Magna Housing Limited (202225432)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202225432

Magna Housing Limited

26 March 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 request to repair the front door.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord after completing a mutual exchange. The tenancy start date was 11 October 2021.
4. The earliest request by the resident for a repair to the front door was made on 10 November 2021. The landlord carried out several repairs at the address before it conducted an inspection on 23 November 2022. The inspection found that the front door was functional, in good working order and recommended a repair to replace the letterbox.
5. The same day as the inspection the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. The complaint said:
   1. The door was not weather tight and let in cold draughts.
   2. That the resident was a senior citizen with health issues made worse by the cold.
   3. That the letterbox let in cold air and flapped in the wind.
   4. That the surveyor had said the door did not need to be changed but that the resident disagreed.
   5. That there was mould in the property that needed a permanent solution.
6. On 16 December 2022 the landlord gave its stage 1 response and apologised that the resident was experiencing some issues. The response said that:
   1. Its inspection had found the front door was functional and in good working order.
   2. An appointment was booked to replace the letterbox and that they would try to bring forward the date of this repair.
   3. A repair was booked to renew the kitchen extractor fan to deal with the mould issue.
7. The resident escalated her complaint on 19 December 2022 and said that she disagreed with the inspection that the door was in good working order. She explained that she was losing heat through the door and that she was a pensioner sitting in a “freezing room” due to the ill-fitting door.
8. On 16 January 2023 the landlord sent its stage 2 response. The landlord advised:
   1. A surveyor had attended the property to assess the front door and noted that the resident had moved into property “as seen” via a mutual exchange.
   2. The surveyor noted some historic damage to the door, but the door was functional and in good working order.
   3. A recommendation was made to replace the letter box and an appointment had been booked to do this.
   4. It did not feel the front door required replacement.
9. The resident remained dissatisfied with this response and referred her complaint to this Service on 24 January 2023. The resident is requesting that the front door be replaced as an outcome to her complaint.
10. Since the landlord’s stage 2 response further repairs have been carried out with the latest repair being 10 May 2023. The resident has said that the issue with the door is still ongoing, but that she has not contacted the landlord about this repair for some time as she was not getting anywhere.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of a request to repair the front door

11. The tenancy agreement sets out that the landlord is responsible for repairs and maintenance to the outside doors and door frames, and that it will carry out repairs within a reasonable time.
12. It is not disputed that between October 2021 and March 2022 the resident reported issues with her front door. During this period the landlord carried out several repairs which included replacing the door handles, easing and adjusting the door.
13. The landlord’s initial response to the resident’s repair requests was reasonable and in line with its repair policy. It logged the repair and sent a contractor to complete the relevant work within the timescales expected for a routine repair.
14. In November 2022 after the resident raised a further repair request, the landlord sent a surveyor to inspect the property. The same day as the inspection the resident raised a complaint to dispute the surveyor’s opinion that the door was functional and in good working order.
15. In both the landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses, it relied on the surveyor’s findings as a reason not to carry out further action relating to a replacement door. The landlord was entitled to rely on the findings of the surveyor as a person with expertise in this matter.
16. However, it is important for a landlord to listen to a resident and decide what is a reasonable course of action considering all the circumstances of the case. The resident explained after the inspection that her property was still cold and that she was a “senior citizen” with health issues. The Ombudsman has not seen that any consideration was given to the resident being a vulnerable person when deciding on the appropriate steps to take or if there was any alternative action or assistance it could offer relating to the heating of the property. It is unclear from any policies available from the landlord how a resident’s vulnerabilities impact decision making.
17. The landlord also referenced that the resident had taken the property “as seen” when carrying out a mutual exchange. The resident had moved into the property in October 2021 and the inspection did not take place until November 2022. As over 12 months had passed since the resident had moved into the property it would not be reasonable in the circumstances to continually reference the mutual exchange as a reason for refusing or limiting the actions in an ongoing repair issue.
18. The landlord did arrange for the letterbox to be replaced on 31 January 2023. This repair was completed 45 working days after the inspection took place. The landlord’s policy is to complete repairs within a reasonable time. There is no specific time set for routine repairs in the landlord’s policies; however, the resident was left with a letterbox that needed replacing for all of December 2022 and January 2023. This was an unreasonable length of time to wait for a repair in winter when the resident had made clear that she was a vulnerable person and the issue was contributing to her property being cold.
19. While the landlord’s initial response was reasonable, when the issue continued it did not recognise the disproportionate disadvantage caused to the resident due to her vulnerability and take appropriate action in response. Actions such as carrying out a second inspection or considering practical solutions like draught excluders and whether the resident needed any support in relation to fuel poverty, could have prevented the resident being adversely affected. In all the circumstances of the case, the landlord’s response amounts to maladministration.

The landlord’s complaint handling

20. The landlord’s complaint policy sets out:
    1. The complaint will be acknowledged within 5 working days. The acknowledgement will set out the landlord’s understanding of the complaint and the outcome the resident is seeking. It will also set a target date for a response and the name of the officer investigating the complaint.
    2. That a stage 1 response will be sent within 10 working days of the acknowledgment. In exceptional circumstances an extension of time may be requested but that this would not exceed a further 10 days without good reason.
    3. That a stage 2 response will be sent within 20 working days of an escalation request. The response would state the decision of the complaint and the reasons for any decisions made.
21. On 23 November 2022 the resident raised her initial complaint. No acknowledgment to this complaint was sent. Instead, a stage 1 response was sent on 16 December 2022. The landlord failed to acknowledge the complaint, and the stage 1 response was sent 7 working days after the stated timescale in the policy.
22. While this delay was not excessive and there is no evidence that it caused significant detriment to the resident, the landlord should have acted in accordance with its policy by telling the resident in advance of any delay. Good communication is important, and the residents experience would have improved if the landlord was open and transparent about any delays.
23. The stage 1 response did not say that it was a formal complaint response, provide any complaint reference number, refer to the complaint process, say whether the complaint was upheld or include the job title of the responder. The reply also failed to include any details of how to escalate to stage 2, contained jargon such as “GWO” without explaining what this meant, and failed to provide any detailed explanation for the decisions made. There was also no reference to the resident’s vulnerabilities or the impact that the issue was having on her. Acknowledging the impact of the door issue on the resident would have demonstrated understanding and helped her feel listened to.
24. On 19 December the resident asked to escalate her complaint and requested a copy of the surveyor’s report. The landlord provided a copy of the report as part of its stage 2 response. By sending this report it showed openness and transparency which is important in building trust with a resident.
25. The stage 2 response was sent after 17 working days on 16 January 2023. This was reasonable as it was sent within the appropriate timescale for a stage 2 response; however, the landlord did not acknowledge receipt of the escalation request. The landlord failed to provide the resident with a target date for a response or the name of the investigating officer as set out in their policy.
26. The complaint response listed the actions that the landlord had taken since the survey and concluded by stating, “I do not feel that the front door to your home requires replacement at this time.” While this conclusion was not unreasonable based on the inspection, there was no explanation as to how the landlord came to this conclusion considering all the factors in the case. This is a key element of the complaint policy as it should be clear what factors the landlord has considered and what the reasons are for the decision that was made.
27. The stage 2 response also failed to give details about how to escalate the complaint to this Service if the resident remained dissatisfied. Instead, the reply said: “Please note you can contact the Housing Ombudsman Service at any point during the complaint process. It cannot investigate your complaint whilst your complaint is going through our internal complaints procedure however the Ombudsman may be able to help you and Magna reach a resolution.”
28. Rather than setting out clear information on how to escalate this paragraph infers that the complaint process had not been completed. It is important for the landlord to be clear about how and when it is appropriate to escalate a complaint to this Service to ensure there are no unavoidable delays.
29. To summarise, the landlord failed to follow its own policy when responding to the resident’s complaint. The communication both at stage 1 and 2 was poor and there was a missed opportunity to empathise with the resident and understand how the issue was impacting her. Considering what is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of this case, this amounts to maladministration.

Determination

30. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. Maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request to repair the front door.
    2. Maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

31. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £400 compensation, made up of:
       1. £250 for its failings related to the repair issue.
       2. £150 for its poor complaint handling.
    3. Contact the resident to arrange a suitably qualified person to survey the front door taking into account the resident’s vulnerabilities and previous repairs to the door. Following the survey, it is to arrange follow up works or investigate any further measures that need to be taken. It is to provide the outcome of the survey to both the resident and this Service with an explanation of what action is to be taken and why.

Recommendations

32. The landlord should review its repair policy and consider stating its target timescales for emergency and routine repairs.