Longhurst Group Limited (202308524)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202308524

Longhurst Group Limited

23 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 leaks from both toilets in the property.
  2. complaint.

Background

2.     Since 30 March 2015 the residents have been assured tenants of a 2 bed house.

3.     In November 2021 the residents reported a leak from the upstairs toilet and constant running water from the downstairs toilet.

4.     Between 10 November 2021 and 22 February 2022 the landlord’s contractor attended the property 5 times to work on the toilets, but the works were not completed until the sixth visit on 25 May 2022.

5.     Despite the works on 25 May 2022 the issues with the toilets continued and a contractor attended the property on 3 January 2023. Further works were then required to resolve the issues and these were completed on 20 January 2023.

6.     The residents raised a stage 1 complaint on 4 January 2023, stating that both toilets had been in an almost constant state of disrepair since November 2021, which had ruined the flooring in both bathrooms. The residents also said one of them had taken time off work for the appointments, which had caused a direct loss of income as he is self-employed, but the contractors either refused to carry out the work or attended the property without the correct tools and/or parts to be able to complete the works.

7.     On 6 April 2023 the residents chased the landlord for its response to the complaint and requested that it be escalated to stage 2.

8.     The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 5 May 2023, apologising for the delay. The landlord also apologised that when it acknowledged the residents’ complaint, it gave them a resolution date of 1 February 2023, yet they had not been contacted about the outcome of their complaint. The stage 1 response confirmed the complaint was being escalated to stage 2.

9.     Following the stage 1 response, a contractor attended the property on 21 May 2023 to stop the downstairs bathroom leaking “smelly” water. There was then a missed appointment for the toilets on 8 June 2023 and a contractor attended the property to work on both toilets on 20 June 2023.

10. The landlord’s stage 2 response was issued on 26 June 2023 and acknowledged that there had been failings with its handling of the repairs and the complaint. The landlord offered £600 compensation broken down as:

  1. £150 for late acknowledgement and resolution of the complaint.
  2. £200 for the continued delay in repairs being carried out.
  3. £250 for the distress, upset and inconvenience caused.

11. On 27 June 2023 the resident contacted this Service and confirmed they were not satisfied with the landlord’s final response. They stated that the landlord had only offered £600 compensation but they had lost nearly £3,000 in income due to the number of appointments and the missed appointments. They also said that the repairs to the toilets were still outstanding.

12. The landlord and the resident remained in contact about these matters up to October 2023, when the landlord awarded additional compensation of £250 for further delays and £100 for failed call backs.

Assessment

Landlord’s handling of reports of leaks from both toilets

13. The landlord’s repairs policy states that internal plumbing is the landlord’s responsibility, classed as an appointed routine repair and it confirms these will be completed within 28 calendar days.

14. The landlord’s stage 2 response states its contractors attended the property on the following days, with the works being completed during the last visit:

  1. “10.11.21 – leaking upstairs toilet running water in downstairs toilet.
  2. 12.11.21 – leaking upstairs toilet running water in downstairs toilet.
  3. 06.12.21 – leaking upstairs toilet running water in downstairs toilet.
  4. 09.12.21 – leaking upstairs toilet running water in downstairs toilet.
  5. 22.02.22 – leaking upstairs toilet running water in downstairs toilet.
  6. 25.05.22 – leaking upstairs toilet running water in downstairs toilet”.

15. However, the records seen do not say when the issues were first reported nor do they contain details of these visits. As such, it is not known what works, if any, were carried out each time. Neither do they demonstrate occasions where no works were carried out, why this was or why it took so many visits for the works to be completed.

16. Such records would be of particular importance in this complaint because the residents have said that in some instances the contractors refused to carry out the work and in others they arrived without the correct tools and/or materials. Details of the repair reports and the outcome of previous visits would have enabled the contractors to understand what works were required and to generally prepare their visits.

17. Additionally the problems with the toilets continued after 25 May 2022 and additional visits to attempt to resolve the problems took place on:

  1. “03.01.23 – upstairs toilet is leaking, and downstairs toilet water keeps running.
  2. 20.01.23 – follow on work job completed.
  3. 21.05.23 – downstairs toilet leaking dirty smelly water onto floor.
  4. 20.06.23 – upstairs toilet is leaking, and downstairs toilet water keeps running”.

18. As with the visits in 2022, the landlord has not provided records of these works, what was done at each visit or provided an explanation for why they took as long as they did. On top of this, the residents reported to this Service on 27 June 2023 that the toilets still required repairs.

19. In neither the visits from November 2021 to May 2022 nor January to June 2023 were the timescales set out in the landlord’s repairs policy adhered to, with the works taking around 7 months and 5 months respectively. No explanation or record has been seen to explain why the works took so long. Furthermore, based on the residents’ reports, even when the works were completed, they did not provide a lasting repair.

20. The landlord’s failure to enact a lasting repair within the timescales set out in its repairs policy has caused unnecessary time, trouble and inconvenience to the residents as well as impacting their enjoyment of the property. The residents have advised the landlord that they were embarrassed by this issue and they will inevitably have been concerned about potential damage to the property and health and safety of regularly leaking toilets.

21. Clear record keeping is an essential part of providing a repairs service and responding to complaints as it allows a landlord to monitor outstanding works and contractor performance and to provide accurate information and an effective service to its residents. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records including, but not limited to, resident repair reports, attendances by contractors, notes of inspections, actions taken as a result of the inspection, details of any complaints received and its responses to complaints.

22. The Ombudsman’s March 2019 Spotlight Report on repairs sets out the expectations the Ombudsman has for landlords where repairs are concerned. The report says landlords should keep clear, accurate, and easily accessible records of residents’ reports of disrepair and the landlord’s responses, including details of appointments, any inspections, any work carried out, and completion dates. Landlords should also monitor the progress of any reported repairs and comply with the repair timescales set out in their policies as far as possible. When it is not possible to comply with the timescales set out in its policies, a landlord should communicate the reason for the delay with its resident.

23. As part of this investigation, the landlord was asked to provide documents, correspondence, and any other evidence relevant to the resident’s complaint. Only limited information was received, which did not include significant items such as records of when the residents raised the repair reports or detailed records of the works carried out by its contractors at each visit. In this particular case, the investigation has been able to reach a determination based on the information received. However, the omissions indicate poor knowledge and information management by the landlord as it was not able to provide the relevant information when asked.

24. Overall the landlord’s failures, as set out above, can be summarised as a failure to:

  1. Adhere to the repair timescales in its repairs policy.
  2. Keep adequate records.

25. Based on all of the above, it was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge the service failings and uphold the resident’s complaint at stage 2 and offered £450 compensation.

26. However, further compensation is warranted to adequately address the impact the landlord’s failings had on the residents. This mainly relates to the fact that the toilet leak concerns were ongoing for 2 years overall and £450 compensation is insufficient given this period and the number of appointments that likely inconvenienced the resident over this period.

27. Additionally the landlord’s continued failure to effectively deliver timely, enduring remedies and to communicate reasonably with the resident after the final complaint response indicates that it failed to learn lessons from the outcome of the case.

28. Cumulatively, these failures amount to maladministration as they led to avoidable delays which in turn caused unnecessary time, trouble and inconvenience to the residents, as well as impacting their enjoyment of the property. The landlord’s offer of redress was insufficient given the circumstances of the case.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

29. The landlord’s complaints policy states that stage 1 responses will be issued within 10 working days. Where this timescale is not possible, it will provide a valid reason to the resident and will regularly communicate with them until the complaint is fully resolved. This should not exceed a further 10 working days but if an extension beyond 20 working days is required to enable the landlord to respond fully, this should be agreed by both parties.

30. It also states stage 2 responses will be issued within 20 working days. If this timescale is not possible due to exceptional circumstances, an explanation and a date of when the response will be sent to the resident will be provided. This should not exceed a further 10 working days but if an extension beyond 10 working days is required to enable the landlord to respond fully, then this should be agreed by both parties.

31. While the landlord has not provided a copy or record of the resident’s stage 1 complaint, the stage 1 response confirms they raised the complaint on 4 January 2023 and as such the landlord’s response should have been issued by 18 January 2023.

32. That said, the stage 1 response states that when the complaint was acknowledged, the residents were told they would receive a response by 1 February 2023. This suggests that an extension was agreed between the parties, however no record of this conversation has been seen.

33. Regardless, the landlord did not issue its response until 5 May 2023 which was 85 working days after the residents submitted their complaint.

34. Similarly, a copy or record of the resident’s stage 2 escalation has not been seen, but the stage 2 response says they asked for the complaint to be escalated on 6 April 2023. The landlord then issued its stage 2 response on 26 June 2023, which is 53 days after the complaint was escalated. In this instance, there is no record to show the landlord contacted the resident about the delay nor that such a large delay was agreed between the parties.

35. The stage 1 response explained that the delay in responding was due to a “unprecedented number of complaints which has caused a delay in customers receiving resolutions”. That said, other than the suggestion of an agreed extension in the stage 1 response, no information has been seen to show that the residents were contacted prior to the response deadlines and provided with a valid reason for the delay.

36. Additionally, the records seen by this Service do not show that the landlord followed the complaints policy and kept in regular contact with the residents until the complaints were fully resolved.

37. Overall the landlord’s failures, as set out above, can be summarised as failing to:

  1. Adhere to the deadlines in the complaints policy.
  2. Keep the residents informed about delays.

38. Based on all of the above, it was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge the service failings and uphold the resident’s complaint at stage 2 and offer £150 compensation.

39. However, further compensation is warranted to adequately address the impact the landlord’s failings had on the residents. This is mainly in relation to the period of delay and the landlord’s failure to keep the residents informed of the stage 1 investigations progress.

40. Cumulatively, these failures amount to maladministration as they caused the residents avoidable time, trouble and inconvenience.

41. The residents have stated that in resolution to the complaint they want the landlord to compensate them for the loss of earnings suffered through a missed appointment and those where works were not carried out.

42. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will not compensate for loss of earnings in the event of missed appointments.

43. In general, the Ombudsman would not propose a remedy of compensation to reimburse a complainant for their time off work, loss of wages or loss of employment whilst repairs are carried out. Whilst such works will inevitably cause some inconvenience to residents, the tenancy agreement requires the resident to give access for repairs to be carried out as needed. The landlord does not have a contractual or policy obligation to reimburse loss of earnings.

44. Therefore it would not be fair or reasonable for the Ombudsman to order a landlord to pay a resident reimbursement for loss of earnings to attend repair appointments. However, it is appropriate for landlords to offer redress for the inconvenience caused, for example where repairs appointments are repeatedly missed or fail to resolve the repair issue.

Determination (decision)

45. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of reports of leaks from both toilets.

46. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the residents’ complaint.

Orders and recommendations

47. Within 4 weeks the landlord must apologise to the resident for its failures. This written apology must be from someone in the landlord’s senior management team and should follow the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance on our website.

48. Within 4 weeks, the landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has directly paid the resident £1,000 compensation, which includes the £600 it offered in its final response, comprised of:

  1. £750 for the issues with the handling of the reports of leaking toilets.
  2. £250 for the issues with the landlord’s complaint handling.

49. The Ombudsman previously ordered the landlord to carry out a review of its policy or practice under paragraph 54(f) in relation to its approach to knowledge and information management. Some of the issues identified in this case are similar to the case(s) already determined. The landlord has demonstrated compliance with our previous wider order so we have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case, which would duplicate those already made to landlord. The landlord itself should consider whether there are any additional issues arising from this later case that require further action.