Longhurst Group Limited (202232306)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202232306

Longhurst Group Limited

16 August 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 the resident’s:
    1. Reports of a repair to the hot water system.
    2. Transfer request.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. At the time of his complaint, he was living in a 1 bedroom first floor flat, and had lived there since December 2013. The resident moved to a different property, with the same landlord, in June 2023. The landlord recorded the resident as vulnerable due to having a mental health condition.
  2. The landlord placed the resident on its internal transfer list in October 2019. The resident contacted the landlord in November 2020 and asked his transfer application to be placed on hold. The landlord wrote to the resident on 30 November 2020 and confirmed it had placed his transfer application on hold, and said the situation would be reviewed in January 2022.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 27 May 2022 and said he had contacted the landlord earlier in the year to have his transfer status reinstated. He asked to be considered for 2 bedroom properties in the vicinity of his property. The resident also raised a concern that he had no hot water in his kitchen since moving in, due to a water pressure issue. It is unclear if the landlord raised a repair at the time. The resident raised the hot water issue with the landlord again on 16 February 2023.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord on 20 March 2023 to make a complaint about the landlord’s handling of his transfer request. He said he felt the landlord had used “deception”, and blocked his move. He expressed a concern that he had been without hot water in his kitchen for “9 years”.
  5. The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 6 April 2023.It gave a history of the resident’s transfer application. It said it had reviewed its records and found no “deliberate attempt” to prevent the resident moving. It set out the reason it had taken “so long” was due its own limited stock in the areas the resident wanted to live. It said it had seen no evidence the resident had raised the repair to the hot water in the kitchen until 16 March 2023, and its repairs contractor would be in touch to arrange the repair.
  6. On 23 June 2023, the resident signed a tenancy for a new property with the same landlord. The exact date he moved is not clear. The resident contacted the landlord on 26 June 2023 and asked his complaint to be taken to stage 2. He said its stage 1 response was inaccurate and he had raised a repair to the kitchen hot water, via email, in May 2022. He also said he was unhappy with the time it had taken to facilitate a move to a new property. He felt that the landlord had not given him the appropriate support around his mental health and vulnerabilities.
  7. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 26 July 2023, and upheld the resident’s complaint. It said there was “handover failure” between housing officers which meant his transfer application had not been reviewed. It accepted it failed to give the resident “appropriate support” with his mental health, and vulnerabilities. It set out its position on the kitchen hot water repair, and said the resident had refused its recent repair visit, due to his “imminent move”. It offered £600 for the “inconvenience and distress” caused by its handling of the resident’s transfer.
  8. The resident contacted this Service on 27 July 2023 and asked us to investigate his complaint. He said that the landlord’s handling of the repairs and transfer had impacted on his mental health, and the offer of compensation did not put things right.

Assessment and findings

Repairs to the hot water system

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, and keep in repair and proper working order the installations for the supply of water and sanitation.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it has 3 categories of responsive repair, which are:
    1. Emergency repair, which it will attend to within 4 hours.
    2. Urgent repairs, which it will complete within 7 days.
    3. Routine repairs, which it will complete within 28 days.
  3. Throughout his complaint the resident raised a concern that he had no hot water in his kitchen for “9 years”. While the resident’s claim is noted, and we do not seek to dispute it, a repair dating back 9 years is not within the scope of this investigation. This is because the concerns, dating back 9 years, were not brought to the attention of the landlord within a reasonable period. This is in line with the approach set out in our Scheme. We have however considered the landlord’s handling of the matter when it was put on notice leading up to his complaint. In line with what we consider reasonable in the circumstances, we have assessed the landlord’s actions after it was put on notice about the issue in May 2022.
  4. When the resident put the put the landlord on notice about the hot water in his kitchen, in May 2022, we have seen no evidence to indicate that the landlord took any action at that time. This was a failing in its handling of the repairs which caused the resident an inconvenience. It is concerning that the landlord was not proactive in attending to a repair of this nature.
  5. The evidence shows the resident tried to raise the repair again in February 2023. It is noted we have not seen evidence of the resident raising the repair between May 2022 to February 2023, which would have impacted on the landlord’s ability to respond. However, the resident was further inconvenienced by needing to raise the repair again in February 2023.
  6. The landlord did not seek to book the repair until 16 March 2023 after the resident raised it in February 2023. This was an unreasonable delay and well outside of the timeframe for an urgent repair, as per its policy. This was a further failing in its handling of the matter. The resident was evidently distressed at the conditions he was reporting. That the landlord did not raise the repair within a reasonable timeframe increased the distress he experienced.
  7. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, of April 2023, was inaccurate in relation to the repair. It set out that it had no evidence the resident had raised the repair until March 2023, which was incorrect. We have seen evidence the resident raised the repair in May 2022, and February 2023. That the landlord did not record the repair with the appropriate service area was a failing in its handling of the matter, and its record keeping. The resident was inconvenienced by a complaint investigation that lacked the appropriate thoroughness, and learning about its handling of the repair.
  8. The evidence shows that after the landlord sought to book the repair from March 2023 onwards, the resident was unwilling to allow the repair to go ahead, due to his imminent move. This impacted on the landlord’s ability to respond.
  9. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, of July 2023, was also inappropriate in relation to the repair. While it is noted the landlord stated it would not investigate matters that had not been complained about within 6 months, in line with its complaint policy. The evidence shows that the resident had raised the issue on multiple occasions in 2022, and 2023. That it did not address the resident’s concerns in more detail in its complaint response was inappropriate, and dismissive. The resident was caused a further inconvenience by a complaint investigation that lacked the appropriate thoroughness, and learning.
  10. As set out above, we have not assessed the landlord’s handling of the matter dating back 9 years, due to the passage of time. However, once the landlord was put on notice in May 2022, the landlord failed to respond to the report of the repair. It also failed to raise the repair again in February 2023, which caused a further in convenience. The landlord’s complaint responses lacked the appropriate learning about the issue, and were dismissive of the resident’s concerns. While it is noted the landlord made reasonable attempts to progress with the repair from March 2023, the above failings amount to a finding of maladministration in its handling of the repair.

Transfer request

  1. The landlord’s transfer policy states that it will agree a transfer for a resident for if they provide up to date medical evidence in support of their move. The policy states that it will make 1 reasonable offer, if the offer is rejected it may cancel the transfer application.
  2. When the resident made his complaint he raised a concern about the landlord’s handling of his transfer request dating back to 2015. While the resident’s claim is noted, and we do not seek to dispute it, the landlord’s handling of the transfer dating back to 2015 is not within the scope of this investigation. This is because the concerns, dating back to 2015, were not brought to the attention of the landlord within a reasonable period. This is in line with the approach set out in our Scheme. We have however considered the landlord’s handling of the matter within a reasonable period of him raising his complaint in 2023.
  3. Following the resident’s move, in June 2023, he raised a concern about the condition of the property he moved to, and a concern about the previous tenant. The landlord opened a separate complaint about the issue, and issued its stage 1 response in August 2023. We have seen no evidence to indicate that this particular issue has exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. As such, this is not within the scope of this investigation. This is in line with the approach set out in our Scheme which states we will only consider complaints that are brought to us prior to exhausting the landlord’s complaints procedure. Considering this, our investigation has focused on matters up to when the resident exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure in July 2023.
  4. When the resident made his complaint, in March 2023, he raised a concern that the landlord’s handling of the transfer request had a negative impact on his mental health. The serious nature of this is acknowledged and we do not seek to dispute the resident’s comments. However, this aspect of the resident’s complaint ultimately requires a determination of liability for personal injury.
  5. Claims of personal injury, including damage to health, can be considered via a landlord’s public liability insurance or in a court of law. Such claims will take into consideration medical evidence and allegations of negligence. These matters fall outside of the Ombudsman’s remit. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim, if he considers that his health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.
  6. When the landlord agreed to suspend the resident’s transfer request, in November 2020, it said it would review the matter in January 2022. We have seen no evidence to indicate the landlord was proactive in following up on this with the resident in January 2022. This was a failing in its handling of the matter, which caused an inconvenience. It is noted the landlord asked the resident to get in touch if he wanted to progress the matter in January 2022. Considering the vulnerability of the resident, this was inappropriate and put the onus on him to progress matters. This is evidence the landlord did not have due consideration for the resident’s vulnerability, and his individual circumstances.
  7. The evidence seen for this investigation shows that the landlord sought to manage the resident’s expectations about the time it would take to be rehoused via a transfer. It sent emails in May 2022, and January 2023 when the resident raised concerns about the time it was taking. It was appropriate to explain that it would likely take a significant amount of time for it to rehouse him. However, the evidence shows the landlord was not proactive in providing the resident with updates. Considering the vulnerability of the resident, a more proactive approach to proving updates would have been reasonable in the circumstances. The lack of proactive updates increased the inconvenience the resident experienced, as he was left not knowing the progress of his transfer request.
  8. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, of April 2023, set out a detailed timeline of its handling of the transfer, which was appropriate. However, it failed to acknowledge that it was not proactive in its communication with the resident, and its failure to review the application in January 2022 as it had said it would. This was a shortcoming in its response and evidence it failed to show the appropriate learning about its handling of the matter.
  9. That the stage 1 complaint response provided the resident with advice about where he could get support in relation to his tenancy, and his mental health, was appropriate. This is evidence that it had due consideration of the resident’s vulnerability, and his individual circumstances, which was appropriate.
  10. That the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, of July 2022, set out that it was unable to assess matter dating back to 2015, was reasonable. Considering the passage of time, the landlord was unable to provide an in depth assessment of its handling of the matter dating back to 2015. While evidently disappointing for the resident, that it set this out with clarity was reasonable and evidence it sought to manage his expectations about its complaint investigation.
  11. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response admitted failings in its handling of the matter, and appropriately apologised for its poor communication. It also appropriately apologised that it had not been proactive in reviewing the application, and supporting the resident. This was reasonable in the circumstances, and evidence the landlord thoroughly investigated the resident’s concerns, and set out its findings with transparency.
  12. The landlord offered the resident £600 in compensation for its handling of the transfer. That it set out how it had improved its service, including how it would support the resident in relation to his vulnerabilities, was appropriate. This is evidence the landlord applied the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles of learning from outcomes, and putting things right. Considering the learning it showed, and the level of redress it offered, we have determined its redress fully put things right for the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a repair to the hot water system.
  2. In accordance with 53(b) the landlord made an offer of redress, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved its handling of the resident’s transfer request.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £350 in compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the repair to the hot water system.
  2. Within 8 weeks the landlord is ordered to conduct a review into its handling of the repair to the hot water system. It must identify points of learning to prevent it making similar failings in the future. The findings of the review must be shared with this Service, and the resident, also within 8 weeks.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended the landlord pays the resident the £600 in compensation it offered for its handling of the resident’s transfer request (if it has not already done so).