Milton Keynes City Council (202107671)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202107671

Milton Keynes City Council

31 July 2023

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. handling of repairs issues.
2. response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property when it was let.
3. handling and management of the resident’s complaint.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property when it was let.
In accordance with paragraph 42(c) this service may not investigate complaints, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.
The resident moved into the property on 11 February 2019 but did not raise a formal complaint with the landlord regarding the condition of the property until 25 months later. This issue will therefore not be investigated in this report and any mention made is for context only.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of a local authority landlord. The tenancy began on 11 February 2019. The resident has no known vulnerabilities recorded by the landlord. The resident states that her son is visually impaired.
The property is a 2 bedroom ground floor flat, within a 4 storey building. According to records seen by this service, the “building is believed to be constructed of pre-cast concrete and cast in-situ elements…of hollow panel construction”.
The tenancy agreement sets out the rights and obligations of the resident and the landlord. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord will:
1. “ensure that your home is fit for human habitation in accordance with section 9A Landlord and Tenant Act 1985”, including “any common parts in the building”
2. “keep your home in repair in accordance with section 11 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985”. This includes:
  1. the structure and exterior of the dwelling
  2. kitchen and bathroom fixtures and fittings
  3. electrical wiring, gas, water and soil pipes
  4. space and water heating
  5. the common entrances, halls, and stairways
  6. the communal lighting, fire safety equipment and other communal amenities
The tenancy agreement also states that the landlord will carry out repairs “in a reasonable time”, depending on “how urgent the repair is”.
The landlord’s repairs service is managed by a contractor. The landlord and its contractor are referred to interchangeably within this report.

Relevant policies and procedures

The landlord has a 2 stage complaint process. Timescales for responses are 20 working days at both stages from receipt of a complaint. Extensions to these timescales are permitted “under exceptional circumstances, where there are clear and justifiable reasons for doing so”. However, “extensions must be agreed with the resident” and should be no more than 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2.
The landlord’s customer feedback procedure states that “when dealing with customer dissatisfaction the focus should always be on resolution. This may mean that alternative methods to the complaints procedure…could be considered such as conciliation or mediation”.
Section 11 of The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, places obligations on the landlord for any asbestos containing material that is in an unsafe condition and needs to be repaired. The Defective Premises Act 1972, imposes a duty of care on the landlord, and requires that no-one should be at risk from property in a defective state. For example, any asbestos containing material should be in a good state of repair.
The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by the Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties, including (not an exhaustive list): damp; mould growth; asbestos; entry by intruders; electrical hazards. Where potential hazards are identified, the landlord is required to remedy.
At the time of the complaint, the landlord did not have a standalone repairs policy. The landlord states that all repairs information is published on its website. According to its website, the landlord aims to visit and carry out a temporary repairs within 4 hours for emergency repairs. For routine repairs, it aims to visit within 28 days.

Scope of the investigation

The resident has reported a history of issues with property maintenance from the outset of the tenancy. However, residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues while they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred. This investigation therefore focusses on the landlord’s handling of repairs issues between 22 September 2020 and 11 November 2021, which were considered during the landlord’s complaint process. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, referenced above.
In accordance with paragraph 42(o) of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider matters which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion do not cause significant adverse affect to the complainant. This report groups the substantive issues of complaint into broad categories, under which matters giving rise to significant adverse affect (or which had the potential to give rise to significant adverse affect) have been considered.
The landlord’s repair logs between 22 September 2020 and 11 November 2021 indicate that the landlord raised multiple works orders. The repairs logs were of limited content, which lacked clarity about the reason orders were raised, decision making or outcomes. However, where these details are known, these are noted.
The landlord raised several works orders covering the period between 22 September 2020 to 5 March 2021. These are summarised as follows:
1. it instructed and completed repairs to the boiler on 16 October 2020, following a report of a leak from one of the pipes
2. the landlord responded to a request from the resident on 21 October 2020, to turn the temperature of the boiler down. The repairs log indicates this was completed the following day
3. on 4 November 2020, the landlord instructed a 24 hour call out, following the resident’s reports of no heating. The landlord’s notes indicate that the timer clock was off on arrival. This was switched back on and the boiler was left in working order
4. the landlord raised several orders on 26 January 2021:
  1. to scrape back the damaged asbestos ceiling in the hallway and to reskim the ceiling after flood damage. However, this job was cancelled on 30 March 2021, as the landlord believed it to be “a duplicate ticket”
  2. to carry out window repairs, which included replacing “a blown glass panel” and replacing the handle and hinges on a broken window. This work is shown as complete on 17 February 2021
  3. to carry out tiling in the bathroom, replace skirting boards and the bath panel. Also to fit a plastic soffit cover over stack ducting. This work was completed on 22 February 2022
  4. to replace the kitchen sink unit and rebuild around the gas meter. The works order is marked as complete on 19 February 2021
  5. to test the electrics in the kitchen, following the resident’s reports of the electrics blowing when more than 2 sockets were in use. This job is shown as complete on 8 February 2021. Then on 15 February 2021, an order was reraised to check the electrics. The landlord indicated the possibility that the consumer unit may need to be replaced. The order states that it was completed on 2 April 2021, however it does not show what work was carried out
  6. a repair to the boiler was instructed and completed on 26 February 2021, following a further report from the resident about no heating or hot water
  7. the landlord raised and completed works on 5 March 2021, to investigate the resident’s reports of excessive water temperature. The landlord noted that the cylinder was set to 60 degrees and the hot water tap was at 67.8 degrees. The works order indicated that the resident was advised “of the water regulations”.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 22 March 2021. The resident:
1. stated that she was unhappy with the landlord’s communication
2. the landlord had failed to complete all repairs requested and ones that had been carried out were “not up to standards”
3. listed various repairs outstanding at that time. The resident said:
  1. there was asbestos throughout the property. The landlord had promised to carry out an asbestos survey, but this has not been arranged
  2. there was constant mould throughout the property. The landlord had agreed to carry out a damp survey, and instruct a mould wash, but no dates had been given. The landlord’s contractor had suggested that she needed a vent or an extractor vent in the bathroom and kitchen, however these had not yet been installed
  3. a leak from the waste pipe had caused skirting boards and ‘boxing in’ to become rotten. These had not been replaced and the leak had not been investigated
  4. an engineer had told the resident that the kitchen needed replacing as it was outdated, however nothing more had be heard on this matter. A kitchen cupboard under the sink had rotted. Despite an appointment made to fix this, the job had not been completed. This was because it was a job that required 2 trades, however only 1 trade attended the appointment
  5. there were outstanding repairs to the windows, which were covered in mould, had rotten seals, blown windows and broken locks. The glass in one window had been replaced and 1 lock had been fixed, but the job remained incomplete
  6. excessive water temperatures from taps had not been addressed
  7. the resident was only able to use 2 appliances at the same time. The landlord’s electrical engineer had sent it a report about outdated electrics, however the resident had heard no more about this
4. mentioned that she had contacted a fire marshall regarding a lack of fire safety equipment in the building and general fire safety regulations, who would send a report to the landlord
5. stated that she had not been made aware that there was anti-social behaviour within the building, before signing for the tenancy. She was also unhappy with the lack of skips.
6. requested a property transfer as a remedy, or asked the landlord to resolve all the repair issues.
The landlord scheduled a 30 minute home visit with the resident for 29 March 2021, to discuss her concerns. The landlord has not provided contemporaneous notes from this visit. On the same day several works orders were raised:
1. to replace all frames and windows. This work was cancelled, then reraised on 17 May 2021 and eventually completed on 24 May 2021
2. to scrape back all ceilings and reskim them. This work is shown as work in progress on the works order
3. to change the consumer unit. This work was carried out on 21 April 2021
4. to trace leaks in the bathroom and replace the blown bath panel and boxing in. This works was completed on 13 April 2021
On 13 April 2021, the landlord instructed a full system check on the boiler, which was carried out on 23 April 2023. The landlord noted that the “gas pipe required sleeving” and the gas boiler was “not fitted to the manufacturer’s instructions”. A subsequent appointment was made to fit pipe sleeves. Although the landlord attempted to complete the repair sooner, this was not completed until 13 May 2013.
The landlord had another meeting with the resident on 23 April 2021. No contemporaneous notes from this visit have been seen by this service.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 27 April 2021. It:
1. thanked the resident for meeting with it on 23 April 2021 to discuss her concerns
2. recognised that a temporary decant would cause distress, and agreed that it would work with the resident to remain in the property throughout the duration of the works
3. it proposed to carry out repairs while the resident was at work, and set out how it would limit disruption. It explained that it would complete works and close off rooms overnight where necessary. It also provided the resident with a single point of contact
4. advised that any external works discussed would be completed as planned works. She would be given more details about this in the near future
5. reminded the resident that the neighbourhood officer was also there to provide support with other block related issues.
The landlord’s records indicate that it provided its stage 1 response by email on 4 May 2021. This email stated that the complaint was about “the service you are unhappy about”. The landlord said that it had sent a letter to the resident on 28 April 2021 in response to the matters of complaint. There was no other content. The landlord has confirmed that its stage 1 response was not readily available as the response was issued outside of its official complaint process. This service has not seen any communication from the landlord dated 28 April 2021.
The landlord instructed a damp survey on 25 May 2021, which was completed on 4 June 2021. The damp report found:
1. evidence of mould growth, and humidity in the bathroom. It said, “due to the high level of mould, further investigation would [be] recommended to pipework under the bath to establish if there is a source of leak”. It recommended the installation of a humidistat fan and the renewal of the bath panel, skirting boards, studwork and boxing in
2. evidence of mould in the bedroom, due to a “lack of insulation to walls, causing cold spots and mould”. The report recommended that the landlord baton and stud out the walls and insulate them. It also recommended that the landlord renew new the skirting boards and fill in a hole in the cupboard.
The landlord’s repairs log between 11 June 2021 and 13 July 2021 indicated that:
1. kitchen renewal works were ordered on 11 June 2021, and were planned to commence on 26 July 2021. The completion date recorded on the repairs log was 2 August 2021, however the resident states that the kitchen was replaced on 26 July 2021
2. the landlord raised a works order for repairs in the bathroom on 16 June 2021. The order included some of the works recommended from the damp survey, and additional works such as adjusting the temperature of the hot water, attending to cracks and retiling. However, this works order was cancelled, with a note indicating that the bathroom was being put on bathroom list. The landlord raised a separate works order to supply and install a humidistat fan in the bathroom. This job was cancelled but was reraised on 27 July 2021. The works order states that the fan was installed on 31 January 2022
3. a works order was raised on 13 July 2021 to replace the bathroom. It is unclear from the landlord’s repairs log when the bathroom was replaced, however the resident states that the bathroom was not installed until 27 September 2021
4. on 11 August 2021, the landlord tested the temperature of the hot water, which was noted as “ok”.
The resident has told this service that the landlord agreed to fit security locks on the new windows in July 2021, as their design left the property susceptible to intruders. These locks were installed on 16 November 2021.
The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 20 September 2021. The resident requested a full investigation by the landlord. The resident:
1. explained that she first complained to the landlord in February 2019, which consisted of a long list of repairs. The landlord had attended the property on multiple occasions, however was either unable to carry out the repairs or had made the repairs worse
2. said the landlord had suggested she move into temporary accommodation for 4 weeks, to enable outstanding works to be completed. The resident described a sense of injustice in having to move out of her home, due to the landlord’s “negligence over the last 2 years”, but was also reluctant to move due to past lived experience of temporary accommodation
3. said the landlord suggested moving into temporary housing a second time at a subsequent home visit. When she refused again, it agreed to carry out outstanding repairs while she was at work. Despite of this, many of the agreed repairs were yet to be completed
4. listed many repairs that had been reported to the landlord since February 2019. The following repairs remained outstanding or in the resident’s opinion had taken an unreasonable amount of time to complete:
  1. cracks in the asbestos living room and hallway ceilings. These had become worse and were dropping debris onto the floor
  2. it had taken the landlord several years to repairs the bath panel, cloak trunking and replace skirting boards. The landlord had decided to replace the bathroom, but its refurbishment was delayed and was not completed until September 2021
  3. the landlord promised to replace a rotten kitchen cupboard but did not complete the works. The landlord then decided to replace the kitchen but did not continue with works to the cupboard in the interim. The kitchen had since been replaced, but various snagging issues remained outstanding since the start of August 2021. These included plastering kitchen walls, cleaning up debris from outside of the property, and filling and sealing a hole around a new vent
  4. the resident said that she had reported damp and mould in all of the rooms, which had ruined her decorations. The landlord had provided a decoration voucher. But the landlord had also promised to arrange a deep mould clean and apply a mould resistant paint to stop the mould coming back, but this had not been carried out. Nor had it installed ventilation in the kitchen and bathroom as agreed
  5. the landlord’s contractor had suggested installing a fake wall to help reduce damp in the bedroom, but delays arranging an intrusive survey meant that this work had not been carried out. It had also drilled holes in the bedroom wall for ventilation which had not been sealed
  6. the resident had complained several times about broken window locks, blown windows, and no close vents before the windows were eventually replaced in May 2021. However, the new windows were not secure and the landlord had not fitted safety locks as promised
  7. the resident had complained several times about the temperature of the water. The landlord’s engineer had said her taps needed a valve to mix the hot and cold water, however the matter remained unresolved. She stated that this should have been resolved as a priority as her son was partially sighted
  8. the resident had to go without heating following the kitchen refurbishment over a weekend, because a contractor had cut out the heating pipe. When she eventually made contact with someone on the following Monday, the engineer arrived nearly 3 hours late. The engineer condemned the boiler
  9. there were cracks on the outside of the bedroom wall which had been reported in 2019, which were still there
  10. it had taken the landlord 4 days to resolve an issue with the electrics blowing whenever more than 1 appliance was used. She also raised issue with the conduct of the electrician. The resident had told the landlord that her electrics continued to blow from time to time. The landlord had promised to retest the electrics as part of the kitchen refurbishment, but no electrical retest had been arranged
5. the resident raised multiple service requests and observations not previously raised in her stage 1 complaint, about issues and repairs required to communal areas and the block. This included issues with bees, missing stair gripper, exposed rebar on a brick canopy; fencing; blocked gutters; footpaths; cleanliness; and a bin store
6. the resident also gave more detail about past issues experienced with anti-social behaviour
7. the resident explained the impact on her mental health. She said she had “spent so much time and energy battling [the landlord] just to get basic repairs carried out. She wanted the landlord to be held accountable.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 30 September 2021. It said that its investigating officer was on annual leave until 14 October 2021, but “would request feedback from those involved”. This would be reviewed as part of the investigation when they returned.
The landlord raised a works order on 12 October 2021, to baton and stud out walls in the bedroom and insulate them. It also instructed its contractor to fill holes in the kitchen cupboard, put locks on windows, plaster and paint the kitchen walls. These works were completed on 22 November 2022.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 11 November 2021. The landlord said that:
1. it was unable to repair the cracks on the bedroom and hallway ceiling until the resident had agreed to allow it to scrape back the ceilings and redecorate room by room
2. it had arranged to fit window locks on 15 November 2021
3. it had attended the property on several occasions following concerns about water temperature. The water temperature had been set to 55 – 60 degrees, which was standard for hot water temperatures in all properties. There were no known issues with the boiler
4. it noted that the resident had spoken about it on 14 September 2021, about installing a vent in the bathroom to resolve issues with steam and condensation. It had actioned all outstanding works to the bathroom apart from installing an extractor fan. Its sub-contractor would arrange an appointment to fit the fan, however had previously left voice messages for her in respect of this
5. confirmed that the debris had been cleared and the wall had been sealed. Outstanding works to replaster the kitchen had been booked for 15 November 2021
6. in relation to the electrics, all of the electrics were working when it attended on 29 September 2021. But, it would arrange to recheck the 2 sockets that continued to trip. Repairs to fix the hole in the cupboard wall had been booked for 15 November 2021
7. it responded to new service requests and observations raised by the resident on escalation, considering repairs to the building and communal areas. It provided updates to “concerns”, by providing updates on the action it had taken in relation to each new issue. It also said that it had looked into the incidents of anti-social behaviour reported, which had been dealt with, but it would continue to monitor
8. it apologised for any inconvenience experienced. It advised the resident of her right to escalate the complaint to the Housing Ombudsman if she remained unhappy with the outcome of the complaint.

Actions of note subsequent to the completion of the landlord’s internal complaint process

The resident told the landlord on 15 November 2021, she wanted all the repairs to be remedied and requested compensation for upset, aggravation and time consumed in trying to deal with the issues. She did not think that it was acceptable for the landlord to have taken 3 years to fix the problems reported, which were still ongoing. The landlord responded on 16 November 2021, thanking the resident for sharing her further comments. It stated that it would monitor the case until the required works had been completed.
The resident attempted to raise a further complaint with the landlord about similar issues on 31 March 2022. The landlord noted that most of the issues had already completed its internal complaints process. As the resident had escalated the matter to the Housing Ombudsman, it would only address those issues that had not previously been addressed. However, it did comment that the majority of outstanding repairs had been completed, that a meeting had been set for 12 April 2022, to check and sign these off, and the resident could raise other issues during that meeting.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repair issues

It is of broader note that the landlord did not have a standalone repairs policy at the time of the complaint. But the landlord did have a contractual and legal duty to keep the property in repair. Its tenancy agreement was ambiguous in terms of expected response times, stating that it would complete repairs in a “reasonable time”. However, its website indicates that the landlord will respond to emergency repairs within 4 hours and would “aim to visit with 28 days” for routine repairs. It is unclear to this service what length of time the landlord deemed to be a “reasonable” timeframe for carrying out its repairing obligations. The landlord’s communications about repair response times lacked transparency and were therefore inadequate.

Damp and mould

On identifying damp and mould in the property, the landlord had a legal responsibility to consider if the damp and mould presented a serious and immediate risk to health or safety (a category 1 hazard), and if so, provide a remedy. Following the landlord’s home visit on 29 March 2021, the landlord acted appropriately by raising a works order to trace leaks in the bathroom. However, there was an unreasonable delay of 2 months before it arranged a damp survey. There is no evidence that the landlord arranged a mould wash which was inappropriate given that the resident states this was promised. The resident and her son continued to be exposed to a potential category 1 hazard.
The landlord acted in a timely manner in instructing works to the bathroom, pursuant to the recommendations given in its damp survey (dated June 2021). It was understandable that the landlord cancelled this order, if it believed a better outcome could be achieved by carrying out a full bathroom replacement. But the landlord should have continued to investigate for leaks and carried out appropriate temporary repairs pending its replacement. It should also have endeavoured to provide advice and support to the resident, with controlling the damp and mould in the interim. It is unreasonable that this did not happen given that the bathroom was not replaced until 4 months later, and further prolonged the resident’s exposure to damp and mould, which was unfair. The humidistat fan was not installed for a further 4 months, which was unreasonable.
In addition, the landlord did not show that it gave the issue of damp in the bedroom the attention it deserved. It was unreasonable that the landlord waited 4 months before acting on the recommendations from the July 2021 damp survey. It was a further month before the landlord completed recommended works, meanwhile the resident experienced continued detriment.

Asbestos and cracks in ceilings

On identifying cracking to ceilings containing asbestos, the landlord had a legal duty to ensure that any asbestos containing material in the ceilings were in a safe condition and in good repair. Where asbestos becomes damaged or deteriorates and there is the risk of asbestos dust or debris becoming dislodged, the landlord should act to prevent disrepair from arising and minimise associated health risks.
Following the resident’s concerns about the condition of ceilings containing asbestos and subsequent home visit on 29 March 2021, the landlord acted appropriately in raising a works order to scrape back all ceilings and reskim them. The landlord encouraged the resident to decant from the property while carrying out the necessary works. However, when this was rejected by the resident, the landlord showed understanding and a willingness to agree an alternative plan of works with the resident. However, undertaking removal of asbestos while the resident was in occupation is a concerning practice and it is unclear what mitigation measures were planned to ensure safety of the resident’s household, for example encapsulation.
Ultimately, the landlord said it was unable to repair the cracks in the ceilings until the resident had agreed to allow it to scrape back the ceilings and redecorate. The landlord’s response was inappropriate. While agreeing a mutual plan of action may have presented challenge, the landlord still had a duty to consider the risks of asbestos in line with its legal duties. This service has seen no evidence to suggest that the landlord took decisive action to bring this matter to conclusion, and enable it to fulfil its obligations around the management of asbestos. Considering the resident had notified the landlord that debris had started falling from the ceiling, this was a significant failing considering the potential health risks.
While 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. In view of the resident’s reports of debris dropping from the ceiling, the resident is recommended to secure appropriate tests and consider if the household has experienced any health impacts. Thereafter, and if appropriate, to consider making a claim against the landlord’s public liability insurance.

Windows

The repairs log indicates that the landlord ordered works to windows prior to the resident making a formal complaint, which are shown as complete within an appropriate timescale for routine works. The resident states in her stage 1 complaint, that the landlord did complete some work to the windows but some work remained outstanding. The repairs log does not provide sufficient detail to indicate what works had been ordered or completed. This was a general issue with the landlord’s repairs logs and is indicative of poor information management.
Following the resident’s stage 1 complaint, the landlord responded by raising a works order to renew all of the windows in the property.
This shows that the landlord was giving the resident’s concern about the windows the attention it merited. It is unclear why the landlord cancelled and then reraised the order, which resulted in the windows being replaced 38 working days after the work was first raised. As replacement windows might be considered planned work, this timeframe was not unreasonable.
It is unclear from the evidence seen, when the landlord agreed to install window locks on the new windows, which again indicates issues with record keeping. The resident said this was agreed in July 2021. Since the landlord had agreed to install safety locks on the windows, these should have been fitted in a reasonable timeframe. It was inappropriate that the locks were not installed until 4 months later. This resulted in the resident being unable to leave her windows open without fear of intruders. Given her concerns about anti-social behaviour within the block, this would have been particularly worrying for the resident.

Boiler and hot water

Following the kitchen refurbishment, the resident was left without heating and hot water, after modifications were made to a gas pipe. It is unclear whether the resident was aware of the landlord’s out of hours repairs reporting line. Had the resident reported this problem at the time, via this route, the landlord would have had the opportunity to resolve the matter in a timelier manner. Seemingly unclear on the correct reporting arrangements, the resident remained without heating or hot water over the weekend which would have been inconvenient. The resident expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord’s gas engineer arrived late once an appointment had been made. This added further frustration and was likely to have added to her inconvenience.
The resident was particularly concerned about the temperature of the hot water in the property. She considered her son to be at an elevated risk of scalding on account of his disabilities. The evidence indicates that the landlord responded to multiple reports from the resident about raised water temperatures. Each time the landlord’s engineer attended within expected response timescales. On each occasion, the landlord’s records reflect the water temperature being left within recommended limits. However, it was not clear what temperature the water was initially found.
In March 2021, the landlord tried to help the resident’s understanding by explaining the “water regulations” to the resident, which was appropriate. However, the resident continued to report concerns about the water temperature. Given that it believed there was not repairs issues with the boiler itself, it should have considered alternative ways to assist the resident’s understanding and managed her perceived concerns. For example, the landlord might have suggested that an occupational therapy assessment be arranged, to assess the risk of scalding and recommend suitable property adjustments if necessary.

Fusebox / electrics

There is evidence that the landlord investigated issues with the electrics tripping prior to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. It took several visits before the landlord identified the issue, which led to the landlord replacing the consumer unit. This would not necessarily constitute a service failure by the landlord as it can sometimes take more than one attempt to resolve an issue. However, it is appreciated that the resident was left with a limited number of plug sockets over a 4 day period, which would have caused minor inconvenience.
The resident said the landlord had promised to carry out a further electrical test when it refurbished the kitchen, following reports of the electrics still tripping. It was unreasonable that this test was not carried until 47 working days following the refurbishment.

Kitchen

The landlord raised an order in January 2021, to replace the kitchen sink unit following reports of it rotting. While the works order shows the work was completed on 19 February 2021, the resident states that these works were not completed. This was due to non-attendance by one of two trades needed to complete the work on the day. It was understandable that the landlord may wish to defer completing this work, if it believed a more effective outcome could be achieved by a full kitchen refurbishment.
The resident was pleased with the refurbished kitchen, but was dissatisfied at the landlord’s failure to progress snagging works over the following 8 weeks, which included delays plastering the walls. The landlord reacted to this information during the complaint process by arranging for defects to be completed. However, this was 16 weeks after installation of the kitchen. This would have caused the resident disappointment.
Taking into account some of the positive practices alongside delays and detriment, when considered cumulatively, overall there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs issues as set out in paragraphs 47 to 63 above.

The landlord’s handling and management of the resident’s complaint

It is not in dispute that the resident raised multiple repairs, prior to lodging a formal stage 1 complaint on 22 March 2021. As a remedy, the resident requested a property transfer or for the landlord to resolve all of the resident’s repair issues.
There is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint, which is inconsistent with the 2020 Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in operation at that time and its own complaints policy. However, the landlord showed that it was giving the resident’s complaint the attention it deserved, by meeting with the resident on 23 April 2021. The outcome of this meeting was communicated to the resident in writing on 27 April 2021, which was appropriate.
At the time of the complaint, the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response time was longer than set out in the Code. It is noted that the landlord’s self-assessment against the Code for the financial year 2021-23 recognises that it was not compliant with the Code and states that work is in progress to rectify this.
The landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 responses were delivered outside of the landlord’s agreed response times under its complaints policy. There is no evidence that the landlord expressly agreed an extension with the resident at stage 1, which was delivered 29 working days after the resident raised the complaint. This was inappropriate and not in keeping with the expectations of the Code.
At stage 2, the landlord delivered its response 38 working days after the resident escalated the complaint. While the landlord told the resident that there would be a delay in providing its stage 2 decision, there is again no evidence that an extension was agreed with the resident. It was unreasonable that the landlord delayed providing a response because the investigating officer was going on annual leave. This service does not consider this to be a justifiable reason for delaying resolution of a complaint and was therefore inappropriate. The landlord could have referred the matter for investigation by an alternative officer.
The Code states that at the completion of each stage of the complaints process, the landlord should write to the resident advising them of the following: the complaint stage; the outcome of the complaint the reasons for any decisions made; the details of any remedy offered to put things right; details of any outstanding actions; and details of how to escalate the matter if dissatisfied. The landlord’s stage 1 response did not meet these requirements and was therefore inadequate. While its response referred to a letter sent to the resident on 28 April 2021, the landlord was unable to evidence this. It said this was because the stage 1 complaint was dealt with “outside of its usual complaints process”. This is of concern and is dealt with below.
The landlord apologised generally for any inconvenience caused to the resident in its stage 2 response. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the letter did not convey an acceptance of failings and demonstrated limited empathy for the impact that these issues must have had. Although it set out the actions that it would take to remedy outstanding repairs, it did not set out any learnings it had identified, nor sought to put the resident back into the position she would have been in, had failings not arisen. This would have been in keeping with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles.
The landlord explained how the resident could escalate the complaint to this service. But, it did not explain how she could progress a formal complaint on the additional matters raised at escalation (which the landlord had considered as “concerns”), if she remained dissatisfied with the updates provided. Ultimately, the landlord’s response resulted in the resident asking the landlord to compensate her for upset, aggravation and elevated time.
The landlord’s customer feedback procedure encourages staff to make use of conciliation or mediation services as means of complaint resolution, which this service would encourage. In view of level of dissatisfaction expressed by the resident, there was an apparent breakdown in the relationship. Given this it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered alternative means to refresh the relationship.
When considered cumulatively there was maladministration in the landlord’s management and handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of repair issues.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s management and handling of the resident’s complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property when it was let, was not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction

Reasons

The landlord unreasonable delayed acting instructing a damp survey. Then unreasonably delayed acting on recommendations made in that damp survey. The landlord did not fulfil its obligations around the management of asbestos following difficulties with access. There were delays fitting window locks despite promising to install them and delays carrying out electrical testing.
The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s stage 1 response. The landlord’s responses at stage 1 and 2 were inadequate and were not provided with expected timescales. The landlord did not give a justifiable reason for delaying its stage 2 response, which was not expressly agreed with the resident. While the landlord explained how the resident could progress a formal complaint to this service, it did not explain how the resident could progress a formal complaint on additional matters of concern raised at escalation. While the landlord apologised generally for inconvenience caused, it did not convey an acceptance that there had been failings, identify any learnings, how it would keep track of outstanding actions, or seek to put the resident back into the position she would have been in had failings not occurred.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must pay compensation of £1,250 to the resident, which has been determined in the line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and is broken down as follows:
1. £1,000 in compensation, in recognition of distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of repair issues;
2. £250 compensation, in recognition of the resident’s time and trouble, caused by failures in complaint handling;
The landlord must provide evidence to this service that it has complied with the above orders, within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report;
2. arrange for an appropriate senior officer to inspect the property with the resident, to agree that works referenced in this report have been completed. However:
  1. if the landlord has not yet completed works to the asbestos ceilings, as a matter of urgency, the landlord must survey and identify which ceilings may present a risk in terms of asbestos dust or debris becoming dislodged. Thereafter, to make suitable arrangements to secure the rooms from use, and maintain this until the landlord is satisfied that all remedial actions have been completed. The landlord must advise this service and the resident of the outcome of its survey and associated works plans
  2. where repairs remain outstanding, the landlord must agree what works are required and provide the resident with a written action plan. The action plan should detail indicative timescales for completion. To assist this process, the landlord may wish to consider adopting a mediated approach;
3. should the resident remain dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to additional matters raised at the point of escalation (which the landlord responded to as “concerns”), the resident should raise a new complaint with the landlord who is ordered to log this as a new complaint. If the landlord has already accepted a new complaint from the resident in regard to those concerns, this order may be disregarded;
4. ensure there are adequate oversight arrangements in place to ensure that responses to complaints are issued within the agreed complaints policy and process.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must initiate and complete a review of the leaning in this case. The landlord must advise this service of its intentions to bring into its operations any identified improvements within 3 months of the date of this report. Such a review must consider:
1. the information given to residents on repair categories, response times, and how residents are best kept informed where responsive repairs evolve into planned works;
2. the information that is given to residents on how to report snagging defects or follow-on repairs after completion of major works;
3. its complaint handling in this case. In particular, the review must consider the issues surfaced relating to “concerns” raised alongside a substantive complaint and how these are best dealt with;
4. the landlord’s internal guidance on closing complaints, where there are outstanding actions. The landlord should consider how it ensures matters are resolved following complaint closure and whether additional measures are required where a resident’s safety could be at risk.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider reviewing the content on it repairs webpage, with a view to improving transparency around repairs priorities and expected timescales to carry out responsive and planned works.
The landlord’s attention is also drawn the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould, and latest spotlight report on knowledge and information management. The landlord is encouraged to take learnings from these reports.
The landlord should write to this service to confirm its intention in relation to these recommendations within 6 weeks of the date of this report.