure windows are a health and safety and security risk, particularly in a household with young children. The right to repair scheme states that insecure windows should be repaired within 1 working day. There is no evidence however that the landlord considered its obligations and it did not raise a job for this until 2 August 2022. This was almost 1 month after the resident had reported the issue. This was not appropriate and demonstrated a lack of appreciation of the risk this posed.
The landlord’s records show that work to the windows was completed on 27 September 2022. It is noted however that the resident advised within correspondence to the landlord that this had been completed mid to late August 2022. This calls into question the accuracy of the landlord’s record keeping. Despite this discrepancy, it is clear that the repairs took at least a month to be completed. There is no evidence that the landlord considered the vulnerability of the household in amending its response timeframe to action the repair. This was contrary to its repairs policy. As such the landlord failed to demonstrate that it had considered the resident’s personal circumstances and it lacked a resident focused approach.
It is not clear when the resident first reported the issue with the window vents, however the landlord raised a job in respect of the vents letting in draughts on 13 December 2022. The landlord advised the resident within its stage 1 response (28 December 2022) that an appointment would be arranged for early 2023. Despite this, there is no evidence of a contractor having attended in respect of the vents until 8 March 2023. Following this there was a delay due to parts needing to be ordered and works were completed on 3 May 2023. Although the delay due to parts being required was outside of the landlord’s control, this time frame of over 7 months to complete the works was not reasonable.
The resident had advised the landlord that this had allowed cold draughts throughout the property over the winter of 2022. This had impacted her heating bills and she had resorted to purchasing heavy curtains to try to stop the draughts. The landlord however declined to compensate. Although it is acknowledged that curtains are the responsibility of the resident, the landlord’s response failed to consider the impact the delay in this repair had on the vulnerable family which included a young baby. There is no evidence that the landlord offered any interim measures to try to reduce the draughts from the window vents during this period. Due to the lack of interim support from the landlord, it is understandable that the resident felt she needed to do whatever she could to reduce the draughts herself.
The impact of the cold air entering the property via the broken vents was also not considered in light of the issues with the heating which the landlord was aware of. The landlord did not show that it had considered how the repair issue with the boiler exacerbated the hazard caused by the cold draughts in a property with inadequate heating facilities. This was not appropriate and it failed to demonstrate an understanding of the collective impact of the repair issues.
Within its stage 2 response of 19 April 2023 the landlord acknowledged that there had been 2 missed contractor appointments in February 2023 in respect of this. It gave the resident a £40 voucher to acknowledge this. This was in line with its compensation policy of £20 per missed appointment. Overall however the landlord failed to respond appropriately to this repair issue.

Bedroom ceiling

This Service has not seen a record of this issue having been reported by the resident, although the landlord advised in its stage 2 response (19 April 2023) that it had been reported on 21 December 2022. It arranged an asbestos test which was appropriate and this took place on 11 January 2022. Given the need for an external specialist, this timeframe of 12 working days was appropriate.
This Service was not provided with contemporaneous records, however the landlord advised that a contractor had attended on 30 January 2023 (13 working days later) and established the works required to the dry lining. These works were carried out on 6 February 2023, less than a week later with the landlord completing internal decoration works on 10 February 2023. The landlord’s response and completion of this repair was appropriate and was in line with its repairs policy.
It is noted that the resident advised that the works had been brought forward from March to February 2023 and that in doing so the landlord had not considered her childcare commitments. Based on the requirement to undertake works in a timely manner and the resident agreeing to this earlier appointment, it was appropriate for the landlord to have brought the appointment forward and to complete the works at the earliest opportunity at the agreement of the resident.
The landlord acknowledged within its stage 2 response (19 April 2023) that the resident’s daughter had not used the bedroom during this time. It offered compensation for the confusion and lack of communication over the suitability and safety of the bedroom. It was appropriate for the landlord to offer compensation in respect of the impact of this on the resident. It did not however clarify why there had been miscommunication over the issue or how it would prevent this going forward.

Kitchen

The resident had raised an issue with the kitchen window having a chip on 6 July 2022. There is no evidence that the landlord raised a job for this until 2 August 2022, just under 1 month later. No explanation was provided for this and this Service has not seen evidence that the landlord was proactive at keeping in contact with the resident in respect of this repair. No record was provided to this Service to show when the repair had been carried out although the landlord noted internally that it had been resolved by 28 December 2022. This was over 6 months after the issue had been raised. This was significantly outside the repair timescale in its repairs policy.
It is not clear when the resident raised her concerns about the kitchen tap leaking and being corroded and no report of this was provided to this Service. The landlord advised within its stage 2 response that it had installed a new tap on 14 December 2022, following which the tap was subsequently tightened on 12 January 2023. This was an appropriate timeframe for a standard repair.
No records were provided to this Service in respect of when the resident reported issues with the kitchen cupboards. The landlord however advised in its stage 2 response that it had raised a job in respect of this on 2 December 2022. Following this, it stated that a contractor had inspected the cupboards on 21 December 2022 and works were completed on 10 January 2023. Contemporaneous notes were not provided to this Service, however it appears this repair took less than 28 working days which would be in line with the landlord’s repairs policy.
The landlord’s lack of record keeping in respect of the kitchen repairs has impacted on the ability of this Service to ascertain how long the repair issues had been outstanding. It is also not clear how the landlord could provide a detailed background of its response dates for such repairs within its complaint responses but could not provide these to this Service. Overall however the landlord’s handling of the kitchen repairs were reasonable.

Conclusion

When the landlord responded at stage 1 to complaint B, it apologised and acknowledged some of its failures. It subsequently made an offer of £940 compensation on 13 February 2023 to acknowledge distress, inconvenience and time and effort caused to the resident by its failures in handling the repairs.
Within its stage 2 response to complaint B, it offered an additional £540 compensation. This brought the landlord’s total offer of compensation in respect of complaint B (not including £400 for complaint handling and time and effort) to £1380, made up as follows:
1. £540 distress (£420 stage 1 and £120 stage 2).
2. £540 inconvenience (£420 stage 1 and £120 stage 2).
3. £20 delay in replying to correspondence.
4. £280 loss of bedroom space.
When a failure is identified, as in this case, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
It is encouraging that the landlord identified failures in its handling of the repairs. The investigation by this Service has however identified additional failures as follows:
1. The issue with the external door lock had not been considered in light of the significant health and safety risk this posed in light of the household vulnerabilities. Knowing that one of the resident’s children had had to resort to climbing out of a window to open the front door from outside, the landlord failed to prioritise this as an emergency repair. It failed to acknowledge this error.
2. The landlord did not demonstrate that it had considered the hazard posed by the uneven garden path to the household which included young children. Its decision not to compensate for the loss of full use and enjoyment of the use of the garden was contrary to its compensation policy. It failed to explain why it had not followed its policy in this respect. This Service has not seen evidence that this had been resolved at the time of the completion of the internal complaints procedure.
3. The landlord failed to acknowledge that it should have repaired the insecure bedroom windows within 1 working day, in line with the right to repair scheme. Instead this took almost a month. There is no evidence that the landlord had tried to rectify this sooner given the household vulnerabilities.
4. It failed to consider the impact of the faulty window vents in light of the issue with the boiler and inability to heat the house. This made the repair to the vents more urgent but the landlord failed to appreciate this. The landlord lacked understanding and sympathy for the resident who had felt that, as no temporary solutions had been offered by the landlord, she had to buy heavy curtains to try to stop the draught. The landlord demonstrated no flexibility and relied on resident’s being responsible for curtains for not compensating for this. It failed to address that the resident had purchased these as it had offered no alternative temporary repairs and had not undertaken the repair in line with its repairs policy.
The failings not identified or acknowledged by the landlord were significant and concerned matters of health and safety. The landlord’s lack of appreciation for the urgency of these repair issues was concerning. In addition, the landlord failed to demonstrate that it had taken learning from the case. In light of this, the compensation offered was not proportionate to the failures identified. This amounts to maladministration.
To acknowledge the distress caused to the resident and the concern caused by the repair issues in respect of the safety of her children, this Service has ordered an additional £300 compensation.
To acknowledge the inconvenience of having to try to block the cold draughts due to the landlord’s lack of action and the purchase of heavy curtains, an additional £100 compensation has been ordered. This is not meant as a refund for the curtains which this Service has not seen a receipt for.
To acknowledge the impact on the use of the amenity of the garden, this Service had ordered an additional £250 compensation. This is to acknowledge the loss of use of the garden based on the timeframe considered in this report of August 2022 to May 2023.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance notes that some landlords will wish to offset any payment of compensation against a resident’s arrears, as stated in the landlord’s compensation policy. However, it is the Ombudsman’s position that compensation awarded by this Service should be treated separately from any existing financial arrangements between the landlord and resident and should not be offset against arrears. This applies regardless of whether the landlord’s compensation policy allows it to do this and it is particularly the case where it is considered that it would be unfair to do so. The additional compensation ordered in this case is to be paid directly to the resident.

Response to the resident’s reports of issues with the boiler effecting the heating and hot water

The resident raised the issue of the boiler not working and having no heating or hot water on 3 July 2022, around a week after she moved in. The landlord responded within an appropriate timeframe and an engineer attended the following day to uncap the gas. Although the response timeframe was appropriate, this should have been uncapped when the resident moved in, not around a week later. There is no evidence that the landlord had proactively checked that this had been done in time for the resident’s occupation of the property. This was concerning given that the landlord should have been aware of the vulnerabilities of the household including that the resident had undergone surgery (a caesarean) 2 weeks prior. It should have been aware that the household needed access to hot water to keep her would clean and to meet basic hygiene needs of her children, including a newborn.
Following the resident’s reports on 6 July 2022 that the heating was coming on despite the thermostat being off, thereby causing the property to be hot, the landlord arranged a job within 3 working days (11 July 2022). This was a reasonable timeframe. Although works had been marked as complete, no details had been recorded on the repairs log provided to this Service as to what had been carried out. The landlord’s lack of records of works carried out prevented an understanding of how to deal with the reoccurrence of this issue. The resident raised it further on 2 August 2022. Again the landlord’s repairs logs stated that works had been carried out (on 5 August 2022) but no details were provided.
It is not clear when the resident raised an issue of there being no pressure in the boiler, however the landlord raised a job for this on 17 October 2022. A contractor attended this within 3 working days (20 October 2022). While this would have been appropriate for a non-emergency repair, there is no evidence that the landlord considered whether it should respond to this as an emergency. In the circumstances it should have considered this given the household vulnerabilities, the known draughts from the windows and it being during the winter. Again no details of works which had been marked as completed were recorded in the repairs log.
The date is unclear, but the resident again reported issues with the heating and hot water not working properly. Although the landlord raised a job for this on 2 December 2022 and noted the resident had a 5 month old baby, there is no evidence of the actions it took following this report or evidence that work had been completed. By this point, the landlord had been aware of ongoing issues with the boiler for around 6 months. Its reliance on repeated appointments which did not rectify the issue was not appropriate. The landlord should by this point, if not sooner, have realised that the actions it was undertaking were not resolving the issue permanently. It could have sought the advice of different specialist contractors or considered replacing the boiler, however there is no evidence that it did so.
When the resident advised the landlord on 13 December 2022 that she believed the household had been made ill by the cold and she advised of the specific vulnerability of her children, it marked the job as complete. No details were provided of any action it had taken. This Service has not seen evidence that the landlord responded to this concern or offered assistance or signposting in respect of a possible personal injury claim or health assistance. Despite marking the job as complete, it marked another job for the same issue as complete on 21 December 2022 without any explanation as to whether this had been the same repair or if different works had been carried out.
It is clear that despite marking the works as complete, the landlord was aware that the resident still had no heating, as it raised a job to deliver temporary heaters on 22 December 2023. Although this was appropriate, there is no evidence that the landlord had considered providing such heaters prior to this, despite the ongoing issues the resident had been experiencing with the heating since July 2022 including during the winter.
The HHSRS makes it clear that a being unable to regulate the temperature of a property can have an impact on the physical and mental health of a resident. The resident indicated that her physical health and that of her children, was suffering as a result of the lack of heating. Although the landlord had repeatedly raised jobs for the boiler, these had not resolved the issue permanently. Despite noting internally that the resident had a newborn child, there is little evidence, to demonstrate that it had considered how it could assist the resident with the lack of heating prior to its offer of heaters. The landlord missed an opportunity to be proactive in reducing the risk of cold to the household in line with the HHSRS.
The temporary heaters were not delivered, as an engineer had attended on 23 December 2022 and replaced parts on the boiler. Despite this work, there is no evidence that the landlord had proactively checked with the resident that this had resolved the heating issue permanently. This was not appropriate given the household vulnerabilities.
The resident advised on 22 January 2023 that the heating was still coming on with the hot water, which was impacting her financially. The resident’s concern in this respect was understandable. Although the landlord offered compensation in respect of its handling of the boiler issues, there is no evidence that it had considered the resident’s concerns about increased bills at the time or that it had asked her for evidence of this in order to fairly assess this. It is noted that the landlord gave the resident a £50 energy card voucher in March 2023 however it is not clear how it had determined this was a reasonable amount. As such it could not demonstrate what it had considered when offering this this.
Following the report from 22 January 2023, the landlord took 18 working days (until 16 February 2023) to respond. This is within the timeframe for a non-emergency repair, however there is no evidence that the landlord had considered the particular household vulnerabilities in arranging this. This is something which its repairs policy states it will consider when arranging repairs and as such the landlord should be able to demonstrate this.
The landlord acknowledged some of its failures in respect of its handling of the issues with the boiler. At stage 1 it offered the resident £950 compensation to acknowledge the impact of its failures. It noted that the resident had accepted this.
It did not address the financial impact caused to the resident by the boiler issues until its stage 2 response. During this repose, it acknowledged this and offered a further £270 in respect of its handling of the issues. This brought the landlord’s total offer of compensation in respect of its handling of the boiler repairs to £1220. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman remedies guidance for severe maladministration.
The landlord’s failure in respect of how it handled the boiler repairs were significant, particularly in light of the multiple household vulnerabilities, which it did not demonstrate it had sufficiently considered. The landlord did not demonstrate adequate consideration of the impact this ongoing repair issue had on the resident (with it being ongoing for over 9 months). She had outlined her concerns in respect of the increased risk she felt her newborn child was at of cot death, as she could not turn the heating off in the summer. The landlord did not address this significant concern. Although the landlord attempted repairs, it is clear that there were a number of issues with the boiler over a short period of time. The landlord was not proactive in investigating these issues in depth or to fully repair or resolve the issue by replacing the boiler (prior to 2024). The lack of heating during the winter months was compounded by the window vents needing repair/overhaul and letting in cold draughts of air. There is no evidence that the landlord had considered the combined impact of these repair issues.
The resident had been clear that the large number of contractor appointments in respect of the issue had significantly impacted on her being able to enjoy her home with her children. This was not adequately addressed or considered by the landlord. This was not appropriate particularly in light of her having advised that she was breastfeeding at the time and the disruption caused to her children.
The landlord acknowledged some failures and offered redress in the form of compensation in line with a finding by this Service of severe maladministration. The amount offered however was not proportionate with the impact this ongoing and unresolved repair had on the resident and her family. In addition the landlord did not evidence that it had fully resolved the issues with the heating/boiler at the time of the completion of the internal complaints procedure. As such there was maladministration.
To acknowledge the significant detriment caused to the resident by the landlord’s failures, this Service has ordered additional compensation of £500. Whilst this is not a refund for energy costs, this figure takes into account the resident’s representations as to the increase in her energy bills.
It is noted that following the completion of the internal complaints procedure the resident reported the boiler not working again on 17 November 2023. The landlord replaced the boiler in January 2024, however the resident again reported that it had stopped working in February 2024. As there are ongoing issues with the boiler which remain unresolved, this Service has ordered the landlord to arrange an independent inspection of the boiler, heating and hot water system in the property.

Knowledge and information management

The landlord’s record keeping in this case was insufficient. The repair logs lacked details of actions taken by the landlord and instead recorded jobs as complete without any details provided of works undertaken. The landlord should be able to demonstrate the works carried out or the outcome of contractor visits in order to satisfy itself and this Service that it had responded appropriately to repair issues.
It is noted that the landlord has a vulnerability of one of the residents of the property (presumably one of the children) recorded as “illness”. This is vague and unhelpful to its staff when determining how to appropriately respond to specific vulnerabilities of the household. An order has been made for the vulnerability record to be updated to ensure accurate details of household vulnerability are recorded.
An improvement in the landlord’s record-keeping would result in significant benefits for both it and residents. It would enable accurate information to be shared across teams and with residents which would improve the landlord’s responses. In this case although the landlord referred to dates of works in its complaints responses these were not always evidenced in its repairs logs. This calls into question the accuracy of such logs.
The Housing Ombudsman’s May 2023 spotlight report on knowledge and information management refers specifically to these types of incidences and the landlord is encouraged to consider the impact its knowledge management has on the quality of its housing services. Further to consider its legal responsibilities alongside the obvious benefit of retaining documents.
By failing to retain accurate, contemporaneous records of activity undertaken, the landlord’s staff were unable to have an understanding of what repairs had been attempted unsuccessfully on the boiler. The impact of its information handling practices caused extended detriment, in the form of time, trouble, and distress to the resident and resulted from a lack of proactive ownership amongst the landlord’s staff. This also affected the landlord’s ability to identify issues and respond appropriately. It also hindered this Service’s investigation. Consequently this service finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of information and record keeping practices.
The Housing Ombudsman undertook a special investigation into the landlord and the report was published in July 2023 (after the completion of the internal complaints procedure in this case). The investigation was prompted by concerns over the landlord’s handling of complaints and disrepair, in particular from vulnerable residents. One of the themes identified within this report was the landlord’s poor knowledge and information management culture. It was found that the landlord’s communication with residents was often undermined by poor knowledge and information management as has been seen in this case. As this has been addressed within the special report, no further orders will be made in respect of knowledge and information management in this case.

Complaint handing

Poor complaint handling was another area highlighted within the Housing Ombudsman’s special report into the landlord. The resident submitted complaint A on 2 December 2022 in respect of the heating contractor. She submitted complaint B on 28 December 2022 in respect of multiple repair issues.
The landlord response at stage 1 to complaint B the same day that the resident submitted it. Whilst the Ombudsman encourages landlords to respond to complaints in a timely manner, responding on the same day does call into question the thoroughness of the landlord’s investigation at stage 1. Although the stage 1 response acknowledged failures in respect of the repairs it was generic in nature. This is concerning given the nature and seriousness of the issues raised by the resident’s complaint.
The landlord responded to complaint A on 3 January 2023. It acknowledged failures and offered compensation. It is noted however that this response was very brief and lacked evidence of a thorough investigation.
The resident escalated both complaints on 31 January 2023 and she reiterated her request on 14 February 2023. The landlord advised that due to an increase in complaints and staff shortages the response would be delayed. It did not give any indication of how long this delay was likely to be nor did it commit to keeping in regular contact to provide updates. This was inappropriate and caused additional frustration to the resident. Following this the landlord offered £400 compensation on 17 February 2023 for complaint handing, time and effort in respect of complaint B. It was not clear what this was referring to as it had responded to the stage 1 complaint the day it was made.
Despite the landlord contacting her in respect of its offer of compensation, this was a follow on to its stage 1 response. As the landlord had not responded at stage 2 by 28 March 2023, the resident sought the assistance of this Service. Following the involvement if this Service, the landlord sent both stage 2 responses on 19 April 2023. This was 55 working days which was significantly outside of its 20 working day response time at stage 2 as per its repairs policy.
The landlord apologised for the delay at stage 2 and offered a total of £60 compensation for its delays at stage 2 (£40 for complaint A and £20 for complaint B). It is not clear why these amounts differed as the delay had been the same for both complaints. This brought its total compensation for complaint handling of complaint A to £40 and for complaint B, £420.
The compensation offered for both complaints was significantly different and the landlord did not explain this, however the combined total compensation for complaint handling of £460 was reasonable. This was also in line with the Housing Ombudsman remedies guidance for complaint handling delays. The compensation offered therefore amounts to reasonable redress.
Given the significant failures in this case, this Service would ordinarily have ordered a Senior Management case review. It is acknowledged however that since the events of this case, the Ombudsman’s special report was published and the landlord subsequently published its own report in May 2023 setting out how it would embed resident involvement and put residents in control of the decisions that affect them. It also launched a 15-year major works investment programme in its properties. It embedded a new, localised housing management approach to put more front-line colleagues in local neighbourhoods to be more responsive to the needs of vulnerable residents. It also established an extensive training programme for resident-facing colleagues to help it deliver an empathetic and responsive resident experience. In addition it was overhauling its complaints handling. As the landlord has taken these steps such an order to review these failures will not be made.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns in respect of moving to the property and the handling of repairs including: the front door lock, the garden, bedroom windows, bedroom ceiling and the kitchen.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of issues with the boiler effecting the heating and hot water.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s knowledge and information management.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord did not fully acknowledge its failures and did not consider the impact of the multiple outstanding repair issues on the household or the cumulative impact of these. It failed to respond to repairs involving health and safety issues appropriately and lacked an appreciation of the hazards present in the property, such as the insecure front door and windows, a lack of heating and an uneven garden path. Its offer of compensation was not proportional to the impact on the resident over the period of time.
In respect of the heating repairs, the landlord acknowledged some of its failures however it failed to demonstrate that it had fully considered the impact on the household vulnerabilities or the health and safety risks posed by being unable to adequately regulate the temperature of the property. The landlord was not proactive in checking if repairs had resolved the issue. This led to the resident having to regularly report faults. The landlord failed to appropriately address the resident’s concerns in respect of the disruption caused by the number of contractor appointments and the financial impact on her of the boiler not working.
The landlord lacked records of the actions it had undertaken in respect of repairs. This prevented staff from having an understanding of previous works attempted unsuccessfully. The landlord did not have a comprehensive record of the household vulnerabilities which impacted on its ability to fully consider the impact on the resident. The landlord failed to take appropriate action or make reasonable adjustments when dealing with the repairs.
The total compensation offered for both complaints was in line with the Housing Ombudsman remedies guidance for complaint handling delays.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of this report and provide evidence of compliance to this Service:
1. Apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this case.
2. Pay a total of £4300 compensation directly to the resident. This includes the landlord’s previous offer of £3150 (which includes vouchers for missed appointments and energy usage) and is made up as follows:
  1. £300 to acknowledge the distress caused to the resident in respect of the landlord’s handling of the repairs.
  2. £100 to acknowledge the inconvenience caused to the resident in respect of the landlord’s handling of the repairs.
  3. £250 to acknowledge the loss of full use and enjoyment of the garden.
  4. £500 to acknowledge the impact on the resident of the landlord’s failures in respect the boiler.
3. Update the vulnerability record for the resident.
4. Confirm to this Service whether action has been taken in respect of the trees in the garden.
5. Within 8 weeks, arrange an independent inspection of the boiler, heating and hot water system in the property. Provide a copy of this to the resident and this Service.
6. Within 8 weeks, arrange an inspection of the garden path and provide a plan of works to the resident and this Service in respect of works identified.