The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Longhurst Group Limited (202233419)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202233419

Longhurst Group Limited

4 June 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 defects and a door repair.
    2. Associated formal complaint.

Background

  1. The resident and her partner have occupied the property, a 3 bedroom semi-detached new build shared ownership house, since June 2021. The landlord is a housing association.
  2. On 31 August 2021 the resident reported an issue with the front door, as it would not lock and the landlord logged the repair to be dealt with as an emergency, and carried out within 1 day. The door was not repaired and another emergency job was created on 8 October 2021. The door remained unrepaired and on 30 November 2021 an issue was also reported with the back (French) door also not locking.
  3. The resident reported other repairs, such as a slow leak in the bathroom and a toilet not flowing correctly. These items were repaired but the resident reminded the landlord on 7 December 2021 that there was still an issue with doors not locking properly.
  4. The resident reported that a hole in a tile in the bathroom needed repairing on 30 March 2022, and a further issue with the downstairs toilet on 18 April 2022. She chased the toilet repair on 10 May 2022 and explained she was pregnant and needed use of the downstairs toilet. The landlord contacted the developer and told the resident it had asked that someone attend as soon as possible.
  5. A full list of defects with the property was prepared by the resident and submitted to the landlord by the deadline, in May 2022. This included: hairline cracks around the doorframe in the kitchen and window frame in a bedroom; a door handle loose in the toilet; small hole in a bath tile; a crack in the soffit on the stairs; and resealing of a waste pipe.

Summary of events

  1. The resident chased the landlord on 4 July and 6 October 2022 as she had not received a response to her defect list. She advised that one of the defects, an issue with the front door, had got worse as it had stopped working altogether. On 11 October 2022 the resident told the landlord that having submitted her snagging list by the deadline of 24 May 2022, she had heard nothing. She was now 32 weeks pregnant and needed the jobs addressing. She said she was not happy with the communication and would be submitting a complaint if she had no response.
  2. The resident chased the landlord again on 19 October and 2 November 2022 and the landlord apologised on 4 November 2022 for the delay. It said it would look in to the matter the following week and the resident explained on 8 November 2022 that she just wanted to know the work would get done, as the communication had been poor. The landlord responded the following day and said it would keep on top of matters and hoped the developer would update it soon in terms of when repairs would be done.
  3. On 16 and 22 November 2022 the resident chased again and reminded the landlord she was 38 weeks pregnant and when she called, there was no answer. Despite having been told action was being taken, she had heard nothing further and she was having to use the back door to access the property.
  4. The resident notified the landlord on 30 November 2022 that she had given birth 5 days earlier and still could not use the front door. She was recovering from surgery and despite continuing to call several times, had been unable to speak with someone and had received no response to her emails. The landlord responded the same day, noted her frustration, advised that it had chased the developer, and said it would contact her again the following Friday.
  5. An email from the developer to the landlord of 1 December 2022 made it clear it was only aware of one repairs issue and not all the issues on the snagging list.
  6. The resident contacted the landlord on 7 December 2022 and said no-one had contacted her as promised and she was very unhappy with its service. She had a newborn baby and wanted contact by the end of the day as she intended on making a formal complaint. She then visited the landlord’s office on 16 December 2022 and the landlord recorded that she was making a complaint.
  7. The landlord liaised with the developer about the works and, while the developer agreed to fix some of the issues, it said it would not look at the door as it was outside the defect period. The landlord explained there was an issue to the resident on 22 December 2022 and said it was escalating it to a manager. It apologised for the time things were taking and said she could make a complaint. It also explained she could refer to the NHBC that would deal directly with the developer under the 2 year builder’s guarantee.
  8. The resident confirmed on 22 December 2022 that she wanted to make a complaint and wanted her NHBC paperwork as she was unhappy with the time taken. She reminded the landlord that she was also having issues with her back door and was in fear of being locked out of the property entirely.
  9. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 23 December 2022. The resident told the landlord on 3 January 2023 that over Christmas she had had another issue with the front door, as it had opened, but then would not lock. Despite reporting it to the out of hours repairs team and waiting for several hours, she was then told it could not help her.
  10. The resident attended the landlord’s office on 6 January 2023 as she was unhappy with the way matters were being dealt with. The landlord sent her an email the same day and explained it was still liaising with the developer, but sent her the NHBC documentation as well as a link to its complaint form.
  11. A contractor attended on 11 January 2023 with no notice to complete the repairs on the snagging list submitted in May 2022. The resident notified the landlord the same day that she was unhappy someone had turned up without giving her notice.
  12. In the absence of a stage 1 response, the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2 on 24 January 2023.
  13. The landlord then issued its stage 1 response on 25 January 2023 following a telephone call with the resident the same day. It apologised for the service provided and noted the complaint was about defects being reported in May 2022 and not being addressed until January 2023. The issue with the front door also remained unresolved. It agreed to escalate the matter to stage 2.
  14. On 8 February 2023, the resident told the landlord a contractor attended on 17 January 2023 to assess the front door and advised it would be treated as an emergency. However, nothing further happened and she was unhappy to now be asked to take photographs, which could have been done when the contractor attended.
  15. The resident told the landlord on 9 February 2023, that the door handle had fallen off the back door the night before. As the front door could not be used, the back door was her means of access and she had already been struggling using a pram as there was a step to navigate at the back door.
  16. In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 21 February 2023, it reiterated its stage 1 apology and explained that a failing in its internal processes (which it had since addressed) led to the list of defects provided in May 2022 being overlooked when another issue was reported later. A misunderstanding with the developer followed and it was not until January 2023 that the developer accepted the original list of defects to address. It confirmed the defects had been repaired recently and an appointment had been made to assess the broken front door. It offered £300 compensation (£250 for the delay, stress and inconvenience caused and a goodwill gesture of £50 for the lack of communication).
  17. A contractor attended on 23 February 2023 but was unable to repair the front door and said it needed replacing and measurements were taken. The back door was repaired at this appointment. Over the next 3 months, the resident chased for updates about the new door and the landlord, in turn, chased the developer on a number of occasions. The developer advised it was having issues with the door company. In the meantime, the resident rejected the compensation offer and said £1,000 would be a more reasonable remedy.
  18. On 21 April 2023 the landlord spoke with the resident and confirmed a front door had been ordered and had a lead time of about 6 weeks. It increased its compensation offer to £500 (£50 for lack of communication at stage 1 and £450 for stress and inconvenience). The resident was not happy with the amount offered and wanted to wait until the door was installed before considering the matter further. She told the landlord, “I appreciate you chasing and calling each week. As this is a huge priority in my life as it has been for months.” The landlord updated the resident again on 28 April 2023.
  19. A new front door was fitted on 2 June 2023 and, on the same day, the back door handles were replaced. The landlord called the resident on the day of fitting to check the operatives were on site and also called on 5 June 2023 to check she was happy with the work done. In that conversation, the landlord asked whether she wished to accept the £500 compensation offered, and the resident said she wanted to think about it.
  20. Following a report by the resident, an operative attended on 28 June 2023 to tighten up the door handles as they were sagging slightly. The resident asked the landlord to reconsider its offer of compensation and on 11 July 2023 it agreed to pay £700 (£50 for failure in its complaint handling at stage 1; £100 for lack of communication at stage 1; and £550 for stress and inconvenience and the impact of its poor service).
  21. The landlord apologised for the resident not having a usable front door for so long but explained that the time was, in part, as a result of the time taken to manufacture the door. The following day, the resident accepted the offer.

Assessment and findings

Reports of defects and a door repair.

  1. The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance policy says emergency repairs should be attended within 4 hours and made safe, appointed urgent repairs within 7 calendar days maximum and appointed routine repairs completed within 28 calendar days maximum. It goes on to say “whilst a property or component is under defects or within warranty repairs must be reported to the relevant contractor during this period and follow the defect process. If the repair is an emergency then a make safe repair may be completed by the repairs contractor with the aim to prevent damage to the property or risk to the customer”.
  2. From August 2021 (when an issue with the front door was first reported) through to May 2022 (when the defects list was submitted) the resident reported other issues which were resolved relatively promptly. The front door was deemed an emergency and therefore should have been fixed within 4 hours, but the evidence indicates several visits occurred and it was not repaired. When the developer was told there was a problem with the doors, it initially claimed it was not responsible, as it was outside the defect period when it was made aware of an issue. This suggests the landlord failed to report the matter to the developer in a timely manner, in contravention of the Repairs policy.
  3. The landlord has accepted there was an issue with its communication with the developer and this led to it taking 14 months from the defect list being provided, to all matters being resolved, which is unacceptable. The landlord did apologise to the resident for this delay on several occasions but its service did not then improve. This made the apologies appear hollow and understandably added to the resident’s frustration. It led to the resident having to chase the landlord on numerous occasions and she was left not knowing what was happening, at a difficult time in her life. She had made it clear to the landlord that she was pregnant, and her only way in to the property was via the back door which also needed repairing. When she had the baby her access was limited and this proved difficult as there was a step at the back door that she had to navigate.
  4. Overall, it took 22 months for all defects, including the front door to be addressed. The landlord’s communication did start to improve once a complaint was made and it also regularly chased for information from the developer, stressing the importance of getting the matter resolved for the resident. In addition, it liaised with the resident and developer in order for her to choose the new front door. The Ombudsman accepts it took 4 months for a new front door to be ordered and fitted, but that still means there was an avoidable delay of 18 months, which is unreasonable.  After many months of the landlord not communicating with the resident, it was only when she complained, that someone took ownership of ensuring the defects list was actioned and that the resident received more regular updates.
  5. Having acknowledged a deficiency in its service, it was appropriate that the landlord offered the resident compensation. However, as the defects remained unresolved, it was a sensible approach to tell the resident on 14 April 2023, that it would reconsider the matter of compensation once it knew when the front door would be replaced. That way it could properly assess how long it took to resolve the issue and the overall impact.
  6. The landlord ultimately offered £550 in relation to the defects and front door. Its Complaints Policy says awards of £100 to £600 may be made for cases where there has been considerable service failure or maladministration, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant. While that could be argued as being the case here, the circumstances for maladministration certainly apply and, due to the length of time the poor service went on for, the redress needed to put things right is substantial.
  7. Therefore, as per this Service’s remedies guidance, compensation of between £600 and £1,000 would be more reasonable. Given the failings identified by this investigation, the compensation offered to remedy the poor handling of the defects and door repair should be increased from £550 to £750. As a result, the landlord should pay the resident an additional £200 compensation.

Handling of the formal complaint.

  1. The landlord’s Complaints Policy says it will issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days. At stage 2 a response will be issued within 20 working days. In both cases, if the timescale is not achievable, an extension of no longer than an additional 10 working days may be necessary.
  2. This Service’s Complaint Handling Code states that a complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction. It is clear the resident told the landlord she was unhappy on 7 December 2022, so this is when it should have recorded that a complaint had been made, but it failed to do that. Even after the resident visited the landlord on 16 December 2022 and said she was making a complaint, it did not treat it as such. Instead, it told her she could make a complaint if she wanted to; something she made clear she did want on 22 December 2022.
  3. Although the complaint was acknowledged promptly, because the landlord did not treat the expression of dissatisfaction as a complaint initially, it led to a 2 week delay in the complaint being considered. It then failed to adhere to its Complaints policy as it did not issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days. In fact, it took the resident asking for the complaint to be escalated to the next stage on 24 January 2023 for a response to be sent the following day. This was 20 working days after it was treated as a complaint and without the resident being informed there would be a delay. In addition, the stage 1 response failed to address the complaint in any way and simply explained that it had been escalated to stage 2, which was unacceptable.
  4. The landlord did, in its stage 2 response, recognise failures in its service and rightly apologised and offered compensation. However, the amount offered was very low and while this went some way to recognise the delay and stress and a lack of communication, the landlord failed to address how it had not dealt with the complaint appropriately or promptly at stage 1.
  5. It did go on to increase the compensation offer later on a couple of occasions taking in to account how long things were taking, and it also improved its communication; something the resident did acknowledge and was appreciative of. This shows the landlord did go on to learn from its mistakes which is certainly positive, and in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles.
  6. In light of the above, there were several issues with the landlord’s complaints handling which amount to maladministration. The landlord has offered £150 for its handling of the stage 1 complaint. The landlord’s Complaints policy says awards of £50 to £100 are made for instances of service failure which was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant. Awards of £100 to £600 may be for cases where there has been considerable service failure or maladministration, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant.
  7. In this case, the poor service identified amounts to maladministration, but it has not had a significant or long term impact on the resident. In line with both the Complaints policy and this Service’s remedies guidance compensation of between £100 and £600 would be reasonable. The landlord has acknowledged some failings and made some attempt to put things right. The amount already offered for poor complaints handling is not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation and it should, therefore, be increased to £300.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of defects and a door repair.
    2. Associated formal complaint.

Reasons

  1. There were extensive delays in addressing the reported defects, compounded by poor communication with the resident, resulting in her having to chase for updates on a number of occasions. Although compensation was offered, it did not sufficiently recognise the impact of the poor service.
  2. The landlord failed to treat an expression of dissatisfaction as a complaint and then failed to adequately address the complaint at stage 1.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £1,050 compensation made up of:
      1. £750 for its handling of the resident’s reports of defects and a door repair (incorporating the £550 already offered).
      2. £300 for the delays in its complaint handling (incorporating the £150 already offered).