Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (201906471)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201906471

Notting Hill Genesis

3 August 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Repairs to the resident’s front door and back door following reports of water ingress, and adaptations needed.
   2. The resident’s reports of pests in her property.
   3. The resident’s reports of issues with her boiler.
   4. The resident’s concerns about trees near her property.
   5. The resident’s concerns about staff conduct, her request for her housing officer to be changed and communications with her.
   6. The resident’s request to be transferred to another property or for a downsize.
   7. The associated complaints.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a four bedroom house. The resident lives in the property with her daughter and grandchild. The resident has several medical conditions which affect her mobility and mental health.
3. At times, the resident communicated with the landlord via her support worker. For clarity, this report will refer to both the resident and her support worker as “the resident”.

Summary of events

4. The landlord’s records show that the resident had historically reported concerns related to trees in her back garden, trees in the communal car park at the front of the property and repairs to her front door. It is noted that previous repairs to the locking mechanism on the front door and hinges had been carried out.
5. The resident initially reported mice in her property in June 2019. The records show that the pest control operatives attempted to book an appointment with the resident on 7 August 2019. An appointment was booked for 14 August 2019 but there was no access to the property. A further appointment was booked for 21 August 2019 but cancelled by the resident on the day.
6. Following contact from the resident, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 8 October 2019 in relation to a complaint the resident said she had raised about her door and her request for compensation for stress and inconvenience related to repairs. The landlord was asked to contact the resident within 15 working days.
7. The landlord’s internal records from 10 October 2019 show that a pest control team had attempted to visit the property multiple times following the resident’s reports of mice. The resident had either not been in or refused access. The contractor would no longer complete work as the landlord’s pest contract had changed and the landlord intended to pass the work to a different pest control contractor.
8. On 16 October 2019, the landlord informed the resident that there would be a delay in arranging a pest control appointment as it was experiencing issues with its new contracted company. It also advised that the door may not be replaced and that this was being discussed internally. The resident advised that Occupational Therapy (OT) was due to attend, and she would ask them to recommend a door handle.
9. The landlord’s repair records show that an appointment to inspect the front door, following communication from OT, was completed on 17 October 2019. The resident had reported that water entered the property under the door when it rained.
10. The landlord called the resident on 25 October 2019 and discussed the following:
    1. The resident raised concern that her front door handle was not suitable. The landlord confirmed that its contractor had attended to change the handle following a recommendation from OT, but she was unsure what handle would be most suitable. It had asked OT to send a recommendation.
    2. She raised concern that the front door was not in a good condition and she wanted it to be replaced. The landlord confirmed that it was awaiting the outcome of an inspection that had taken place that month.
    3. She also wanted the back door to be replaced. The landlord confirmed that it would ask for an assessment of the door to take place.
    4. She reported that two of the windows in her bedrooms needed draft excluders. The landlord confirmed that this would be raised.
    5. She raised concern about overgrown trees in the communal car park and the landlord said that this would be raised.
    6. Finally, she raised concern about mice in the property. The landlord advised that its pest contractor had been dealing with this, but its contract had recently changed and it was experiencing issues. It confirmed that it was able to use another pest control contractor and would arrange this.
11. The landlord’s records show that it had raised a repair order for the back door to be assessed on 25 October 2019 due to water ingress through the bottom of the door when it rained.
12. The landlord raised a work order for a different pest control company to carry out treatment for mice on 30 October 2019. It sent a text to the resident on the day to confirm that the pest contractor would arrange an appointment.
13. The landlord’s records show that the resident called the landlord on 31 October 2019 in relation to mice in her property. She was upset that this had been ongoing for 5 months with no resolution. She believed that the kitchen units needed to be removed so that holes could be filled.
14. The landlord issued a “quick fix” informal complaint response on 4 November 2019 and explained the following:
    1. In relation to the doors, it was awaiting the outcome of an assessment that had taken place. It would then decide whether the door needed to be replaced. It had arranged an appointment for the back door to be inspected on 20 November 2019.
    2. In relation to the door handle, it had asked OT to provide a recommendation. OT had said that the landlord would need to contact a different department which it planned to do that week. It said it would keep the resident updated.
    3. It confirmed that if the resident remained dissatisfied once the door handle work and assessments had been completed, it could escalate this to stage one of its formal complaints process.
15. The landlord’s records from 11 December 2019 show that the resident had expressed dissatisfaction with the outstanding works. The landlord advised that it had arranged for the holes in the kitchen and behind the boiler to be filled.
16. The landlord’s records show that 2 trees in the resident’s garden were cut down on 16 December 2019.
17. The landlord’s records show that an assessment of the back door was reported as completed on 8 January 2020.
18. The landlord’s records from 17 January 2020 note that the pest control operative had advised that the resident had refused access to the property to carry out the last visit. They had made some recommendations for proofing works in their report.
19. The landlord’s repair records show that a further visit to the inspect the back door was reported as completed on 30 January 2020. The job notes show that the seals on the doors needed to be replaced to prevent water entering the property.
20. The resident wrote to the landlord on 6 February 2020 and asked that a complaint was raised due to the backlog of work at her property. She explained the following:
    1. Her, her OT, and support worker had reported repair issues since 2017, including that the trees at the back and front of her property needed to be trimmed due to her health and issues with her front door lock. The trees were cut at the front in 2018 but not the back. She said that her OT had recommended that new door handles were fitted and the door to be draught proofed.
    2. In 2020, she had a new housing officer who had stopped the work to the trees and the door as they said that they did not have access to the OT report issued initially. The resident advised that her support worker had emailed the landlord at the time but had been informed that the landlord did not cut down trees. She advised that she and her support officer had attempted to contact the housing officer, who did not respond.
    3. She advised that she had experienced mice in her property since 2016 but nothing had been done. An operative had advised that the kitchen needed to be taken apart to access the holes. She advised that this matter had impacted her physical and mental health. She added that her repair account showed that works to the kitchen were completed on 22 January 2020, but she maintained that no work was done on this date.
    4. She expressed dissatisfaction that the dates for upcoming appointments kept changing and that her housing officer shouted over the phone and then did not respond to her contact. She advised that she had several health issues which had been impacted by the issues raised. She said that she was seeking compensation for her distress and the delay in completing works. She added that her housing officer’s actions had impacted her health.
21. The landlord’s records show that an appointment to assess the front door and carry out repairs took place on 7 February 2020. The job notes stated that if repairs could not be completed, consideration should be given to a replacement. The notes also show that the resident had refused works to the door on this date.
22. The resident’s housing officer issued a complaint response on 18 February 2020, and explained the following:
    1. It had spoken to two different OT staff, neither of whom had said that the front door needed to be replaced for medical reasons. Both had said that the front door was damaged and either needed a repair or replacement. It had asked contractors to assess the door for replacement but the resident had advised that she did not want any more appointments. It advised that it needed a full report of the door to consider a replacement so had booked this for 2 March 2020.
    2. In relation to the back door, it was aware that the resident had ongoing issues with water entering the property and it was likely that the UPVC seals needed replacing. It advised that a specialist glazer would need to attend to make an assessment. It had attempted to book an appointment but was informed that the resident did not wish for contractors to attend.
    3. It confirmed that pest control had attended several times to carry out works and had fitted mesh grills to help prevent pests gaining entry. It had arranged for the kitchen kickboards to be removed and holes to be filled but the contractors were previously turned away. This was now booked for 6 March 2020.
    4. The resident had advised that a tree had been removed but a stump was remaining and had asked whether this was a hazard. It apologised that the resident felt that it was not willing to look at the situation and it had now instructed its tree contractor to remove a stump.
    5. It apologised that works had not been done and advised that it would contact OT for an up to date assessment of the resident’s medical needs. It noted that the door handle was yet to be replaced but felt it would be better to assess for a new front door first.
    6. It explained that some lines of communication had been blurred. While OT could report repairs and make suggestions regarding repairs, unless a full report confirming that something needed to be changed to suit the resident’s medical needs was submitted, the decision regarding repairs fell to the landlord.
23. The evidence shows that an appointment to adjust the back door was carried out on 20 February 2020 to stop the draught, but the contractor could not source and replace a part that was allowing water ingress.
24. The landlord’s records show that an appointment to remove the kitchen kickboards and fill holes was completed on 6 March 2020. On 10 March 2020, the landlord was informed that the resident had refused access for further proofing works and that the pest contractor would no longer attend.
25. On 24 March 2020, the resident asked the landlord what was happening regarding repairs during the lockdown restrictions imposed because of Covid-19. She asked that her boiler was dealt with as an emergency. The landlord responded and noted that she remained dissatisfied with the previous door repair. It had said it would reattend but then began to work from home due to Covid-19. It was waiting for a quote for the front door replacement and needed to check whether the contractors were still attending appointments. It noted that the resident had raised concern about another tree stump and advised that it would need to determine whether the tree contractors were working. It said that the resident had reported a faulty boiler but had not contacted it since to discuss and that if the resident had heating and hot water, contractors would be unlikely to attend in the current circumstances.
26. On 30 March 2020, the landlord asked the resident if she had contacted repairs about her boiler. It advised that the door replacement and back door repairs would be on hold. The resident responded and asked that the boiler be treated as an emergency due to the noise it was making. She advised that tree contractors would not need to access the property to gain access to the tree stump in her garden.
27. An appointment to inspect the resident’s boiler was carried out on 31 March 2020 as the resident had reported noise from it and was worried about an urgent issue. The job notes show that there was water hammer (where water changes direction in the boiler or pipes which causes noise) which needed to be assessed by the landlord’s plumbers.
28. The resident contacted the landlord on 31 March 2020 and asked that a plumber be sent for the boiler noise. She also advised that her pebbles were left in a large heap after a tree was removed and asked that these be sorted. The landlord responded and confirmed that it was only completing emergency works. The pebbles were not considered an emergency but if the gardening contractors were still working, it would ask them to attend. Its internal records show that it had asked whether the water hammer issue would be considered an emergency and was informed that it was not.
29. The landlord’s records show that 2 stumps were removed from the resident’s garden on 4 May 2020.
30. OT contacted the landlord on 5 May 2020 as the resident had advised that her hay fever was being badly affected by the trees in her garden which she said the landlord had agreed to prune. She had advised it that this had not been done. It noted that she was still dissatisfied with the gap around her front door. The landlord responded and confirmed that repairs had been arranged and the resident would be contacted by its contractors. It noted that it had informed the resident that the door was not an urgent repair, and that most of its suppliers were closed. It explained that the garden was the resident’s responsibility. It had previously removed stumps as these were a trip hazard, but the resident would need to arrange for the trees to be cut back herself. It confirmed that it would arrange for a letter to be sent to the resident advising her of its position.
31. On 20 May 2020, the resident emailed the landlord outlining her dissatisfaction with its handling of the repairs:
    1. She expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord had gone back on its word as she had been told in February 2020 that the door would be replaced. She advised that OT had spoken to the landlord about the impact the backlog of works was having on her health.
    2. Before the lockdown restrictions imposed because of Covid-19, the landlord had informed her support worker that the front door would be replaced (this had been measured around 7 times), the trees in her garden would be cut down and the trees in the car park would be trimmed.
    3. She advised that the trees were affecting her hay fever and were right in front of her bedroom window. She noted that she could not open the window. She felt suffocated by the pollen from the trees, and it caused her whole body to become inflamed.
    4. She advised that the backlog of works included: rodents, trees to be trimmed at the front of the property, a tree stump left in the back garden, noise from her boiler when she used the tap (which the landlord had been aware of since February 2020), her window that dripped water onto her carpet, her front door with a large gap that let water and a draught in, damage to her tiles, the door handles which were difficult to use due to her disabilities, and her back door which had a large hole and let water in.
    5. She maintained that the landlord had been advised by OT that the front door needed to be replaced and was dissatisfied that works had previously been stopped. She had previously been told that she would be compensated for the damage but also sought compensation for the impact on her health.
32. The landlord informed the resident that someone would attend to look at the tree on 2 June 2020, however the operative’s car broke down and they were unable to attend. On 4 June 2020, the landlord outlined that it understood works to the boiler, front and back door, pest control and pest proofing were outstanding. It asked the resident to confirm whether anything else was outstanding and confirmed that it could arrange pest control works if she believed that this was an emergency.
33. The resident responded on 5 June 2020 and confirmed that there were mice from the boiler and bedroom, the garden stump needed to be removed, the front door needed to be replaced, the locks on the back door needed to be replaced, there was water on the floor around the front door which had ruined tiles, the door handle on the front door was unsuitable and there were issues with condensation from her bedroom window which was causing damage to her carpet.
34. The resident’s support worker emailed the landlord on 18 June 2020 and attached video footage of the water coming through the front door. They asked that this was treated as an emergency repair.
35. The landlord informed the resident on 23 June 2020 that a tree contractor would attend on 25 June 2020. A surveyor wanted to look at the front and back door and this would be booked in. It had asked its pest control contractors to arrange an appointment and a window repair had been booked. The resident responded and advised that the front door was urgent as it was letting in water which was worrying. The landlord replied and confirmed that the doors were being discussed internally and it had pushed for a replacement without a further inspection. It would ask that someone attend to see if the front door could be repaired.
36. The landlord’s internal records from 23 June 2020 show that it had determined that the weather bar on the front door was the wrong size which was the reason water was entering the property. It noted that the door was in a good condition and would not be replaced. It confirmed that the weather bar should be replaced, and the door should be adjusted. It advised that the back door should be repaired with a report on the door condition in the first instance.
37. On 24 June 2020, the landlord informed the resident that a surveyor had reviewed photos and notes from contractors regarding the front door and confirmed that it would not be replaced but repairs would be carried out and the handle replaced. This had been booked for 10 July 2020. It also said that a specialist had been booked for the back door on 13 July 2020.
38. The evidence shows that the appointment on 10 July 2020 was attended to. An appointment to inspect the resident’s back door was also completed on 13 July 2020. The resident had advised that a UPVC specialist had already attended and said that the door could not be fixed. The job notes state that the resident did not allow the operative to open the door as it was difficult to close.
39. On 13 July 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to advise that the operative did not know why they had attended on 10 July 2020. No repair was completed, and the operative advised that the door did not need replacing. She asked that this be investigated as she believed that OT had recommended that the door was replaced. The landlord responded on the same day to advise that it would be raising the resident’s concerns with the operative’s manager. It explained that the role of OT was to assess whether items needed changing for the resident’s medical needs. OT had not said that the door needed replacing on this basis and had recommended that the door handles were replaced. The surveyor did not feel that the door needed replacing. It said that it would seek an update on other repairs and that pest control had advised that they were unable to contact the resident. The resident added concern that the operative who had attended that day had said that both the front and back door needed to be replaced and could not be fixed. She confirmed that she had arranged an appointment with pest control.
40. Following contact from the resident, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 13 July 2020 and asked it to consider the resident’s concerns related to her front door, back door, water ingress and door handle. The landlord was asked to respond to the resident’s complaint by 3 August 2020, confirming stage it was at, what was being done to resolve it and details of how to escalate if she was dissatisfied.
41. An appointment was arranged for 16 July 2020 to replace the door handle and weather bar to the front door. The job notes show that the resident refused works as she was waiting for a new door to be fitted which had already been measured.
42. The resident’s communication with the landlord from 31 July 2020 confirmed that pest control had attended the previous week and laid further traps.
43. The landlord acknowledged the complaint at stage two of its complaints process on 21 July 2020 and said it would respond by 17 August 2020.
44. The landlord’s records show that 2 glazed units in the resident’s bedroom were replaced on 29 July 2020.
45. The resident emailed the landlord on 6 August 2020 to express concern that her housing officer and their manager had been negligent due to a lack of care. She maintained that her OT had recommended that the door be replaced and that the issues had been ongoing since 2014. She said that her tiles and bedroom carpet were ruined due to water ingress and that there had been mice in her property from 2014. She added that the issues were negatively impacting her health conditions.
46. The landlord’s repair records show an appointment to assess the front door was reported as completed on 18 August 2020. On the same day, an appointment related to the back door was reported as completed.
47. Following further contact from the resident, who had not received a response, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 21 August 2020 and asked it to respond to the resident by 28 August 2020.
48. The landlord provided its stage two complaint response to this Service on 17 September 2020; this was dated 10 September 2020. The response explained the following:
    1. In relation to the door repairs, it acknowledged that these had been unnecessarily prolonged and that the issues were raised in October 2019. It noted that the impact of Covid-19 had affected the timescale but that there had been service failures in raising the repair and seeing it through to completion. It also acknowledged that contractors had attended and re-attended without completing work. There had also been communication issues with its contractors. It confirmed that its surveyors had reviewed the door and concluded that it did not currently need replacing.
    2. It acknowledged that the door handle replacement was still outstanding, and it wanted to work with OT to ensure that an appropriate door handle was fitted.
    3. It had agreed for a specialist contractor to look at the back door separately. It had tried to make an appointment, but this had been declined by the resident. It asked her to provide a suitable date. It advised that any damage to the flooring because of the water ingress would be rectified once repairs had been completed.
    4. In relation to the tree works, its gardening contractors were instructed to attend and ensure the trees posed no health and safety risks. A tree had been cut down, but a stump was left. It had then asked the tree contractors to reattend and remove the stump. There was a delay in following up and “making right” the previous tree work for which it apologised.
    5. In confirmed that its pest control contractors had attended multiple times to carry out works and had fitted some mesh grills. It had also arranged for the kickboards in the kitchen to be removed and holes to be filled which was rebooked in March 2020.
    6. It acknowledged that there had been a delay in its response and updating the resident for which it apologised. It confirmed that there had been service failure due to the delay in responding and delay in escalating the complaint to stage two.
    7. It offered £400 compensation to the resident, comprised of:
       1. £50 for poor communication from its contractors.
       2. £50 for the delay in completing the door repair.
       3. £50 for the delay in making right the previous tree works.
       4. £50 for the delay in responding to the stage one complaint within 10 days.
       5. £50 for the delay in escalating to stage 2.
       6. £50 for the delay in responding to the stage 2 complaint.
       7. £100 for the stress and inconvenience caused by its failure to complete the door repairs.
    8. It confirmed that its contractors would complete the repairs to the front door and ensure that there was clear communication. It would liaise with OT in relation to the door handle. The resident’s housing officer would follow this up in writing with a repair schedule. It would update the resident’s support worker in writing should there be any changes. A surveyor would attend to inspect the back door separately and ensure the repair was followed through.
    9. It confirmed that if the resident was unhappy with its review response, she had the option to escalate the complaint further and said that it had attached a complaint leaflet providing further information.
49. The resident advised that she had not heard from the landlord on 18 September 2020. The Ombudsman then forwarded the landlord’s stage two complaint response.
50. The resident emailed the landlord on 23 September 2020 and advised that she wanted to escalate the complaint further. She advised:
    1. That her housing officer had been aware of the issues since October 2019; they had apologised and stated that both doors would be replaced, and that she would be compensated for her damaged flooring.
    2. Pest control had informed the landlord that mice were coming from the boiler. She reported that she was still experiencing this despite mesh being placed.
    3. She had been promised that the trees at the front of the property which blocked her view and impacted her hay fever and asthma would be trimmed. She advised that the leaves were damaging cars and that she could not open her windows. The previous tree contractors had ruined her garden stones.
    4. She did not want further contractors to look at the doors as OT had informed the landlord in 2014 that the front door needed replacing. She added that she could not hold the handles properly and they also needed to be changed.
    5. She advised that her window had been replaced in June 2020 and had been left unlocked which was a hazard. She said that water and cold came into the property as the job was not finished.
    6. She did not accept the landlord’s offer of £400 and maintained that the issues had caused a significant impact on her health.
51. Following contact from the resident, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 21 October 2020, asking it to contact the resident and provide an update by 26 October 2020 in relation to her ongoing concerns. The Ombudsman sent a further email to the landlord on 10 November 2020 and asked it to provide a complaint response by 17 November 2020 that clearly confirmed that the complaints process had been exhausted and referred the resident to this Service if she remained dissatisfied.
52. The landlord provided its amended stage two complaint response, along with a covering letter, to the resident on 13 November 2020. It acknowledged that it had not previously signposted the resident to the Ombudsman. It offered the resident £100 compensation in recognition of its oversight and confirmed that it was carrying out staff training for complaint handlers. In its communication to this Service, the landlord acknowledged that while it had provided a complaint leaflet outlining next steps, this had not been provided to the Ombudsman and the complaint response on its own was not clear.
53. A visit to inspect and replace the front door handle took place on 25 November 2020. The job notes show that the door handle was working and was opened and closed around 10 times.
54. The landlord’s repair records show that an appointment to replace the door handle with an easy adjust handle was reported as completed on 3 December 2020. Work to replace beading on the newly fitted double glazed windows was also reported as being completed on this date.
55. A further appointment to replace the weather bar on the resident’s front door and adjust the door was reportedly completed on 21 January 2021.
56. An appointment was arranged to inspect the resident’s boiler on 28 January 2021 as she had reported that she had no heating or hot water, and that the boiler was leaking. The job notes show that there was an issue with the waste pipe. There were no signs of leaks but the operative recommended work to run the condense pipe outside rather than to the kitchen waste pipe as it was currently. They left 2 temporary heaters with the resident in case the issues continued.
57. The landlord’s records show that an appointment was carried out on 15 February 2021 as the resident had reported a leak and that the boiler kept cutting out. The job notes show that the boiler condense pipe was linked to the kitchen sink waste pipe which was blocked. This was a continuous problem. They noted that there needed to be a hole in the wall but that the heating and hot water was working.
58. The landlord’s records show that following a survey on 25 February 2021, operatives determined that the resident’s boiler should be replaced with a combination boiler.
59. Following contact from the resident, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 4 March 2021 and asked it to consider issues that had not been responded to previously. This included repairs to the resident’s boiler and her request to downsize to another property as an alternative following an OT recommendation to install a stairlift. The landlord was asked to respond by 17 March 2021.
60. The landlord’s records show that an appointment to inspect the boiler was carried out on 5 March 2021 following the resident’s reports of no hot water. The job notes show that the operative was refused access as the resident was waiting for a new boiler to be installed.
61. The landlord acknowledged the Ombudsman’s email on 9 March 2021.
62. An appointment to inspect the boiler, following the resident’s reports that her radiators were not working, took place on 19 May 2021. The job notes show that there was low pressure. The heating and hot water were working.
63. The landlord’s records show that its tree contractor cut back a tree in the car park area in front of the resident’s property on 21 May 2021.
64. The landlord’s records show that the resident’s back door was replaced on 1 July 2021. The resident had raised concern that her existing blinds did not match the dimensions of the new door and that she was informed the new door would be a like-for-like match.
65. The landlord issued a stage one complaint response to the resident on 1 July 2021, following a separate complaint the resident had raised on 22 June 2021. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of this communication. In its response, the landlord explained the following:
    1. It acknowledged that the complaint related to outstanding repairs, the resident’s request to transfer to another property, her request that her housing officer was changed, and allegations made against the housing officer.
    2. It advised that contractors had attempted to complete repairs to the resident’s front door, but the resident had refused this. It had proposed to send a surveyor in January 2021 but due to Covid-19 restrictions this had not been rearranged. It apologised for the delay in rearranging this and asked the resident to confirm whether she was happy to proceed.
    3. In relation to the back door, it confirmed that this was due to be replaced and that the specialist contractors had contacted the resident to book an appointment.
    4. It apologised that the resident’s hallway blinds were damaged by a repairs contractor and agreed to offer £100 towards the damage. It said that it could not process the payment without evidence of the resident’s bank account and asked her to provide this.
    5. It noted that the resident’s support worker had requested a repair to the resident’s fence but it needed additional information to raise the repair and had asked her support worker for this.
    6. A tree surgeon had attended to assess the tree and deemed that work was required but that this was not urgent. The landlord advised that it was currently only carrying out essential works due to Covid-19 and had asked that the tree surgeon reassess the works required.
    7. It had received repair requests from OT that were not made through the OT referral process. If OT believed that repairs were required for medical reasons, they would need to make a referral to the landlord using the correct process. It had recently rejected a request that the front door handle was changed as OT had confirmed that this was not needed for medical reasons and had not gone through the correct referral process. It was keen to work with OT to ensure that the resident could live in the property comfortably and safely.
    8. It noted that the resident wished to downsize and move to a one-bedroom property and for her daughter to be offered a separate one bedroom property. It explained that its lettings policy did not allow it to split households and only the resident was able to downsize as her daughter was not its tenant. If the resident’s daughter believed she was eligible for social housing, she would need to contact the local authority to enquire about her housing options. It confirmed that the resident would be allowed to downsize to a three bedroom property and asked if she wished to pursue this.
    9. It had spoken to the resident’s housing officer and acknowledged that there had been some delay in their communication with the resident’s support worker for which it apologised. It acknowledged that there had been a breakdown in the relationship and moving forward it could look at communicating via email if this was easier so that the resident did not need to engage in telephone conversations. It advised that the housing officer had also offered their apologies for the service failure. It offered to meet with the resident to help improve the working relationship.
    10. It explained that it did not usually re-allocate housing officers on request as they covered geographical patches. If a resident was dissatisfied with the actions of a housing officer, they could raise the matter or complain formally. It would then work to resolve the matter. It advised that it would be willing to discuss this further with the resident if she wished.
    11. It had attempted to contact the resident in relation to the allegations she had made against the housing officer, but she had advised that she did not want to discuss this. It explained that it needed an understanding of the allegation so it could investigate. It asked the resident to make contact to discuss this further.
    12. It partly upheld the resident’s complaint and offered £200 compensation, comprised of £50 for the delay in arranging a surveyor visit, £100 toward the damage caused to the resident’s blinds and £50 for the delays in communication by the resident’s housing officer. It confirmed that the resident could escalate her complaint to stage two of its complaints process if she remained dissatisfied.
66. Following contact from the resident, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 22 July 2021 and asked it to provide a final response by 30 July 2021 to the matters it had acknowledged on 9 March 2021.
67. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 29 July 2021 and explained the following:
    1. In relation to the front door, its contractors had previously been refused access to complete repairs. A surveyor had attended again to inspect the door. It apologised that this had not taken place sooner and offered £50 compensation. The surveyor had agreed that repairs could be completed to the door. Both surveyors had now confirmed that the door did not need replacing at this stage and it confirmed that it was willing to arrange the repairs if the resident wished.
    2. The back door had been replaced but the resident had raised concern that this was not a like-for-like replacement. Its contractors had attempted to source a like-for-like door, but this was not always possible and they had been unable to find an exact match. It had reviewed photos and confirmed that the door was fit for purpose. It would not be changing the door on this basis. It understood that there had been some conflicting information and offered £100 compensation towards the cost of replacing the blinds on the door. It noted that the resident had advised that the door handle was not suitable for her needs. It asked her to let it know if she wanted the door handles to be changed.
    3. It apologised that the blinds in the resident’s hallway had previously been damaged by its repairs contractor. It had agreed to compensate the resident £100 for the damage caused and was waiting for the finance team to process the payment.
    4. It noted that the resident had requested a repair to her fence. It advised that it required additional information to raise the repair. This had been requested from the resident’s support worker and once received, it would arrange the repair.
    5. In relation to the trees, a tree surgeon had attended and deemed that the tree did need work, but these were non-urgent and it had only been carrying out urgent works. It had asked the tree surgeon to reattend and assess. It noted that it had received requests from OT to carry out repairs that were not raised through the OT referral process. If OT believed that repairs were needed for medical purposes, the referrals needed to be made in the correct format.
    6. It had arranged for a pest control contractor to attend the property. The holes behind the boiler would need to be filled when the old boiler was removed.
    7. Its gas contractor had agreed to replace the resident’s boiler with a combination boiler. It understood that the resident no longer wanted a combination boiler. It had asked its contractor to replace the boiler with a like-for-like replacement as she had requested.
    8. It noted that the resident had requested that she be downsized to a 1 bedroom property and for her daughter to be offered a separate 1 bedroom property. It explained that it was unable to accommodate this as its policy did not allow it to split households when tenants were downsizing. The resident’s daughter was not currently a tenant and did not meet the criteria to be housed via its household member’s scheme. It explained that the resident’s daughter would need to approach the local authority about her housing options should she believe that she was eligible for social housing. Its policy would allow the resident to move her household to a 3 bedroom property. It asked the resident whether she wished to pursue this.
    9. It acknowledged that there had been delays in its responses to the resident. It apologised that the repairs to the doors had not yet been completed and for the stress and inconvenience caused. It also acknowledged that there had been delays in communication from the housing officer for which it apologised.
    10. It offered £350 compensation, comprised of: £50 for the delay in the surveyors visit, £50 for the delay in repairing the door, £100 for the stress and inconvenience caused, £50 for delayed communication, and £100 so the blinds on the back door could be replaced.
    11. It confirmed that this was its final response, and that the resident could approach the Ombudsman if she remained dissatisfied.
68. The resident referred her complaint to this Service as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her repair requests. She wanted additional compensation for the issues she had experienced, for the repairs to be resolved and for the landlord to consider her request to transfer to a smaller or more suitable property.

Post complaint

69. The resident raised further issues with the landlord on 5 August 2021 over the phone. She advised that she was unhappy with the way the complaint had been managed and felt that she had been discriminated against. She confirmed that she wanted her front door to be changed; if this could not be done, she wanted the handles for both the front and back door to be replaced. She also wanted her toilet changed, her complaint about her housing officer to be managed, and requested £800 for her flooring and compensation for her blinds.
70. The landlord sent a further stage one complaint response to the resident on 27 August 2021 and explained the following:
    1. It advised that it was willing to proceed with the front door repairs and asked that the resident confirm so that it could book an appointment. It had agreed to replace the door handles on the front and back doors and had asked its contractors to book an appointment.
    2. It confirmed that the £100 payment for damage to the resident’s blinds was processed on 27 July 2021 and asked her to confirm that she had received this.
    3. It apologised that the resident’s flooring was damaged due to the delay in completing repairs to the doors. It had asked a contractor to contact her and obtain a quote for the damaged flooring to be replaced.
    4. It had not received further information in relation to the repair required to the resident’s fence. It noted that she had also asked for a repair to her toilet and explained that it required additional information to progress a repair.
    5. It noted that there had been a breakdown in communication between the resident and her housing officer. It acknowledged that there had been delays in its communication. It wished to improve the relationship and would monitor the ongoing communication. It also said that it would put a contact agreement in place and that the resident could email or text her housing officer if she found telephone conversations unhelpful.
    6. It noted that the resident had raised concerns that the housing officer had been discriminatory. It said that it wished to investigate this matter further and asked that the resident send further details of the allegations.
    7. It confirmed that it had previously offered £350 and increased its offer to £550. The additional compensation was comprised of £50 for its delayed complaint response and £150 for stress and inconvenience.
    8. It confirmed that the resident could escalate her complaint to stage 2 if she remained dissatisfied.
71. The landlord’s records show that a further inspection of the front door was completed. On 21 October 2021, contractors confirmed that the front door allowed water and a draught through. The door lock keep was not secure and there were gaps around the door. They advised that poor repairs had been completed. The resident would not allow the contractors to carry out repairs during the visit as she wanted the door replaced. The contractors recommended that the door was replaced and provided a quotation.
72. The landlord’s records show that the boiler was replaced on 5 November 2021. The holes behind the boiler were filled around 8 November 2021.
73. The evidence provided suggests that the front door was replaced around 31 January 2022.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

74. The resident has advised that the issues she experienced impacted her health and wellbeing. While the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments, it is beyond the remit of this Service to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is more appropriate to be dealt with through the courts as a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

Policies and procedures

75. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for maintaining and repairing the external structure of the property, including doors and windows, pathways and boundary walls and fences. It is also responsible for repairing installations provided for heating and for the supply of water and sanitation, including toilets. In addition, the landlord is responsible for making good any damage to the interior of the property arising from inspections or carrying out of work by its staff or contractors. The tenancy agreement states that the resident is responsible for maintaining the garden in a clean and tidy condition.
76. The landlord’s repairs policy provides timescales for responding to repairs. Emergency repairs should be attended to within four hours and made safe within 24 hours. Routine repairs should be completed within 20 working days. Some jobs may require an inspection visit before the repair is arranged, including where previous repairs have not resolved issues, where measurements need to be taken or where investigations to identify the problem are required. Some works, such as where a need for replacement has been identified, may take a longer timeframe. Where this is the case, the landlord is expected to communicate an expected timeframe to complete works.
77. The landlord’s tenancy handbook states that residents are usually responsible for dealing with household pests, such as mice, unless they believe there is an infestation. Where residents believe there is an infestation or are not able to deal with the issue themselves, they should inform the landlord. The landlord’s pest control procedure states that it is responsible for ensuring that there are no structural issues in the property that may contribute to pests, such as holes in brickwork. Where there are reports of rodents, the landlord should assess whether the issue is rats or mice. If rats are suspected, the landlord is responsible for arranging treatment. The procedure notes that where a pest problem is ongoing and a resident is vulnerable, the landlord should consider arranging pest treatment and proofing works.
78. The landlord’s tenancy handbook states that if a resident has a disability or long-term medical condition and believe they require an adaptation to the property, they should speak to their housing officer. Simple adaptations, such as installing grab rails, can be arranged by the landlord but the resident would need to contact OT to arrange an assessment for any major changes. They would provide advice and, if they approve an adaptation, should contact the landlord’s major adaptations department. The landlord would be responsible for working closely with residents, their advocates, and OT, when progressing adaptations. It assesses each request for an adaptation on an individual merit and seeks necessary information to support its decision.
79. The landlord’s allocations and lettings policy states that it has a household members scheme where:
    1. An adult member of an overcrowded household can be rehoused into a 1 bedroom property.
    2. Separate smaller properties are offered to a tenancy holder and any adult household members to incentivise the release of family sized properties.
80. The landlord’s website further states that the current property must either be too small or too large for the residing family. Where a property is underoccupied (too big for the household), the tenant and the household member would both be required to move as part of the scheme.
81. The landlord’s complaints leaflet states that it has a 2 stage formal complaints process. The landlord may attempt to resolve the complaint informally as a “quick fix” as soon as possible. If it cannot resolve matters quickly, a complaint should be raised, and the landlord should respond within 10 working days at stage 1. If the resident is not satisfied with the landlord’s response, they can ask for their complaint to be escalated to its review stage (stage 2). At this stage, the landlord should respond within 20 working days. Following this, the resident can approach this Service where a landlord has issued a final response.

Repairs to the resident’s front door and back door following reports of water ingress, and adaptations needed.

82. In this case, it is not disputed that the resident’s front and back doors needed repairing following the resident’s reports of water ingress and gaps causing draughts. Within her complaints to the landlord, the resident maintained that OT had recommended that her door was replaced. While the Ombudsman has seen evidence that the OT had advised the landlord (before its inspection of 17 October 2019) that the front door needed repair or replacement (due to its condition), there is nothing to confirm that the OT had recommended that the door was replaced to suit the resident’s medical needs.
83. The landlord’s records show that the resident’s front door has since been replaced following a further inspection in October 2021 where this was recommended. While it is noted that this decision could have been made sooner and the resident had spent time and trouble pursuing a replacement, the landlord ultimately relied on the opinions of its qualified surveyors and acted reasonably by gaining a second surveyor’s opinion regarding the door in July 2021. Both surveyors had established that the door could be repaired, and the landlord was entitled to attempt repairs prior to considering a replacement.
84. In relation to repairs to the front door, some of the delay was outside of the landlord’s control due to the resident’s refusal of repair works and the impact of Covid-19 (when the landlord was only completing emergency repairs). The landlord has, however, acknowledged that the repairs to the door were unnecessarily prolonged and that there had been failures in raising repairs and seeing them through to completion. It also acknowledged, within its complaint responses, that contractors had attended and reattended without completing work and there was a delay in arranging an additional surveyor visit in January 2021.
85. While the landlord took steps to acknowledge some of the failings, the evidence shows that it had advised the resident that it was waiting for a quote for the door replacement and that this would be on hold in March 2020. This understandably led the resident to believe that the door was due to be replaced. While it was not unreasonable for the landlord to progress repairs prior to considering a replacement, and it was entitled to rely on the opinions of its qualified surveyors, it failed to acknowledge the inconvenience caused to the resident because of its prior communication to her.
86. Further, there were inappropriate delays in the landlord progressing interim repairs. For instance, the landlord identified that a weather bar was required in late June 2020, but this not completed until January 2021. Although there is evidence that it attempted the repair in July 2020, it was unreasonable that the landlord failed to proactively progress the works subsequently. It is also of concern that when the surveyor considered the condition of the front door in October 2021, they noted that poor quality repairs had been carried out.
87. In relation to the back door, the resident initially asked that this be replaced on 25 October 2019. It was reasonable for the landlord to assess and attempt to repair the door in the first instance. The landlord’s repair records show that an appointment to adjust the door was carried out on 20 February 2020 (following assessments in October 2019 and January 2020).However, the job notes show that the operative was not able to source a part to stop water ingress into the property. Further works were not completed because of the impact of Covid-19 at this stage, which was outside of the landlord’s control.
88. Additional appointments are noted to have taken place on 13 July 2020 and 18 August 2020. However, the evidence provided is unclear as to whether repairs or a replacement were established as being required. It is noted that the landlord’s complaint response of 10 September 2020 said that it had arranged for a specialist company to attend due to the fabric of the doors but that the resident had refused appointments. There is a lack of documentary evidence in relation to the back door until it was replaced on 1 July 2021.
89. The landlord acted reasonably within its complaint responses by acknowledging that there had been some miscommunication about the measurements of the replacement door and that it was not an exact match, meaning that the existing blinds did not fit in front of the door. It suitably explained that it was not always able to find an exact match when replacing components such as doors and offered compensation to the resident for the expense of the blinds. It also acknowledged the distress and inconvenience caused to her, including by the multiple appointments.
90. In relation to the door handles, it is not disputed that OT had recommended that the handles were replaced as the resident had trouble using them as a result of her mobility issues. It was reasonable for the landlord to refer the matter back to OT in October 2019 as the resident had not been sure as to which handles would be suitable. The evidence shows that it had asked OT to provide a recommendation as it would not be able to assess what type of door handle would be suitable for the resident’s medical needs.
91. It is unclear from the evidence provided by the landlord as to whether it received a response from OT. However, the records show that door handle replacement was put on hold on 18 February 2020 as the landlord was in the process of assessing the door for replacement. There is a lack of evidence to confirm whether the landlord had assessed if the resident could wait until a decision was made regarding the door, or whether it had considered replacing this sooner given the resident’s reported difficulties in using the current handle. This was unreasonable given the resident’s health concerns albeit, in July 2020, she refused the arranged work to replace the handle as she said she wanted the door to be replaced.
92. Following this, the landlord acknowledged that the door handle work was outstanding within its complaint response on 10 September 2020, but failed to set out the actions it had taken or limitations it faced in relation to the work. While an appointment was arranged for 25 November 2020, it is unclear as to whether the operative had understood the purpose of the visit. This likely caused a missed opportunity for the landlord to resolve the door handle issue.
93. The job notes confirmed that the door handle was working and did not need replacing but there is no evidence to suggest that the resident’s needs were taken into consideration on this date or that the operative was aware that the handle was due to be replaced to accommodate the resident’s medical needs. Following this, the door handle replacement was reported as completed on 3 December 2020. It is noted that the resident raised additional concerns about the door handles not being suitable for her needs which were acknowledged by the landlord in July 2021, following which, it agreed to replace both handles, although it remains unclear from the evidence provided as to when this was completed.
94. As part of its response to the resident, the landlord confirmed that any damage caused by the ongoing water ingress from the doors would be put right. While the landlord has confirmed that the resident’s landing and staircase was carpeted, there is a lack of evidence to confirm that the carpeting or tiling around the resident’s doors were remedied. While the resident has not raised any concern in relation to her previous reports of damaged flooring in her recent communication to the Ombudsman, it is of concern that the landlord was unable to provide information about the agreed complaint actions or documentary evidence to show that this was seen through to completion.
95. The landlord offered a total of £500 compensation for this aspect of the complaint – within its responses on 10 September 2020 and 29 July 2021 – which recognised the delay in completing the door repairs, poor communication from its contractors, the delay in arranging a surveyors visit, miscommunication regarding the back door and distress and inconvenience. The landlord also offered £100 in recognition of damage caused to the resident’s blinds by its contractor which was reasonable in the circumstances. The Ombudsman has also seen evidence that the landlord offered an additional £150 compensation for distress and inconvenience in relation to the door repairs within a stage one complaint response on 27 August 2021, which has been taken into consideration.
96. While the landlord’s offer goes some way to put right the failings in this case, this is not considered proportionate given the time and trouble the resident spent pursuing the repairs, the confusion caused by the landlord’s communication around the replacement of the front door in March 2020, delays in interim repairs, and its failure to demonstrate that it had effectively monitored works through to completion. An order to pay additional compensation to the resident has been made below.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pests in her property.

97. The evidence provided shows that the resident initially reported mice in her property in June 2019. It was reasonable for the landlord to arrange for the property to be inspected and treated in line with its policies in view of the resident’s vulnerabilities. The resident was either not present or unavailable for the appointments raised by the pest control company – this was outside of the landlord’s control. The landlord’s internal records show that its pest control contract changed at this time, meaning that the original company would not return to complete works.
98. The landlord attempted to arrange works with its new pest control company but experienced issues arranging an appointment. It acted appropriately by informing the resident of the delay on 16 October 2019 and keeping her updated. On 25 October 2019, it confirmed that it was able to use a different pest control company in the meantime and arranged for a new work order to be raised with an independent pest control contractor on 30 October 2019. The evidence shows that the delay in arranging an appointment at this stage was outside of the landlord’s control and it made reasonable efforts to arrange a separate pest control contractor to visit which was appropriate in the circumstances.
99. While the records provided suggest that the pest control company had attended the property between November 2019 and January 2020, had provided a report which recommended proofing works and had carried out work to install mesh grilles to prevent pests from entering the property, the Ombudsman has not seen records of the pest control company’s report, the specifications of any treatment carried out or the dates of attendance. This indicates poor record keeping by the landlord in that it was not able to provide relevant information to this Service.
100. The pest control company had informed the landlord on 17 January 2020 that the resident had refused access to the property to carry out a final visit. Following this, work to remove kickboards in kitchens and fill holes was arranged and reported as complete on 6 March 2020. The landlord was informed that the resident had refused further works on 10 March 2020 and that the pest control company would no longer reattend. It is unreasonable that there is no evidence to suggest that the resident was informed of this nor that the landlord had queried with the resident why she had refused access nor that it sought to confirm with her whether the issues had been resolved.
101. Nevertheless, there is no evidence to suggest that the resident had contacted the landlord regarding any ongoing pests until 20 May 2020, when she advised that the rodent issues were ongoing. The landlord took reasonable steps to ask its pest contractor to attend the property and its communication with the resident in July 2020 noted that they had again experienced difficulties arranging an appointment. The resident confirmed on 13 July 2020 that she had arranged an appointment albeit there are no further records regarding pest treatment works despite an appointment going ahead prior to 31 July 2020.
102. The resident continued to report mice within her property on 6 August 2020. It is of concern that the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response on 10 September 2020 advised that proofing works had previously taken place in March 2020 without addressing the resident’s concern that the issues were ongoing. This meant that the resident needed to repeat her concern that there were still pests in the property on 23 September 2020 – this was likely to have caused her uncertainty as to whether the landlord intended to continue treatment or proofing. In addition, the landlord failed to set out the actions it had taken or limitations it had faced because of the resident allegedly refusing access – this would have been appropriate in order to manage her expectations and progress any required works.
103. Within her communication on 23 September 2020, the resident maintained that the mice were coming from holes behind her boiler, which the landlord was aware of. The Ombudsman would have expected to see evidence that the landlord had explained its position and sought to progress works following this. However, there was no further communication in relation to pest control until 19 July 2021, when the landlord advised it would arrange for a pest control contractor to attend and that the holes behind the boiler would need to be filled when the boiler was removed (as part of other outstanding works). The work to fill holes behind the boiler were reportedly completed in November 2021, approximately 2 years following the landlord’s initial assertion that it had arranged these works.
104. In summary, while some access issues were outside of the landlord’s control and likely to have delayed pest control treatment and proofing works being carried out, it has not provided sufficient evidence of its attempts to resolve the issues or demonstrated that it had effectively monitored works through to completion. In addition, there was a significant delay in filling holes behind the resident’s boiler and it failed to fully assess its handling of the resident’s reports within its complaint responses. An order has been made below in relation to this.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues with her boiler.

105. The landlord did not specifically address its handling of the repairs required to the resident’s boiler in its complaint responses. However, as the resident had reported dissatisfaction that the work to her boiler remained outstanding as part of her complaint communication to the landlord on 20 May 2020, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord had the opportunity to address this as part of its response (this is also referred to below in consideration of the landlord’s complaint handling). It is noted that the resident has reported that the issues with the boiler have now been resolved as the boiler was replaced on 5 November 2021.
106. The resident advised the landlord on 24 March 2020 that both she and her support worker had previously reported issues with her boiler making noise but that she could not see that a repair had been raised. While the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments, there is a lack of evidence to show that this was raised at an earlier date. The landlord was only completing emergency works as a result of Covid-19 at the time of this report but, given her concerns, it was reasonable for it to arrange an emergency repair at the resident’s requests on 31 March 2020. The operative who attended advised that a plumber would be required as they had identified “water hammer” which was causing noise. The landlord acted appropriately by checking internally to see if this would be classed as an emergency and determined that it was not. As such, it was reasonable that the works did not progress.
107. The resident continued to report the issues as part of her complaint in May 2020 and in her ongoing communication with the landlord. However, there is a lack of evidence to suggest that the work was revisited once lockdown restrictions ended or that the resident was appropriately updated.
108. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman has not seen any further reports of issues with the resident’s boiler until January 2021, when she reported that it was leaking. On 28 January 2021, it was identified that the condense pipe from the boiler ran into the kitchen waste pipe, rather than outside, which was causing issues. This was again identified on 15 February 2021 following the resident’s further reports that her boiler was cutting out. The landlord acted appropriately by arranging a survey of the boiler on 15 February 2021 which recommended that the boiler was replaced with a combination boiler. It is noted that the resident refused repairs to her boiler on 5 March 2021 as she was waiting for a new one to be installed.
109. The landlord advised within its complaint response on 29 July 2021 that, at the resident’s request, it would replace the boiler with a like-for-like replacement instead of a combination boiler. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of the reason for any delays up to this date or the resident’s communication with the landlord regarding her boiler. The boiler was eventually replaced (and the pipework rectified) on 5 November 2021, approximately 3 months following its response.
110. There is a lack of documentary evidence to confirm the reason for the delays in carrying out the boiler replacement works. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contacts and repairs, yet the evidence has not been comprehensive in this case. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail, assist decision-making and allow for subsequent investigations (either through its own complaints process or by this Service). Due to the lack of available evidence, the Ombudsman is unable to determine that the delays were reasonable or outside of the landlord’s control; it is therefore concluded that there was an unreasonable delay in the landlord renewing the boiler during February-November 2021.
111. In summary, there has been service failure by the landlord in relation to its handling of the repairs to the resident’s boiler. The landlord has not demonstrated that it adequately monitored works through to completion and has not provided sufficient evidence to show that the delays were reasonable. The landlord also failed to fully address its handling of the boiler repairs within its complaint responses to the resident. As such, the landlord is to pay the resident additional compensation in recognition of the delays and time and trouble she spent pursuing the matter.

The resident’s concerns about trees near her property.

112. It should be noted that the resident’s garden is her responsibility to maintain in line with the tenancy agreement. The landlord would be responsible for assessing any health and safety risks associated with trees and taking reasonable action to prevent risk where needed. It would not be obligated to cut down a tree at the resident’s request but should consider any formal recommendations from OT and consider measures it is able to take to prevent any ongoing inconvenience to residents.
113. In this case, there is no evidence to confirm that OT had made any formal recommendation that trees were cut back or cut down in view of the resident’s medical conditions. However, there were delays and failures by the landlord to adequately communicate and manage the resident’s expectations.
114. In relation to the tree at the front of the property, the evidence provided shows that the resident raised concern about an overgrown tree in the communal car park on 25 October 2019 during a call to the landlord. The landlord advised that the issue would be raised, and its records show that this was passed on internally, but there is no further evidence to suggest that works were carried out.
115. The resident spent additional time and trouble pursuing her concerns about the tree at the front of the property on 6 February 2020 (within her complaint). However, the landlord failed to address her concern or explain its position.
116. She continued to specifically raise concerns about the tree at the front of the property within her complaint on 20 May 2020 and noted the impact that this was having on her hay fever. The landlord did ask a tree surgeon to attend at this stage and recorded that there was a failed appointment on 2 June 2020 as the operative’s car broke down. A further appointment was not arranged until 25 June 2020, and there is a lack of evidence to confirm the actions taken on this date.
117. The resident needed to spend additional time and trouble pursuing her concerns on 23 September 2020 as the landlord had not addressed her concerns as part of its complaint response on 10 September 2020. She maintained that she had been promised that the trees would be cut back and detailed the impact on her health. The landlord’s records show that the tree at the front of the property in the car park was cut back on 21 May 2021. This was approximately 18 months following the resident’s initial report. While some delay was expected as a result of Covid-19, the landlord failed to adequately manage the resident’s expectations during this period which meant that she needed to spend time and trouble pursuing her concerns.
118. It is noted that the resident continued to express concerns about the tree and the landlord advised within its response on 1 July 2021 that the tree surgeon had determined that further works were needed but that these were not urgent and that it was only carrying out essential works as a result of Covid-19. This was reasonable in the circumstances and outside of the landlord’s control. In its communication with the Ombudsman, the landlord has advised that the tree in question has now been cut down at the resident’s request, although it is unclear as to when this occurred.
119. In relation to the garden trees, the landlord’s records show that 2 trees in the resident’s garden were cut down on 16 December 2019 but that stumps were left. Within her complaint communication on 6 February 2020, the resident raised concerns that there were other trees within her garden that needed cutting back. The landlord failed to address this specifically within its response of 18 February 2020 but confirmed that it had asked its tree contractor to reattend and remove a stump. It would have been appropriate at this stage for the landlord to have confirmed its position in relation to the resident’s request that trees at the back of the property be cut back.
120. There was some delay following this due to the impact of Covid-19 on the landlord’s services. It was reasonable for the landlord to advise on 31 March 2020 that works to remedy the resident’s pebbles, following the tree removal, would not be considered essential but that it would see if gardening contractors were still working. Following this, the landlord’s records shows that 2 stumps were removed from the garden on 4 May 2020.
121. OT had emailed the landlord on 5 May 2020 to advise that the resident had reported that her hay fever was being badly affected by trees in her garden. The landlord acted reasonably by confirming to OT that the garden would be the resident’s responsibility to maintain. This was in line with the tenancy agreement, but the advice may have caused confusion for the resident as the landlord had previously arranged for trees to be removed. The landlord said it would arrange for a letter to be sent to the resident confirming its position. However, there is no evidence to suggest that this was done or that the resident’s expectations were effectively managed.
122. The evidence shows that the resident raised concern that a stump remained in the garden within her complaint on 20 May 2020. This suggests that both stumps were not removed on 4 May 2020 as previously suggested. While it is noted that a further appointment took place on 25 June 2020, there is a lack of evidence to confirm the actions carried out during this appointment and it remains unclear as to when the stump was removed.
123. The landlord acted fairly within its response on 10 September 2020 by acknowledging that there had been a delay in following up and making right the previous tree repair, for which it apologised and offered £50 compensation. The Ombudsman has not seen any further communication regarding tree stumps in the resident’s garden which suggests that the issue had been resolved by this date.
124. In summary, there has been service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns regarding trees near her property. Overall, the landlord’s offer of £50 compensation, in relation to the delay in making right the previous tree repair, is not considered proportionate given the additional failings identified in relation to its record keeping, and its failure to keep the resident adequately updated or manage her expectations. An order for the landlord to pay additional compensation has been made below.

The resident’s concerns about staff conduct, her request for her housing officer to be changed and communications with her.

125. The evidence shows that the resident first raised concerns about communication from her housing officer in her complaint on 6 February 2020. At the time, the complaint was handled by her housing officer, which was likely to have caused concern and inconvenience as her complaint was not seen to be handled in an impartial manner and her concerns were not addressed.
126. The records provided show that the resident had raised additional concerns that her housing officer had been negligent and shown a lack of care in August 2020. However, there is no evidence to suggest that this was addressed – this was likely to have caused inconvenience to the resident and uncertainty as to whether the landlord had taken her concerns seriously.
127. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of the resident’s complaint from 22 June 2021. However, the landlord noted within its stage one complaint response on 1 July 2021 that the resident had mentioned being dissatisfied with delays in her housing officer’s communication and had asked that the member of staff was changed. The evidence suggests that the resident had also alleged that her housing officer had been discriminatory.
128. The landlord acted fairly in response to the resident’s complaint by acknowledging that there had been some delays in her housing officer’s communications with her support worker, and apologising. It said that it had discussed the issues with her housing officer and acknowledged that there had been a breakdown in the working relationship. The landlord was not obliged to change the resident’s housing officer at her request and acted reasonably by confirming its position within its response and offering to improve the working relationship. The suggestions that the resident communicate with her housing officer via email were appropriate and it was also reasonable for the landlord to offer to meet with the resident, her support worker and her housing officer in an attempt to improve the working relationship. It remains unclear as to whether the resident accepted a meeting or that this went ahead.
129. It is noted that the landlord asked for further details of the resident’s allegations of discrimination so that it could investigate further. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence to suggest that the resident had provided further details to the landlord regarding her allegations of discrimination. As such, there were limited further actions the landlord could take to investigate her concerns. The landlord has since advised that the resident’s housing officer has now changed and that the resident reported having a good working relationship with her current housing officer.
130. The landlord recognised through the complaints process that there were communications failings and awarded £50 compensation. It was appropriate for the landlord to attempt to put right its earlier failings, but its offer of £50 is not considered proportionate given the additional failure to address the resident’s concerns about her housing officer from the outset and the inconvenience this was likely to have caused, particularly given her health conditions. In addition, the landlord’s records show that the resident needed to spend significant time and trouble pursuing individual repair issues (as identified above) as she was not proactively updated. An order has been made below.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be transferred to another property or for a downsize.

131. In her communication to this Service, the resident has advised that she was previously informed that she would be able to downsize to a smaller home and her daughter would be offered a separate property. She expressed concern that the landlord had advised that it would no longer do this and dissatisfaction that it had not processed her transfer.
132. The Ombudsman has not seen any recent evidence to show that the resident had communicated with the landlord regarding her request to transfer from the property, or to downsize, prior to her contact with this Service in March 2021. Nevertheless, information provided by the landlord shows that there had previously been communication in relation to the resident’s request to transfer and downsize prior to 2013. It is noted that the landlord had previously communicated with her regarding its household member’s scheme.
133. It was reasonable for the landlord to utilise the complaints process to explain its current position. Its suggestion that the resident’s daughter enquired with the local authority, if she believed she was eligible for social housing and wished to live in a different property to the resident, was not unreasonable.
134. It is noted that the landlord advised that it was not able to split households when tenants were downsizing, in line with its allocations and lettings policy. The policy shows that this is possible through its household members scheme. As such, the landlord’s advice may have caused some confusion, especially considering that the scheme had previously been discussed with the resident. While the landlord advised that the resident’s daughter was not eligible for rehousing via its household members scheme, it would have been helpful for it to have demonstrated that it had completed an eligibility assessment and clearly set out why the resident’s daughter did not meet the criteria. It acted fairly by confirming that it could downsize the resident’s entire household, including her daughter and grandchild, to a three bedroom property. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the resident had responded to its offer.
135. The evidence shows that OT had recommended that a stairlift was fitted in the resident’s property following an assessment completed in January 2020 and that this recommendation was passed to the local authority at the time. However, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence to suggest that OT had recommended that the resident was moved to a different property as an alternative. As such, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord was obliged to consider rehousing the resident.
136. There is no evidence of maladministration on the part of the landlord in its decision on the resident’s re-housing request. However, it is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to provide further clarity around its household members scheme and whether she and her daughter would be eligible for this. It should also confirm the resident’s other housing options should she wish to progress a transfer.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

137. In this case, it is not disputed that there were delays and errors in the landlord’s handling of the initial complaint. The landlord acted fairly by acknowledging delays in providing its complaint responses and in escalating the complaint to stage 2 (following the resident’s communication on 20 May 2020). It offered £150 compensation for these complaint handling failings. It also acknowledged and apologised for its failure to adequately signpost the resident to the Ombudsman as part of its stage 2 complaint response and offered an additional £100 compensation on 13 November 2020.
138. This total award of £250 was proportionate to the complaint handing failings identified and the landlord also demonstrated that it had taken points of learning from the complaint when it included referral rights to this Service in its subsequent stage 2 complaint response on 29 July 2021. However, there were several further failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints that were not acknowledged through the complaints process.
139. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response on 18 February 2020 did not clearly advise that it was a stage one complaint response, nor did it provide the resident with details of how she could escalate the complaint if she remained dissatisfied. As detailed above, her housing officer also handled the complaint at this stage, which was inappropriate given the specific concerns the resident had raised about this member of staff. This showed a potential lack of impartiality and was likely to have caused distress to the resident.
140. On 4 March 2021, the Ombudsman asked the landlord to address concerns that had not been previously responded to – in relation to repairs to the resident’s boiler and her request to downsize to another property. The landlord was asked to respond by 17 March 2021. The resident had initially included her concerns about her boiler within her communication on 20 May 2020. As such, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have confirmed its position within its stage 2 complaint response or opened a new complaint.
141. There is no evidence to suggest that the resident had raised concerns about her request to downsize as part of her initial complaint. As such, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have raised a new stage 1 complaint in relation to this at the time. While the landlord acknowledged the Ombudsman’s email on 9 March 2021, it did not provide a response.
142. The evidence suggests that the resident had asked to raise a separate complaint on 22 June 2021. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of this communication despite specifically requesting this from the landlord. While the landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 1 July 2021, it failed to acknowledge that the resident had asked on 4 March 2021, via this Service, for her concerns related to her boiler and transfer to be addressed.
143. In addition, its response failed to fully address her concerns related to her boiler which was likely to have caused inconvenience. While the landlord issued a subsequent stage 2 complaint response which commented on the boiler, it did not address her concerns in full. It also failed to fully address its handling of the tree and pest control works or take steps to identify points of learning from the complaint to prevent similar failures occurring in the future.
144. Further, the landlord was asked to provide information relevant to the complaint by this Service as part of the Ombudsman investigation. While the landlord did provide a number of records, these were incomplete or contradictory and did not contain clear information about when repair issues were resolved or what happened on each visit. This indicates poor record keeping and information management by the landlord, in that it did not have a record of actions it had promised as part of its complaint responses and was not able to demonstrate that it had monitored its agreed actions through to completion.
145. In summary, while the landlord’s offer of £250 went some way to acknowledge the inconvenience caused to, and time and trouble spent by, the resident as a result of its failures in handling the initial complaint, there were further delays between March and July 2021 in addressing the resident’s concerns which were likely to have caused inconvenience to her. In addition, there were failures by the landlord to demonstrate impartiality and it did not adequately address each aspect of the complaint. As such, the landlord is to award additional compensation as set out in the orders below.

Determination (decision)

146. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of:
     1. Repairs to the resident’s front door and back door following reports of water ingress, and adaptations needed.
     2. The resident’s reports of pests in her property.
     3. The resident’s concerns about trees near her property.
     4. The resident’s concerns about staff conduct, her request for her housing officer to be changed and communications with her.
     5. The associated complaints.
147. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of issues with her boiler.
148. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s request to be transferred to another property or for a downsize.

Reasons

149. It is not disputed that there were delays in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the resident’s doors. While the landlord’s apologies and compensation offer went some way to put right the inconvenience caused to the resident, the landlord failed to acknowledge that it had led the resident to believe that her door would be replaced in March 2020 and failed to adequately manage her expectations. In addition, there were several unexplained delays in its handling of the door handle replacement and evidence that the operatives who attended did not fully understand the job description or why the handle needed to be changed.
150. While the access issues were outside of the landlord’s control and likely to have delayed works being carried out to resolve the pest issues within the property, the landlord has not provided sufficient evidence of its attempts to resolve these or demonstrated that it had effectively monitored works through to completion. In addition, there was a significant delay in filling holes behind the resident’s boiler and the landlord failed to fully assess its handling of the resident’s reports within its complaint responses.
151. The landlord’s offer of compensation in relation to the delay in making right the tree repair is not considered proportionate given the additional failings identified in relation to the landlord’s record keeping, and its failure to keep her adequately updated or to manage her expectations on its garden maintenance role.
152. The landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns about her housing officer from the outset or acknowledge the inconvenience this was likely to have caused. In addition, the landlord’s records show that the resident needed to spend significant time and trouble pursuing the repair issues as the landlord failed to take sufficient steps to ensure she was proactively updated.
153. The landlord took steps to acknowledge and apologise for its complaint handling failures in relation to the initial complaint and its offer of £250 compensation went some way to redress what had gone wrong. However, it failed to address each aspect of the complaint within its subsequent responses and there were further delays in addressing the resident’s concerns between March and July 2021 which were likely to have caused inconvenience for the resident.
154. The landlord has not demonstrated that it adequately monitored works to the resident’s boiler which contributed to delays in the boiler being replaced. The landlord also failed to fully address its handling of the boiler repairs within its complaint responses to the resident despite having the opportunity to do so, which was likely to have caused inconvenience.
155. The landlord acted fairly by confirming its position in relation to the resident’s request to downsize from her property and for her daughter to be provided with a separate property. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence to confirm that OT had formally recommended that the resident was moved from the property due to her health conditions. The landlord’s offer to downsize the resident to a three bedroom property was not unreasonable in the circumstances.

Orders

156. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to:
     1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified within this report.
     2. Pay the resident £950 in recognition of the distress, inconvenience and time and trouble caused to her. This is comprised of:
        1. £200 in relation to the repairs to the resident’s front door and back door following reports of water ingress, and the adaptations needed.
        2. £100 in relation to its handling of her reports of pests.
        3. £200 in relation to the repairs to the resident’s boiler.
        4. £100 in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about trees near her property.
        5. £150 in relation to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct and communications with her.
        6. £200 in relation to the landlord’s handling of the complaints.
157. This is in addition to the landlord’s previous offer of £850 made within the complaint responses under consideration, and its additional offer of £150 on 29 July 2021 (as part of a separate stage 1 complaint response related to the ongoing issues).
158. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

159. It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to provide further clarity around its household members scheme and whether she and her daughter would be eligible for this. It should also confirm the resident’s other housing options should she wish to progress a transfer.
160. The landlord should consider carrying out staff training for complaint handlers to ensure that residents are informed where there is likely to be a delay in issuing a complaint response, that each aspect of a complaint is addressed, responses clearly detail where service failures have occurred and there are mechanisms in place to establish points of learning from the complaint.
161. The landlord should reply to this Service with its intentions in regard to the above recommendations within 4 weeks of this report.