Peabody Trust (202111103)

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202111103

Peabody Trust

29 November 2023

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration,’ for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
1. Outstanding ‘void’ repairs at the property (pre-occupancy).
2. Poor workmanship related to the installation of a new kitchen.
3. An unfulfilled subject access request (SAR).
4. Outstanding repairs at the property which it had assessed in March 2021.
This report also looks at the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
The resident took up occupation at the property in 2012. The landlord completed repair works (void works) at the property prior to the resident signing the tenancy agreement. The resident complained about the outstanding void repairs and the condition of the property in her complaint which was dated 3 September 2021.
Under Paragraph 42c of the Scheme the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not bought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable time which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising. As the complaint was made 9 years after the resident had taken up occupation at the property this element of the resident’s complaint is outside of the jurisdiction of this Service.
The resident raised a previous stage 1 complaint on 16 September 2017 about the workmanship related to the installation of a new kitchen. The landlord provided its complaint response to the resident on 3 October 2017. The landlord’s response advised the resident that she could escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied by responding to the landlord within 40 calendar days. This Service has not been provided with any evidence to confirm that the matter was escalated to stage 2 of the complaint procedure. The resident however has referred to these matters again in her stage 1 complaint of 3 September 2021.
Under Paragraph 42b of the Scheme the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention more than 12 months after they exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. The completion of the complaint procedure would include where an opportunity to escalate the matter had not been completed within the timescales that had been provided. Therefore this element of the resident’s complaint is outside of the jurisdiction of this Service.
The resident sent a SAR to the landlord on an undisclosed date in March 2021. The resident later complained that the landlord had not fulfilled the SAR in her stage 1 complaint on 3 September 2021. The landlord’s handling of SARs is overseen by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and as such this Service is not set up to consider information requests of this type.
Under Paragraph 42g of the Scheme the Ombudsman may not consider matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal, or procedure.
Consequently this Service considers the resident’s complaints about the landlord’s handling of void repairs, its workmanship related to the installation of a new kitchen in 2017 and its handling of a SAR to be outside the jurisdiction of the Housing Ombudsman. The resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to repairs at the property as well as its handling of the resident’s complaints is investigated below.

Background

The resident lives in a 2-bedroom, first-floor property that is owned and managed by the landlord. The property was let under starter tenancy agreement in 2012. The resident now holds an assured tenancy agreement.
The landlord does not record any vulnerabilities for the resident.
This Service asked the landlord to provide evidence related to this investigation to assist with the assessment and determination. However, the information it provided contained evidence of activity that occurred after its final stage 2 complaint response and is therefore beyond the scope of this investigation. It is, however, prudent for some elements of the additional evidence to be considered and referenced in the report; where it provides clarity on activity that is within the scope of this report. Where this occurs it is noted.

Relevant policies and procedures

The tenancy agreement says the landlord will keep the installations, services, fittings, fixtures, the structure, and outside of the property in good repair.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says it aims to complete routine repairs within one visit and within an average of 10 working days. However, some repairs may take longer to resolve, due to their complexity or specialist nature. Where this is the case, the landlord will inform customers of the timescales required to resolve the affected repairs and keep them informed throughout the repair process.
The landlord’s complaints policy says it operates a 2-stage complaint process and will always aim to resolve all complaints within 10 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy says if a resident experiences service failure as a result of its action or inaction it will put the matter right and apologise as quickly as possible. It may also offer compensation where it considers it is reasonable to do so. The policy also says that the landlord may offer residents a rebate of a proportion of their net rent if repairs or maintenance for which it is responsible result in a part of their home becoming unfit to live in or a loss of amenities.
The Housing Ombudsman complaint handling code (the Code) says:
1. A landlord must accept a complaint unless there is a valid reason not to do so.
2. Under paragraph 4.1, when a complaint is made, it must be acknowledged and logged at stage 1 of the complaints procedure within 5 days of receipt.
3. Under paragraph 5.1, landlords must respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days of the complaint being logged.
4. Under paragraph 5.3, landlords must respond to a stage 2 complaint within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated.
5. Under paragraphs 5.8 and 5.16, landlords must confirm the decision of the complaint in writing to the resident at the completion of stage 1 and 2 in clear plain language.
6. Under paragraph 5.14, if an extension beyond 10 working days is required to enable the landlord to respond to the complaint fully, this should be agreed by both parties.

Summary of events

It is not clear to this Service when the resident reported a list of outstanding repairs at the property, but the landlord called the resident on 26 March 2021 to set up an appointment to visit the resident’s property and assess the repairs. The landlord subsequently visited the property on 30 March 2021 and recorded a list of outstanding repairs. This Service has not been provided with a copy of the list of outstanding repairs.
The landlord attended the property on 9 April 2021 during which it approved the list of repairs it had previously made on 30 March 2022.
The landlord visited the property on 22 April 2021 to fit a door to the balcony. The resident asked if the door frame would also be repaired, but the contractor said he didn’t know anything about it. The contractor did not replace the door handle, the locks on the balcony door and left the catch in the frame. The contractor said that when he returned he would bring the front door numbers, address the pink wall paint, and gloss the rest of the door frame.
The landlord visited the resident’s property on 22 April 2021 to lay a kitchen floor. The resident said that the contractor left the kitchen floor unsealed, did not complete the repair properly, and left the kitchen in a substandard condition. The contractor also left the dishwasher in the middle of the kitchen and left the kitchen with the resident’s fridge freezer pulled out. The contractor said that he would finish the works when he was next booked in to return. The landlord also replaced the toilet but instead of replacing the metal pipe he used a plastic pipe which the resident said she thought was awful.
The landlord provided the resident with copies of electric, asbestos and gas safety reports on 22 April 2021. The gas report said that the gas check had been completed on 22 September 2020.
The landlord visited the property on 4 May 2021 during which it started to install sensor lights in the hallway and balcony. The landlord changed 2 of the lights but said it would have to return after speaking to a manager because there had been an undisclosed problem.
The landlord visited the property on 7 May 2021 and put up a fence, trimmed the trees and laid 4 new paving stones. The contractor said it would collect some wood it had left in her garden when it returned, but it did not return.
The resident emailed the landlord on 20 May 2021 to find out when the contractor would return to finish the repairs it had previously started. The landlord called the resident the next day to say it would investigate the outstanding repairs and call the resident back.
The resident called the landlord on 3 June 2021 to chase up the outstanding repairs. The landlord subsequently raised works orders to attend to the trees and the gate in the garden, complete electric repairs in the hallway, replace a ripped floor and the toilet cistern, repair a door and the guttering, and to remove pink paint. The landlord booked the repairs to be completed on 23 June 2021.
The resident submitted a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 3 September 2021: The resident said:
1. She had been told the front door required replacement but when an operative attended he had advised her that he had been booked to complete a window repair only.
2. When she had told the landlord’s inspector that she had a disabled son, and the door didn’t shut she had been told it wasn’t the landlord’s fault her son didn’t know how to shut a door properly and that she would have to deadlock the door like everybody else.
3. The door created a draught in the property and her energy bills were high.
4. The kitchen taps leaked which had caused water damage and she had had to pay a £100 insurance excess 3 times for claims she had had to make.
5. The landlord had told her that it had removed all asbestos in the property, but its contractors had subsequently said they would not repair the flooring under the kitchen cupboards or repair the lights in the kitchen because asbestos was present in the property.
6. The kitchen floor remained unsealed.
7. The garden gate was broken, and the fences were old and some of the wood was missing.
8. The landlord had said it would trim the trees annually and she would have to maintain the grass.
9. She had spent £1000 on the maintenance of the trees because the landlord sent her a letter 2 weeks after she had moved into the property telling her she had to maintain the trees or else she would be fined £250.
10. There was a hole in the bath.
11. The contractors had described the bathroom window sills and the sink as ‘the original’ yet the landlord had told her she would not receive a new bathroom because it had not long been done.
12. There were electric faults in the property that the contractors had not repaired properly, and the fuses blew regularly.
13. The decorations she has completed in the property had been made more difficult by poor or incomplete repair works by the landlord.
14. The guttering had not been fixed.
15. The resident said she would like:
  1. The landlord to provide confirmation in writing that the gas, electrics, and asbestos in the property were safe.
  2. Two external doors to be replaced because they were not secure.
  3. A replacement bathroom with a shower.
  4. A kitchen floor replacement which was properly sealed and did not cause leaks to the property below.
  5. Compensation for the money she had spent replacing things, repairing things, maintaining things and redecorating, despite her view that this was the landlord’s duty.
  6. Staff training so that staff would speak to residents in a respectful, non-derogatory manner.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 3 September 2021 and advised her that a response would be provided within 10 working days.
The landlord sent a stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 27 September 2021. The landlord said that it was sorry the resident had been unhappy with the way the complaint had been handled. The landlord also said:
1. It was pleased to hear that the repair works had been completed.
2. It had previously agreed to review the resident’s request for compensation when the works had been completed.
3. It would provide £440 compensation to the resident which it broke down as 2 weeks’ rent reimbursement at £119.41 x2 = £238.82 and £200 for stress and inconvenience the repair works caused the resident.
4. If there were any works that she remained unhappy with she should contact a named member of staff directly.
5. That the resident could escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the complaint procedure within 21 days, but it did not say if the complaint had been upheld.
The resident sent a stage 2 complaint escalation request to the landlord on 27 September 2021. The resident attached photographs and a statement that she had previously emailed to this Service to her email. The resident said she wished to escalate her complaint because:
1. The repairs were far from complete and were uncoordinated.
2. The quality of the workmanship was poor, and the contractor’s understanding of the required repair works when it was asked questions was unclear.
3. The attitude of the contractors was dismissive and unhelpful.
4. The resident disputed that the gas safety check dated 22 September 2020 had been completed on that date because people were shielding and that she had not had a gas safety check since 2017.
5. The resident disputed the electric certificate because she said the landlord had left the front of the switch which had been considered dangerous.
6. The resident had asked the landlord to complete new health and safety certificates and had been advised that the landlord could only provide what certificates had already been completed.
7. She had been due a new bathroom and that bathroom paint had been flaking into the bath.
8. The landlord did not return to trim the trees or collect wood it had left in her garden as it had promised.
9. Items of furniture and white goods had been left in different parts of the property because the contractor said it would return to complete the repairs, but it did not tell the resident when it would return.
10. The compensation offer was not sufficient for what she had been through during the previous 9 years.
11. The repairs that had been booked for 23 June 2021 had been left incomplete.
12. The resident would have to redecorate the property again because the contractor had messed up the wallpaper around the door.
The landlord sent an internal email on 5 October 2021 that said the resident had contacted it and advised that there were several repairs outstanding. The landlord suggested that a member of staff should contact her and to ensure that the repairs were raised and carried out so as to help resolve the complaint.
The resident sent a text to the landlord on 6 October 2021 which listed a number of outstanding repairs. The landlord replied on the same day to say it would book repairs to address:
1. Tree maintenance, the removal of wood, and a gate repair in the garden.
2. Faulty door frames which included the filling of holes, gloss paintwork and door numbering.
3. Boxing in a toilet pipe and repairing the cistern in the bathroom.
4. Guttering repairs.
5. Electrics in the hallway.
6. The balcony.
7. A kitchen sideboard which had been chipped and was misaligned.
8. The removal of pink paint.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 1 November 2021 which said that she had spoken to this Service and wished to request a final response to her stage 2 escalation. The resident said:
1. That she should have received a final complaint response within 20 days of her escalation request which she had sent on 27 September 2021.
2. She had not received information about the bathroom repairs but had been told someone would get back to her.
3. She would like the stage 2 complaint response to be provided as soon as possible.
The resident confirmed during a text that she sent to the landlord on 1 November 2021 that various repair jobs had been booked but that she had been unsure whether it would fit a shower over the new bath. The contractor replied to say he would find out from the landlord.
The landlord sent an internal email on 2 November 2021 that said that the email it had received from the resident the day before was the first time it had been aware that the resident wished to escalate her complaint. The landlord confirmed that the complaint had not been added to the tracker.
The resident texted the landlord’s contractor on 5 January 2022 to invite him to look at the work the contractors had completed and to make a plan. The contractor replied to say he was unwell but could visit when he had recovered.
The resident texted the landlord’s contractor on 14 January 2022 to invite him to look at the property. The contractor suggested that he would visit on 19 January 2022 but would confirm the date again 2 days before.
The resident texted the landlord’s contractor on 19 January 2022 to see if he was visiting the property the same day. The contractor replied to say that he had meant 25 January 2022 and confirmed that he would attend between 10am and 11am.
The resident texted the landlord’s contractor on 25 January 2022 to ask what time he would visit. The contractor replied to say that he had broken down and could not attend but would visit on 28 January 2022.
The landlord’s contractor texted the resident on 28 January 2022 to say that he could not attend the appointment because he had a fire at home. The contractor said that he would attend the property on 1 February 2022 instead.
The resident texted the landlord’s contractor on 22 February 2022 to ask if he had discussed the bathroom with the landlord. The contractor did not reply to the resident.
The resident texted the landlord’s contractor on 28 February 2022 to ask for an update. The contractor did not reply to the resident.
The landlord sent an email to the resident on 5 April 2022 to thank the resident for her time that day during which it had discussed her reasons for making a stage 2 complaint. The landlord said that it would provide her with the contact of the stage 2 reviewing manager in a future email. The landlord asked her to provide any communication, correspondence, pictures, or videos that she felt were necessary.
The landlord emailed this Service on 19 April 2022 to say that the person it had assigned the stage 2 complaint to was unable to provide the stage 2 complaint response and so the case had been reallocated. The landlord explained that it would work to a tighter timescale and that it would provide a stage 2 complaint response in due course.
The landlord held a conversation with the resident about her stage 2 complaint on 27 April 2022. The resident restated her concerns and said she would like £60million compensation.
The landlord sent a stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 4 May 2022. The letter was dated 3 May 2022 and provided a background to the complaint which said it had failed to uphold verbal agreements it had made to:
1. Remove pink paint from the property.
2. Replace the glass in a window.
3. Replace a lock that had been damaged prior to her moving in.
4. Replace the bathroom at the same time as the kitchen.
5. Maintain trees annually as it had previously said it would.
6. Provide a garden that had been free of overgrown trees and shrubs and the previous resident’s property.
7. Provide a second opinion about the electric and asbestos certificates.
The stage 2 complaint response summarised the resident’s reasons for the complaint escalation which it had recorded during a phone call it held with the resident on 27 April 2022. The resident said she would like:
1. A new asbestos check and certificate.
2. A new electric check and certificate.
3. The replacement of 2 external doors, including frames.
4. A replacement bathroom and a separate shower.
5. A kitchen floor replacement which was sealed.
6. Reimbursement.
7. A repair to a leaking gutter.
8. Training for staff.
9. £60m compensation.
The landlord apologised to the resident for the repair delays and for the resident’s experiences with the landlord and its contractors in the stage 2 complaint. It also said that it had failed to uphold section 3 of the tenancy agreement; to repair the structure and exterior of the property. The landlord provided an offer to the resident which said it would:
1. Complete new asbestos and electric safety checks and provide the resident with safety certificates.
2. Replace 2 external doors.
3. Provide a date for the bathroom to be replaced before 31 May 2022.
4. Provide advice about whether a separate shower would be installed as part of the bathroom replacement.
5. Replace and seal the kitchen floor.
6. Repair the leaking gutter.
7. Provide compensation of £677.63 which was broken down as:

(1) £427.64 to cover 4 weeks rent.

(2) £200 for distress and inconvenience

(3) £50 for right to repair.

The landlord concluded its stage 2 complaint response by saying:
1. The business will provide customers with a copy of the void inspection that was completed after they move in.
2. There should be a written agreement between the customer and the landlord about what repairs works it would completed post-occupation.
3. Customer service colleagues would be retrained in customer kindness and empathy.
4. Its response concluded stage 2 of its internal complaints procedure.
5. The resident could contact this Service if she remained dissatisfied, but it did not say if it upheld the complaint.
This Service advised the landlord that the resident’s complaint had been accepted for investigation on 28 June 2022.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs at the property which it had assessed in March 2021.

The landlord attended the resident’s property on 30 March 2021 to complete an inspection of the property and draw up a list of outstanding repairs. The landlord reattended the property again 8 working days later to verify and approve the repair list. It is not clear to this Service why the landlord completed 2 inspections at the property to ascertain the extent of the repairs required. This caused unnecessary time and trouble to the resident.
The landlord’s repairs policy says that it aims to complete routine repairs within one visit which it aims to deliver within an average of 10 working days. The landlord booked an appointment to repair the balcony door and the kitchen floor on 22 April 2021. The landlord also provided the resident with copies of safety certificates on the same day. The appointment was booked within 10 days of the landlord approving the repairs which was appropriate and in line with its policy timescale.
The landlord booked appointments for some of the additional routine repairs it had identified in May 2021 which were outside of its 10-day policy timescale. It is not clear why these repairs were not scheduled within the policy timescales, especially given the landlord had already made access arrangements with the resident for separate repairs to be completed within 10 days. This was inappropriate and caused the resident inconvenience, time, and trouble in providing the landlord with access to the property at a later date.
The resident complained about the quality of the repairs and the contractors’ workmanship in her stage 1 complaint in which she said that the repairs had not been completed to an acceptable standard and/or were incomplete. It was inappropriate for the landlord not to have completed the repairs it was responsible for, and for it not to have explained to the resident why it had been required to leave the work incomplete and/or when it would return to finish the work. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to rebuild the resident’s confidence in its repairs service. Furthermore it exacerbated the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in pursuing repairs the landlord was responsible for.
The landlord referred to the repairs as complete in its stage 1 complaint response, despite recognising in its later stage 2 response that the repairs were outstanding. It was inappropriate for the landlord to have provided incorrect information to the resident which suggested that it did not reasonably consider the extent and nature of the resident’s concerns. The landlord’s complaint handling is addressed later in this report. Notwithstanding the incorrect assessment of the status of the repairs delayed them further which would have aggravated the detriment that had already been caused to the resident. Furthermore, it increased the inconvenience, time and trouble pursuing the repairs caused the resident.
It is evident from the resident’s complaints and emails that the landlord’s handling of the repairs was uncoordinated and that many of the contractors did not know the full extent of the works they had been appointed to complete. Given the landlord had inspected the property to assess the full extent of works required, it was inappropriate for the landlord not to have prepared and shared a repair schedule with its appointed contractors so as to complete the works in a coordinated and joined-up way. This resulted in the resident being provided with a poor level of communication about the completion of the repairs. Furthermore, it resulted in the resident having to repeatedly contact the landlord to report and coordinate the repair appointments it was aware of and responsible for which was unreasonable.
The landlord indicated on 5 October 2021 that it was aware that there remained a number of outstanding repairs at the property. The landlord obtained a detailed list of the outstanding repairs from the resident the following day. However, it is not clear to this Service why the landlord did not subsequently complete the repairs within its policy timescales, especially considering many of them had been reported and started in previous months. This was inappropriate and resulted in the resident once again having to chase the landlord for information and timescales for the completion of repairs for which it was responsible.
Throughout its handling of the repairs the landlord was expected to have provided a reasonable level of customer care towards the resident. It could have achieved this by programming and completing the repairs within appropriate timescales and communicating appointment dates, times and/or any variation to the repairs required clearly with her. Instead the landlord relied on the time and effort taken by the resident in pursuing information about the status of the outstanding repairs herself. This Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord communicated with the resident in line with its repairs policy so as to set out the repairs it intended to complete and when and how it would complete them, and this was inappropriate.
During January and February 2022 the landlord missed 4 appointments that it had agreed with the resident via WhatsApp messages. This was unreasonable and caused time and trouble to the resident who had made herself available on the agreed dates. Furthermore it also caused her time and trouble in subsequently chasing the contractor for information and/or agreeing new appointments. The landlord failed to recognise the detriment the missed appointments had caused to the resident when it later reviewed its handling of the outstanding repairs, such as by offering a compensation payment in line with its compensation procedures. This was a further missed opportunity for the landlord to demonstrate empathy towards the resident for the detriment its service failures had caused. An award of compensation for the missed appointments is therefore made below.
The resident indicated that the contractors approach towards her when completing repairs was inappropriate. The resident referred explicitly to this in her stage 1 complaint in which she described the manner a contractor had referred to her son’s disability. She also asked for staff training to be provided so that staff would speak to residents in a respectful non-derogatory manner. The resident referred to the attitude of the contractors again in her stage 2 complaint in which she provided examples where the contractors had been dismissive or helpful towards her. The landlord was expected to ensure that its contractors upheld an appropriate level of customer care when completing repairs or communicating with the resident on its behalf. The landlord apologised for the way the resident’s experiences with its representatives and contractors had disappointed her. Furthermore it advised that it would retrain staff in customer kindness and empathy, which was a reasonable response
When there are acknowledged failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress, which included an apology, an offer of compensation and staff training was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles; be fair, to put things right and to learn from outcomes. The landlord offered the resident £200 compensation for stress and inconvenience, £50 for right to repair in addition to the reimbursement of 4 weeks’ rent. The landlord did not provide any explanation as to why it had decided that a sum equal to 4 weeks’ rent was appropriate. Given that the landlord had identified the outstanding repairs in March 2021 and had not completed them in May 2022, over a year later, and the other failings identified above, the sum of £677.63 was not proportionate to the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble incurred by the resident..
The Service has been made aware that since the landlord provided its final stage 2 complaint response the landlord has not completed the full extent of the repairs that it had agreed to. Furthermore the resident has since advised that some of the repairs once again did not meet an appropriate standard of workmanship. Therefore an order relating to the inspection and maintenance of the property is made below.
Taking all matters into account this Service finds maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs that it had assessed in March 2021.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaints

There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints as the landlord:
1. Issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident 6 working days later than its policy timescale of 10 working days.
2. Did not agree an extension of time with the resident or issue her with a holding response to inform her about the delay.
3. Incorrectly said that it had completed the outstanding repairs in the property in its stage 1 response. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have listed which repairs it considered had been completed for clarity.
4. Did not register or accept the resident’s stage 2 complaint of 27 September 2021 until this Service asked it to on 18 March 2022.
5. Did not provide a stage 2 complaint response to the resident on or before 4 April 2022, as had been requested by this Service.
6. Sent a stage 2 acknowledgment to the resident on 5 April 2022, which was the day after the landlord was expected to have provided a stage 2 complaint response.
7. Reassigned the stage 2 complaint to a different member of staff on 19 April 2022, the date on which the response was due, because the person it had been assigned to could not complete the stage 2 review. This extended the response date further and the landlord did not provide a new response date to the resident.
8. Provided a stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 4 May 2022 which was 158 working days later than the landlord’s policy target of 10 working days and 148 working days later than the timescale set out in the Code.
9. Did not say if the stage 1, or stage 2 complaints had been upheld.
When a landlord is at fault it need to put things right by acknowledging its mistakes and apologising for them, explaining why things went wrong and what the landlord will do to prevent the same mistake happening again. It is evident that the landlord provided an apology for its service failures and set out that it had learned from the outcomes. It also provided compensation to the resident for its repairs handling failures. However, the landlord did not review its own complaint handling in its response to the resident and therefore did not consider that its complaints handling, in addition to its handling of repairs had also caused detriment to the resident. Therefore an additional award of compensation is made below in recognition of the inconvenience, time, and trouble the landlord’s complaint handling caused the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to outstanding repairs at the property which it had assessed in March 2021.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints.

Reasons

The landlord did not complete repairs it had identified as outstanding in a coordinated way and in line with its policy timescales. The landlord listed repairs it had not completed in its stage 2 complaint response which was dated 13 months after its initial assessment had been completed. Furthermore the landlord did not communicate with the resident appropriately which caused her to incur distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble.
The landlord failed to comply with its own complaints policy and the Code during its handling of the resident’s complaint. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints caused unnecessary time and trouble to the resident who experienced delays in receiving appropriate responses from the landlord.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for its failings in managing the various repairs and for its complaint handling failures. This is to be provided in writing within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
In addition to any compensation offered previously and within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £400 in compensation made up as follows:
1. £100 for time, trouble, and inconvenience incurred by the resident associated with the completion of outstanding repairs at the resident’s property.
2. £100 for 4 missed appointments the landlord had arranged with the resident during January and February 2021.
3. £200 for time and trouble caused to the resident related to the landlord’s complaint handling failures.

The compensation is to be paid direct to the resident and not offset against any money that the resident may owe the landlord.

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to inspect the property to assess if any outstanding repairs are required. If works are required the landlord should send the resident and this Service details of the works, together with a timetable for the works to be carried out within 2 weeks of inspecting the property.