Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

One Manchester Limited (202125957)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202125957

One Manchester Limited

20 September 2022


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 Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about its paving slab repairs to the front and rear of his property.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord of an end terrace house on the corner of a main junction.
  2. On 29 June 2021, the resident reported damaged paving slabs at the front and rear of the property to the landlord, as he was concerned that these were a potential trip hazard. It attended this for a visual inspection on 13 July 2021, identified outstanding paving slab works to lift and re–bed these, and booked follow-on works to take place after it made an appointment for these after clearing its backlog of other works.
  3. After receiving no further contact from the landlord, the resident raised a stage one complaint on 10 September 2021 about the lack of works and the delay in scheduling them that he sought an apology and new paving for. This was after he had found that the repairs had not yet been assigned by it, and that the next available date for them was 1 November 2021.
  4. The resident further chased his complaint on 15, 17 and 20 September 2021, including to seek this completed as an emergency repair, and the landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 7 October 2021. It offered an apology and £50 gesture of goodwill payment as a result of its failings to book the repairs when notified and delaying its response. The landlord highlighted that it had a backlog of repairs following the Covid-19 pandemic lockdown, but that it would continue to monitor its bookings should it have an earlier appointment after receiving cancellations, and that it would continue to work to improve its service concerning booking on follow-on works for its residents.
  5. On 1 November 2021, however, the landlord contacted the resident to advise that it was unable to complete the repairs on that date due to poor weather, and that it required a 24-hour drying period before the flagging works to the flagstone slabs could take place. It booked the works for its next available appointment on 1 December 2021.
  6. The resident therefore escalated his complaint because he felt that he had waited too long for the paving slab repairs, including due to poor weather, and the landlord issued its final stage complaint response to him on 6 December 2021. It accepted that it should have logged the repair when he had reported this and that he had to chase it for updates due to its poor and untimely communication.
  7. The landlord therefore offered to repave the paving slabs at the front and rear of the property due to the delays in the resident’s repairs, and it rebooked the works to 9 and 10 December 2021, as its last appointment was postponed due to poor weather. Its repair logs stated that all outstanding repairs were then completed to re-lay the front and rear paving on 7 and 10 December 2021, respectively. On 24 February 2022, the resident nevertheless contacted the landlord to state that he was dissatisfied with the outcome of the complaint and that the paving works remained outstanding.
  8. The resident then complained to this Service, stating that the paving slab repair issues had affected his and his family’s mental health and wellbeing, as he felt that he was living in an unsafe property. He wished for the landlord to transfer him and his family to a safer property, and he looked for it and his local authority to improve the safety of his property and the main junction nearby in the meantime. Although the landlord’s records showed that it had previously visited the resident “just before Christmas” 2021 to discuss this, and that he had sought for it to repave his whole garden to make this more secure, which it had declined as it had found no outstanding repairs to this.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has explained that the landlord’s failure to address the safety of the property has impacted on his and his family’s health. However, the Ombudsman cannot determine the cause of or liability for impacts on health and wellbeing or award damages for these in the way that the courts or an insurer might. This is because we do not have the authority or expertise necessary to make the legally binding judgements that are necessary to do so. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
  2. The resident has also expressed his concerns regarding the safety of his property being an end terrace house off a main junction, and he has requested a transfer to another property. However, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service is unable to investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman. As complaints relating to applications for rehousing for reasons including property conditions made to local authorities or landlords acting on their behalf, and about local authorities’ enforcement of road and property safety legislation, fall properly within the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, these have not been considered in this investigation.

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is responsible for repairing the exterior of the property, including pathways, steps or other means of access. It considers that appointable repairs, where the nature of the repair does not cause or have the potential to cause immediate danger to a person or serious damage to a property, should be aimed to be completed within 20 working days. 
  2. The landlord’s compensation policy suggests that discretionary compensation payments be made by it of up to £100 to recognise residents’ time, trouble, inconvenience and distress, for a failure in its service that has not resulted in a high impact or taken high effort to resolve.

Paving slab repairs

  1. In accordance with the landlord’s repairs policy, it is responsible for repairing the paving slabs outside the property. It was therefore reasonable to expect that, when the resident reported to it that the paving slabs were damaged on 29 June 2021, it should have completed any necessary repairs to these within 20 working days, i.e. by 27 July 2021. This is because, while he had reported the paving slabs as a potential trip hazard, there is no evidence that this would have caused or had the potential to cause immediate danger to a person, and therefore this was an appointable and not an emergency repair under the policy, despite his request for the latter.
  2. In this case, it is not disputed that there were delays in completing the necessary repairs. While the landlord did attend within its repairs policy’s timeframe of 20 working days on 29 June 2021, by carrying out a visual inspection on 13 July 2021, the agreed repair works were subsequently not completed until 10 December 2021, resulting in an unreasonably lengthy 97-working–day delay.
  3. The landlord acknowledged that some of the repair delays were beyond its control, such as having a backlog of repairs due to the Covid-19 pandemic lockdown and having to reschedule works as a result of poor weather. It was nevertheless expected to communicate any such delays and provide clear next steps and expectations to the resident in a timely manner. This was not provided by the landlord in this case, however, with him instead having to chase it for such updates on 10, 15, 17 and 20 September 2021.
  4. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord looked to compensate the resident for its failure to book the appointable paving slab repairs on time. At stage one of its complaints procedure, it offered him £50 compensation in accordance with its compensation policy’s recommendation for it to recognise his subsequent time, trouble, inconvenience and distress not resulting in a high impact or taking high effort to resolve.
  5. The landlord also outlined further improvements that it had identified by working towards improving its service concerning booking follow-on repairs following future incidents. At the final stage of its complaints procedure, it additionally offered to repave the resident’s broken paving slabs at both the front and rear of his property, despite its obligation from its repairs policy for it to only repair these in the first instance, as it acknowledged that he had experienced lengthy repair delays from it.
  6. This was an offer of reasonable redress to the resident, as the landlord had followed its compensation policy by offering him £50 compensation for its repair delays and its poor and untimely communication about this, which was within the range of compensation recommended by the policy. Moreover, it was not required to increase this by the policy, as many of the delays were beyond its control due to the Covid-19 pandemic and poor weather, and it sought to put things right by repaving instead of only repairing his paving slabs. The award is also in line with this Service’s remedies guidance, where compensation from £50 for identified failures resulting in distress, inconvenience, time, trouble and delays in resolving the repair is recommended.
  7. The resident additionally expressed concerns over the length of the paving slab repair and the dependency on good weather. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord contacted him on 1 November 2021, to inform him that the repair would be weather–reliant, due to the requirement for a 24-hour drying period prior to any follow-on works being carried out for this. Although the resident disputed this, it acted appropriately because it was reasonable for it to rely on its appropriately qualified staff and contractors. In this case, the resulting further delays to the repairs were outside of the landlord’s control due to poor weather conditions.
  8. It would have been preferable for the landlord to have referred the resident’s request for an emergency paving slab repair back to its repairs policy, where such an appointable repair without evidence of actual or potential immediate danger would not have been classed as an emergency. However, its failure to do so did not change the outcome of his complaint, as it appropriately booked its next available appointable repairs on 7 and 10 December 2021, and it explained why it was unable to complete the repairs sooner in November and December 2021 due to poor weather.
  9. The resident also expressed concerns that the paving slab repairs remained outstanding on 24 February 2022 both to this Service and to the landlord. It nevertheless attended the property “just before Christmas” 2021 to discuss the repairs with him. The landlord found that the resident was dissatisfied because he wanted it to repave the entire front and rear gardens of the property, and not just the paving slabs, in order to make this more secure.
  10. The landlord therefore acted in accordance with its repairs policy by declining this, because the policy only obliged it to repair the resident’s paving slabs and not to repave his entire front and rear gardens. It would nevertheless have been preferable for it to have kept more detailed records of its discussion with him about this, and of its inspection of the condition of his post-work paving slabs and gardens.
  11. When there is a disagreement in the accounts of the resident and the landlord with regard to the condition of the property, the onus is on it to provide documentary evidence showing how it confirmed that the repair had been completed to a satisfactory standard, e.g. through a post–work inspection report. As this was not provided in this case, albeit not affecting the outcome of his complaint as it had shown that it had repaved the paving slabs and that he was seeking additional works that it was not required to carry out, the Ombudsman has made the below recommendation for training on more detailed record keeping by it.
  12. To conclude, while the matter was distressing for the resident, the landlord went beyond its repairs policy’s obligations to repave instead of just repair his paving slabs. It also identified and addressed its repair delay and communication failings with compensation and booking improvements for follow-on works, despite it not being responsible for all of the delays. Therefore, the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress to the resident, and has received the below recommendations to help manage residents’ expectations when booking follow–on works.  

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its handling of his reports about its paving slab repairs to the front and rear of his property satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Clearly sets out its obligations and published timescales when booking follow–on repairs, in order to ensure that all residents are aware of the works, timescales and obligations of both parties when conducting follow-on works, to seek to avoid a recurrence of the above issue in future cases.
    2. Reviews its staff’s training needs regarding keeping detailed, comprehensive and accurate records in relation to follow-on works after its repairs. This is in order to ensure that any future disputes about the condition of a repair can be resolved. This should include a clear audit trail for these, which provides details of time, date of attendance, what was said, what the agreed next steps, timescales and expectations were, the contents and outcomes of post-work inspection reports, and what actions subsequently took place.