Notting Hill Genesis (201912129)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201912129

Notting Hill Genesis

2 March 2021

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 response to the resident’s:

(a) request for repair to his underfloor heating and hot water.

(b) request for repair to his bathroom door.

(d) associated complaints.

Background and summary of events

The resident lives with his wife in a two bedroom, second floor property which is owned and managed by the landlord. The property is within a block for which the landlord is not the freeholder.
Repairs: If a resident has a repair request with the building they are to raise it first with the freeholder’s managing agents and to notify the landlord’s housing officer so that it can check issues are being dealt with by the agents. The landlord – through the managing agents – undertakes to respond within one working day to reports of a total loss of water supply, and of a total or partial loss of space/water heating during the winter months. For routine repairs, the landlord undertakes to arrange an appointment within 20 working days of receiving the request.
Complaints policy: Under its complaints policy, the landlord undertakes to provide its first (Stage 1) response within 10 working days, and if a resident remains dissatisfied they can request a (Stage 2) review by an independent reviewer which it undertakes to provide within 20 working days of request. Under its policy the landlord will not treat a first request for service as a complaint.
Compensation: Under its compensation policy, the landlord can compensate a resident £10 for a failure to resolve a repair within the prescribed timeframes and pay £2 for every day thereafter (up to a maximum of £30) that the repair remains outstanding. When a failure to resolve a repair results in the loss or severe limitation of the use of rooms the landlord can additionally compensate a resident 10% of his weekly rent for a loss of heating after the first 48 hours (during the winter months).
Other complaints: Following the above complaint to the Ombudsman the resident also raised a repair request for a cooker hood extractor fan. This was made at the same time as his request for the repair of his bathroom fan. As explained below the details of these requests are not entirely clear, other than having been raised on 17 December 2019, and a repair booked for 20 December 2019 .
The resident says he remains unhappy with the service he received with respect to this repair and has asked that the Ombudsman consider the matter alongside his current complaint.
However, the Ombudsman’s role in its investigation of a specific complaint is not to consider ongoing issues that a resident encounters with a landlord and to include those in a current investigation should the resident be unhappy with a response it gets from the landlord. It is the nature of the relationship between a landlord and a resident that there will be ongoing matters on which both parties will need to engage, repairs being such an issue, and that matters must be allowed to run their course. With respect to any new repair requests the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to be given the opportunity to resolve a repair and/or complaint in accordance with its service standards and relevant procedures.
In the event that a landlord fails to meet its service standards with regard to a repair, a resident should follow the established complaints procedure with the landlord. While the Ombudsman can help with this procedure, it does not have a role within the landlord’s complaints procedure. The Ombudsman will only be able to consider a complaint once the above stages have been gone through and the landlord has been given appropriate opportunity to resolve the repair and fully respond to the complaint. The resident is conversant with the landlord’s repairs and complaints policy and should exhaust the latter before bringing any remaining concerns to the Ombudsman.
In addition, the Ombudsman is also aware the resident has latterly raised with the landlord a complaint about his annual heating service in September 2020. This was responded to by the landlord on 20 October 2020 but the resident remains dissatisfied. For the reasons already explained, this complaint will not be considered as part of this investigation.

Summary of events

11 December 2019: On 11 December 2019 the resident emailed the managing agents (‘agents’) – copying in the landlord’s complaints team – to report that his underfloor heating was not heating up properly and that the hot water in his shower was either too hot or too cold.
The complaints team replied the same day to note his report, and the fact of his request to the agents. Later that day the resident emailed the agents and complaints team to say the engineer had been, and left the heating on but that it had now gone off again. The complaints team replied to say it had copied in the resident’s housing manager as she would also monitor the agent’s response. The resident replied to ask for a complaint reference.
Still on 11 December 2019, the complaints team replied, explaining the matter was not yet a complaint but a service request, having only been made that morning, not previously, and that agents were working to resolve it. The complaints team said that in the event of there being a failure to deliver a service it would be happy to raise a complaint. It said it would again copy in its housing manager.
12 December 2019: The following day, on 12 December 2019 the resident emailed the landlord complaining that his heating had been switched off, and asking that his complaint be logged and allocated a reference number. The same day the agents emailed the resident to say its engineer had investigated the day before, had diagnosed the problem to be low pressure, and had topped it up again. It said the engineer had been booked to reattend today [12th], had been unable to attend as a result of a personal emergency, that it would try and book him for the following day [13th], but in the meantime denied it had turned off the resident’s heating. As for the resident’s shower’s temperature control, it said this was down to the tap and was something the landlord could address.
The resident replied to the agents the same day to insist that not only had the engineer left him with no heating but also with no hot or cold water. The agents emailed back to say that while it awaited an engineer it had asked one of its officers to double check the heating. They denied harassing him or having turned off his hot water. The resident rejected this, insisting in reply that he had no hot or cold water. The agent later emailed the resident, confirming his visit and the resident’s confirmation that he did have hot and cold water. He said he would get back to him about the engineer.
13 December 2019: The following day, 13 December 2019, the agents emailed the resident to say they were trying to rebook an engineer but could meanwhile provide an electric heater. The same day the resident emailed this Service (copying in the landlord and agents) to complain of service failure by the landlord in relation to the heating issue, and relaying a similar complaint he had made three years earlier. He considered the landlord was trying to save money by not arranging the routine annual heater service. He explained his and his wife’s disability and their need for heating. He emailed the agents asking what type of heater and how many it was offering, and who would pay for the electricity needed. As an alternative, he offered to find an engineer himself and bill the agents, saying that once his heating was reinstated the issue would be resolved.
The agents replied the same day advising the resident not to call out his own engineer as this often made matters worse, but reiterated its offer of a heater. Noting the resident had used one in the past, the agent asked if he still had it or needed an additional one.
The resident replied immediately to say he had returned the heater on the previous occasion and was unhappy with any suggestion he had kept it. He reiterated he had been left without any water, hot or cold, and that one of the agent’s officers/concierge staff had only attended and switched on the water minutes before the agent himself had attended. He reiterated his questions about the heater offer. To which the agent reiterated his offer of a heater, saying he had two available. The resident emailed back, again taking exception to the agent’s reference to an additional heater when he had returned the previous heater, asking again how many heaters were being offered and who would pay. He asked when his underfloor heating would be switched back on. Later that day the agent emailed the resident to confirm he had an engineer arriving later that day.
Meanwhile, the landlord replied to the resident’s email of 13 December 2019 and with reference to an earlier complaint said this had been resolved at the time, that this was a new issue, and with new agents working to resolve it. Noting, however, that 48 hours had now elapsed since the resident’s first report of the issue, the landlord said it would refer the matter to its new housing management officer to monitor as a formal complaint, to liaise with the agents for updates and to offer him any assistance he might need.
Later that day the agents confirmed with the resident that its engineer had turned up, that he now had heating, and that it would consider what steps it could take to prevent a recurrence. The landlord’s complaint team emailed the agent and resident, acknowledging the agent’s update and advising the resident that it continued to copy in its housing management officer who would advise him about reimbursement under its compensation policy for any additional electrical costs incurred in running the electric heaters.
The resident emailed back the complaints team asking that it register the matter as a formal complaint, saying that although the heating was back on it was not heating up as well as it should. He said he would wait a few hours to see if it was working properly and report back if it was not. He said the agents had ignored his request for a heater. The complaints team replied that evening to say the agents had clearly offered him heaters on two occasions but that if he wanted one over the weekend either the concierge, agents or its customer service team would be able to help. It said that its housing management officer would contact him the following week to discuss his complaint. The resident emailed back to ask how the landlord intended to reimburse the heater costs.
14 December 2019: The next day 14 December 2019 [Saturday], in response to an earlier email that day from the resident to say his underfloor heating was still only providing a small amount of heat and so was not fixed, the agents replied to say it had arranged for an engineer to attend the next week as the problem required further investigation. In the meantime it said it had heaters and to let the concierge know if he wished to borrow some. The resident replied to say the engineer who had attended the previous day had told him he would be on duty on 14 December 2019 so questioned why he could not attend that day, saying he suspected it was to save money. He followed this with further emails asking why whenever he complained about the heating his water supply cut out, citing two examples in which on one occasion he had been in the shower. The agent replied to say that there was no water problem, but that if it ran for more than 30 minutes it would cut off. He explained that the concierge had, in the example of when he had been in the shower, reset the water to on, and that with respect to the latter that supply had been on in the half hour after his report. The agent told the resident that no one was harassing him or turning off his water.
16 December 2019: On 16 December 2019 (Monday) the resident emailed the agent and the complaints team saying that he was still waiting for an engineer and that the previous engineer had not had the necessary parts. With regard to reimbursement, the complaints team replied on 16 December 2019 and explained to the resident that its compensation policy suggested a figure of 10% daily rent for loss of heating and/or hot water, payable after the first 48 hours without either. It said its housing management officer would follow this up with the agents regarding the time taken and that reimbursement would be covered in her complaint response. The agent emailed the resident the same day, thanking him for confirming that his heating was back on.
On 17 December 2019, as the Ombudsman understands it, the resident submitted an online complaints form to the landlord about the need for a repair to his bathroom extractor fan and door. The landlord established with the resident that this was a new repair request, and so would not be treated as a complaint. The details of this repair are not entirely clear, although it appears a repair was booked for 20 December 2019. The electrician turned up an hour after his appointment time, during which time the resident had raised a formal complaint. The electrician determined a specialist repair and part was needed, took photos and left. It is not clear what was then done by the landlord to reschedule the repair. The resident, later that day, again emailed the landlord asking that the matter be addressed as a complaint, implying it was intentionally not fixing repairs. The landlord responded after the Christmas break with a complaint reference number for the matter but failed to provide its expected response date to the complaint. The resident emailed back, again implying the omission was intentional.
January – May 2020: The resident contacted this Service on 8 January 2020 about the lack of a Stage 1 response from the landlord to his formal complaint about heating and hot water, which he had been promised by 6 January 2020. On 8 January 2020 the housing management officer visited the resident briefly to discuss the issues. The same day the resident emailed to complain about the visit on the grounds that he had made it clear he wanted communication to be in writing only. The officer subsequently emailed the resident to fix an appointment to discuss his concerns more fully, suggesting 16 January 2020, but there is no evidence this meeting was agreed by the resident.
On 19 January 2020 the resident asked the landlord to refer his complaint about the heating and extractor fans for a Stage 2 review as it had not responded to his Stage 1 complaint and had failed to resolve the repairs within 20 working days.
As the Ombudsman understands it, the resident raised a repair request with respect to the bathroom door on 24 January 2020 and this was completed on 4 February 2020. It appears the resident subsequently also raised with the landlord his dissatisfaction with the service he received for the bathroom door.
The resident then contacted this Service about the landlord’s lack of response to his complaint about the heating and hot water, but also lack of response to his repair request for the bathroom fan and door. This Service asked the landlord to respond.
Stage 1 response: On 27 February 2020 the housing officer emailed the resident the landlord’s formal Stage 1 complaint response to both the heating/hot water issue and the bathroom fan/door matter. The officer noted that with respect to the heating and hot water issue he had been issued with temporary heaters for five days until the repair could be completed. In contribution to the additional cost of these the landlord offered the resident £100 compensation. The officer said she took responsibility for the delay in replying to the resident’s complaints which she had initially tried to resolve with him face to face, being unaware of his communication preference. She apologised that the landlord’s communication had been poor, that emails had not been responded to or responses delayed, for which she offered the resident £50 compensation as a gesture of goodwill.
With respect to the bathroom extractor fan, the officer apologised that the contractor had attended one hour late and had been unable to resolve the repair there and then, explaining it had required parts for a specialist repair. She asked the resident to confirm the fan was now in working order. She undertook to ensure that the resident would in future be notified if a contractor was to be late or miss an appointment.
With regard to the bathroom door repair request, the officer explained that as the resident had first reported this on 24 January 2020 and it was repaired on 11 February, this fell within its 20 working day target time for repair. The officer asked the resident to let it know if he had any incomplete or outstanding repairs so that these could be looked into.
On 2 March 2020 the resident emailed the landlord in response and reiterated his complaint about its responses to his repair requests and complaints, said the issue with the bathroom and cooker fans was unresolved and that he was still awaiting its formal complaint response despite his chasing this. He was also unhappy that the officer had handed a hard copy of its Stage 1 response to the concierge and considered this to be threatening and a breach of confidentiality.
On 6 March 2020 the landlord’s housing operations manager replied to the resident’s escalation request. She asked that he let her know what it could do, including what he would consider sufficient compensation, to resolve the complaint to enable them ‘to move forward and repair the broken-down relationship’. The manager reiterated the officer’s request that he let it know of any outstanding repairs, historical or current, so that these could be resolved. In addition, the manager explained that the officer’s hand delivery of her reply was not intended to threaten him but was so that he could have a hard copy of it the same day it had been emailed. The manager said the concierge was told nothing about its contents, was not authorised to open it, and was asked only that it be given to the resident. She confirmed, however, that in light of the resident’s views, all future mail would be posted to him.
On 16 April 2020, having been contacted by the resident, this Service asked the landlord to provide its final response on the heating complaint and to respond to his repair request for the bathroom fan and door.
Stage 2 response: On 6 May 2020 the landlord’s housing operations manager provided the resident with its Stage 2 review response. She relayed the chronology of its actions in the case, and the landlord’s findings can be summarised as follows:

(i) The repair to the heating took six days, over a weekend, and so while exceeding 48 hours was not unreasonable as ‘it was not without a concerted effort by all involved to get it resolved as quickly as possible’. This had included engineer visits, intermittent repairs and regular updates.

(ii) She explained that the fault was immediately attended to and when it could not be immediately fixed the resident was offered temporary heating, kept updated and had his emails responded to. The manager said that during these six days its agent had ‘worked tirelessly responding to [your] emails each day, contacting engineers,and problem solving when things didn’t go to plan…’

(iii) It accepted delay and poor communication in relation to its complaint handling, acknowledging this had strained relations between the housing officer and resident.

(iv) There was no evidence the housing officer had acted inappropriately towards the resident, and that she had not been [to quote the resident] ‘a bully, racist, threatening or a useless employee.’

(v) Reiterated that handing the letter to the concierge was not intended to be threatening but apologised that the resident had felt so. The letter was sealed and not discussed with the concierge, so there had been no confidentiality breach. All future letters would be posted to him.

(vi) Bathroom fan repair: The electrician’s one hour delay was not a service failure and it was appropriate that he not attempt a repair he was not equipped to do but reschedule instead and take photos to enable the correct part to be ordered. In acknowledgement of its delayed complaint response for which he had sought the Ombudsman’s intervention the landlord offered the resident £50 compensation, together with £50 compensation for the repair, which remained unresolved pending the easing of Covid restrictions.

(vii) Bathroom door repair: Having been reported on 24 January 2020 and repaired on 11 February 2020 this was within its 20 working day target timescale and so not a service failure.

(viii) That its £150 compensation offer for the heating issue comprised £50 for delayed complaint responses; and compensation for lack of heating/hot water (when without for more than 48 hours) calculated at 10% of daily rent (£26.46 daily rent x 4 = £105.84, rounded up to £106. Totalling: £156 compensation for inconvenience.

(ix) The landlord also responded to a complaint from the resident about a blocked sink. [This is unrelated to this complaint.]

The same day the housing operations manager wrote separately to the resident to warn him about his use of abusive and threatening language in his communication with the landlord’s housing officer and managing agent. It warned him that, unless he refrained, it would consider further action, including possible tenancy action.
The landlord has told the Ombudsman that the bathroom fan repair remains currently unresolved. It explained this delay has been partly attributable to the need for it to determine whether responsibility for the fan lay instead with the freeholder, although it has now been confirmed that it has responsibility for this. It has confirmed that the repair has been referred to its heating/hot water team and it has asked that the repair be expedited. The landlord has said it has no evidence that the resident has chased this repair in the meantime.

Assessment and findings

Repairs – heating and hot water: The resident is unhappy with the landlord’s response to his report of problems to his underfloor heating and hot water supply. There is no suggestion that the landlord was responsible for the fact of the original fault, but it was responsible for its repair when issues arose. The Ombudsman has reviewed the landlord’s response and considered whether the landlord has acted in accordance with its relevant policies and that its response was fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
Clearly, the six days to resolve the repair was outside the landlord’s target one day for such repairs. The evidence indicates the resident experienced one full day without heating (12 December 2019), intermittent or ineffective heating throughout the remainder of the six days, but had hot and cold water during this period (as confirmed by its agent who attended when the resident reported that he had neither). In saying that, the discomfort and inconvenience of being without heating during the winter months for anyone, particularly those with mobility issues, should not be underestimated.
Having reviewed the landlord’s response, the Ombudsman has found no indication that the landlord either underestimated the impact or did anything other than work promptly to try and resolve the problem. It attended on the day of the report and effected a repair. When it became clear this had not worked, it booked an engineer to return the following day. The fact the engineer was unable to attend the following day was unforeseeable and not the result of a failure on the part of the landlord. But when faced with the situation the landlord responded appropriately in seeking to arrange for an alternative engineer to attend.
When the resident reported on the second day that he was also without hot and cold water, the agent responded appropriately in promptly investigating but found that the resident did have hot and cold water. The Ombudsman notes that during the course of the repair the resident has suggested to the landlord that his water supply was being intentionally switched off by the landlord because he was complaining. The fact that the resident has remained unconvinced by the landlord’s assurances to the contrary is neither evidence that the landlord did intentionally interrupt his water supply or that it failed to answer his concerns. Indeed, the landlord explained to the resident that the water had cut out on one occasion because the system set to interrupt after a constant 30 minutes of running water. That was a reasonable response from the landlord to a suggestion that it was shutting off water by way of retaliation.
Although the heating was reinstated the following day, when it was then reported as working insufficiently, there is no indication that this technical failure was down to any error or omission on the part of the landlord. But in response to the report the landlord responded promptly and reasonably. It appropriately recognised the fact that the repair to fully reinstate the heating would now span a weekend and sought to mitigate the fact that the resident would be without full heating through its offers of heaters and explaining how he could access these through a number of different channels.
The fact that the heaters were not immediately provided was not the result of a delay or inaction on the part of the landlord, but the resident’s repeated questioning of the basis on which he was being offered the heaters. The evidence indicates that the landlord repeatedly sought to address his concerns by reassuring him that it would pay for additional electrical costs and that in offering the heaters it was not implying that he had previously kept heaters it had loaned him. That was a reasonable response from the landlord as it necessarily sought to stay focused on the issue of providing the resident with additional backup heating.
This brings the Ombudsman to a review more generally of the landlord’s communication with the resident during the course of the repair. It is apparent that from the first report on 11 December 2019 to reinstatement of full heating on 16 December 2019, the landlord was in almost continual contact with the resident, keeping him updated, responding to his concerns, and providing full and clear explanations of its investigations and action taken or not taken. Indeed, in light of the volume, rapidity and often what the Ombudsman considers to be unhelpful nature of the email communication from the resident – which included his suspicions of the landlord’s motives, personal criticism of its staff and a general lack of moderation in his questioning of the actions of its staff – the Ombudsman considers the landlord should be given credit for replying promptly to the resident’s emails, ensuring its replies focused on the substance of the matter in hand and not allowing those responses to become unnecessarily delayed or dragged into unhelpful discussion of the more peripheral, unsubstantiated accusations from the resident.
In summary, in so far as the landlord’s repair to the heating and hot water supply is concerned, the evidence shows that this was delayed through no fault on its part and that it took all reasonable steps to resolve the repair while keeping the resident updated and provided with temporary heating to mitigate the lack of sufficient heating until the repair was resolved.
Repairs – bathroom fan and door: As already explained, the evidence provided indicates these were routine repairs which, in so far as the fan was concerned was attended to without delay – with the electrician’s one hour delay not constituting service failure. The eventual rescheduling of the repair was not the result of a failure by the landlord to attend in good time but the result of the nature of the repair required. With regard to the bathroom door, the evidence indicates this was resolved within the landlord’s 20 working day service standard and so again did not constitute service failure.
The fact that by the time of the landlord’s Stage 2 review (below) the repair to the fan remained outstanding appeared largely the result of the Covid restrictions which came into force towards the end of March 2020. The Ombudsman considers that the £100 compensation paid by the landlord for the delayed repair and complaint response in relation to it provided the resident with appropriate recognition of the impact on him of its service failure at that point. While the landlord has said that time has since been spent determining liability for the repair, as the Ombudsman sees it, it will be of understandably little interest to the resident whether responsibility for the fan lay with the landlord or the freeholder. As his relationship is with the landlord, he reasonably looks to the landlord for the maintenance of the fan. The fact is that despite the easing of Covid restrictions the fan repair remains unresolved over a year since the resident first reported it constitutes unreasonable delay. As the Ombudsman is sure the landlord will agree, the resident ought not to have to continue to chase it to ensure it meets its repairing obligations. Indeed, the fact that the resident had already raised a formal complaint about the issue ought to have constituted sufficient prompt for the landlord to resolve the repair without further delay. The fact that it has not been is a clear service failure.
Complaint handling: Moving on from the repair itself, it is necessary for the Ombudsman to consider how the landlord then sought to address the resident’s complaint about its handling of the heating and bathroom repairs. Unfortunately here the Ombudsman finds the landlord’s responses were not as prompt as they had been with respect to the repairs.
The landlord was acting in accordance with its complaints policy when it initially declined to accept under its complaints procedure the resident’s complaint, made on the day of his repair request. At that stage his complaint was a request for a repair (a service request) for which the service standard for response had not yet expired. However, by 13 December 2019 the landlord had undertaken to deal with the matter as a formal complaint, and consider any compensation due.
From this point, therefore, the resident had a legitimate expectation that his Stage 1 complaint would be responded to in accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy, namely within 10 working days. In not providing the response until 27 February 2020, however, the landlord considerably exceeded its service standard. While the Ombudsman recognises the landlord had attempted during this time to discuss the complaint with the resident (albeit not using his preferred method), his having to wait over two months for the eventual response was unreasonable. The Ombudsman considers this delay caused the resident understandable frustration and some inconvenience, as in the meantime he had approached the Ombudsman for assistance in prompting the landlord’s response; an intervention that ought not to have been necessary.
Turning to consider the response itself, in so far as the heating issue was concerned, the Ombudsman considers that although the landlord could have provided a fuller explanation of its actions, in light of its intervening communication with the resident during the repair and the explanations already given the Ombudsman considers its complaint response at Stage 1 to have been reasonably focused on resolving the outstanding issues: namely compensation for the lack of heating; its response to the bathroom repairs; and its complaint handling.
With respect to the bathroom fan and door repair, however, it is not clear to the Ombudsman why in its Stage 1 response it was necessary for the landlord to ask the resident to confirm if the fan was now working. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have been able to establish the up to date position from its own records and its failure to do so cannot have inspired the resident’s confidence in the adequacy of its investigation. This failure also effectively prevented the landlord from taking a final view of the overall impact on the resident of any delay for which it might have been responsible in resolving the repair, for which compensation could play a part. The Ombudsman considers that to have been a failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
On the issue of compensation at Stage 1, it was appropriate that the landlord consider what might be due for the delayed heating repair (while noting consideration of this, together with the complaint response itself ought to have been provided sooner). Although the delay to the heating repair had not been excessive and was not the result of a failure on its part, it was appropriate that the landlord acknowledge through compensation the impact on the resident and his wife of having been without full heating for six days. Although the £100 figure offered by the landlord at this point roughly accorded with its compensation policy, in making its offer the Ombudsman considers the landlord ought to have more fully explained its calculation so that the resident could be assured of the basis on which it was being made.
It was also right that in considering compensation the landlord acknowledge its failures and delay in responding to the complaint. However, in light of the fact that the delay so considerably exceeded its service standard and the fact that the resident had had to seek the Ombudsman’s assistance in prompting the response, the Ombudsman does not consider the £50 goodwill gesture offered at that provided the resident with adequate recognition of the unnecessary frustration and inconvenience its complaint handling had caused him.
In finalising its Stage 1 reply the landlord asked the resident to confirm whether there were any outstanding issues so that it could resolve these. That was a reasonable attempt by the landlord to ensure it captured all the outstanding matters and particularly relevant in light of the fact that the resident had raised additional concerns as matters had progressed and indicates a genuine attempt by the landlord to resolve the complaint and draw a line under matters.
Such an attempt was again made in the landlord’s preliminary reply once the resident requested escalation of his complaint for a Stage 2 review. The manager at this point went further in asking the resident for the outcome he sought to his complaints, including what amount of compensation he would consider appropriate. As the Ombudsman sees it that was an appropriate attempt by the landlord to cast its net as wide as possible at Stage 2 of the complaint process in order to assure itself and the resident that all matters had been addressed and resolved, thereby enabling a line to be drawn under the complaint. The evidence indicates, however, that the resident failed to take this opportunity and simply reiterated his complaints and his request for escalation.
It was also appropriate that the manager at that point take the opportunity to address the resident’s pressing concern about a potential breach of confidentiality rather than delay this for a final response. Its explanation of why it had hand delivered the letter, and its reassurances as to why there had been no confidentiality breach strike the Ombudsman as entirely reasonable. In subsequently undertaking to only post copies in future the landlord was also appropriately seeking to observe his wishes and avoid any further upset for him. That was a reasonable response from the landlord.
Turning to the Stage 2 response itself, this was provided some two months after the resident’s request for escalation and therefore outside the landlord’s 20 working day service standard. Although during this time the landlord had acted in accordance with its complaints policy and ensured the complaint was internally reviewed, the fact of its delayed response was not fully acknowledged by the landlord in its reply.
That delay aside, the Ombudsman considers the landlord provided, in its response to both the heating and bathroom repair complaints a fully detailed and comprehensive explanation of the actions it had taken and not taken. The Ombudsman considers its findings were fully explained and were based on the available evidence. The landlord also fully acknowledged the failure in its previous complaint handling to address not only its complaint handling failure but also the fact of its delayed resolution of the bathroom fan repair.
In its Stage 2 consideration of compensation the landlord provided the more precise explanation of its compensation calculation which ought to have been provided earlier and which, had it been so, would have resulted in the marginal increase of the later calculation. The landlord also recognised not only its delayed response to the bathroom repair complaint – for which it offered £50 compensation, but also the fact of the unresolved repair itself, for which it offered a further £50 compensation. Taken together the landlord has offered a total of £100 compensation for its delayed complaint responses. In light of the fact that the resident had to wait nearly five months: from 13 December 2019 – when the landlord first acknowledged his complaint – to 6 May 2020 – when it provided its Stage 2 review response – the Ombudsman does not consider the landlord has provided adequate recognition of the impact on the resident of its delayed complaint responses, which was both inconvenient and frustrating for him.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for repair to his heating and hot water.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for repair to his bathroom door.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for repair to his bathroom extractor fan.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaints. :‘

Reasons

The landlord responded within its service standard timescale to the resident’s request for repair to his heating and hot water. The time taken to ultimately resolve the repair was down to the nature of the fault and diagnostic process and not delay on the part of the landlord. During the time taken to reinstate full heating the landlord kept the resident updated, responded appropriately to his concerns and offered temporary heating to mitigate the impact of the delay.
The landlord resolved the repair of the resident’s bathroom door within its service standard for routine repairs.
There was, however, delay on the part of the landlord in its response to his repair request for the bathroom extractor fan, which can only be partly ascribed to Covid restrictions. This delay has extended beyond the landlord’s Stage 2 response and remains unresolved.
The landlord’s formal responses to the resident’s complaint at both Stage 1 and 2 of its complaints process were unreasonably delayed and necessitated chasing by the resident and prompting by the Ombudsman. The landlord failed to confirm the position with respect to the outstanding bathroom fan repair in its Stage 1 response and while it offered appropriate compensation for the delayed heating repair, its offers of compensation for its delayed complaint responses failed to provide the resident with adequate recognition of the inconvenience and frustration this had caused him.

Orders

Within the next four weeks the landlord is ordered:
To pay the resident a further £100 compensation for the delayed bathroom fan repair.
To agree with the resident a timescale for completion of the fan repair.
The landlord is ordered to pay the resident, if not already done so, the compensation totalling £100 which it previously offered for the delayed repair of the bathroom fan and its complaint response in relation to this.
The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a further £200 compensation for the failures identified in its complaint handling.