Sanctuary Housing Association (202107616)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202107616

Sanctuary Housing Association

21 December 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 handling of:
1. Repair issues reported by the resident in May and July 2021.
2. The resident’s request for reimbursement for repairs she completed.
3. The related complaint.
4. The resident’s request for decoration vouchers offered in 2006 and 2010, and concerns about damage left by a previous tenant.
5. A hot water issue in April 2023.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.

The resident’s request for decoration vouchers previously offered and concerns about damage caused by a previous tenant

The resident complained that the landlord had not provided decoration vouchers offered to her in 2006 and 2010, and about damage left by a previous resident in 2006. These concerns were raised in complaints to the landlord in July 2021, September 2021 and October 2021. However, the landlord declined to investigate the matter owing to the passage of time. While it is acknowledged this would have been disappointing for the resident, it would have been reasonable for those concerns to have been raised within a reasonable time of the matters arising.
Paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. This would normally be within 6 months of the matter arising. As such, after carefully considering all of the evidence, this complaint falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

The hot water issue in April 2023

The resident said the landlord had failed to resolve an issue with her hot water in April 2023. She said she incurred costs of £140 resolving the matter herself. While the resident has raised previous concerns about her hot water and heating with the landlord, the available evidence does not show that resident has fully exhausted the landlord’s complaints process in relation to the incident in April 2023.
Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to exhausting the member’s complaints procedure. This is unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable time.
As such, the Ombudsman has not considered the resident’s concerns about this issue as part of this investigation. If the resident remains unhappy about the matter, she may wish to raise a new complaint with the landlord. Should the resident remain unhappy after having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure, she may refer the matter back to the Ombudsman as a new complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord which began in 2006. The property is a 3-bedroom terrace house. The resident lives in the property with her husband and 2 children.
The resident’s son acted as her representative in making this complaint. The resident’s representative told this service that members of his family have health vulnerabilities. He said the resident’s husband has heart problems, and the resident’s daughter has autism and anxiety issues. The resident’s representative said the resident has obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD).
The landlord has noted vulnerabilities for the resident’s family including the resident’s daughter’s autism and the resident’s husband’s heart problems. However, the landlord was unclear about whether the resident had vulnerabilities.
The resident’s tenancy agreement sets out that the landlord will keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the property. This includes:
1. The roof, drains and gutters.
2. Internal walls, floors and ceilings and door furniture (not including decoration).
3. Boundary walls and fences.
The tenancy agreement also states the landlord will keep in good repair and proper working order any installations provided for space heating, water heating and sanitation.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance procedure dated 4 January 2020 says that:
1. Emergency repairs, such as problems with water or electricity, will be made safe in 24 hours. The landlord should then arrange another visit to fully complete the repair.
2. Appointed repairs, which are not emergency, will be carried out within 28 days.
3. Planned repairs, where there is no health and safety risk and the required work does not disrupt the resident’s quality of life, may take longer than 28 days.
The landlord’s complaints procedure says it aims to provide a stage 1 complaint resolution within 10 working days. It aims to provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation guidance says that:
1. Payments of up to £400 can be made in recognition of time, trouble and inconvenience of a service failure. It sets out a scale of payment of between £151 and £400 where there has been high effort/impact.
2. A separate payment of up to £150 that can be made in recognition of poor complaint handling.
3. Financial compensation may also be considered.

Summary of events

Repair records show that the landlord attended reports of hot water issues at the resident’s property in February 2021. Following this, new immersion heating elements were fitted in March 2021. In May 2021 the resident reported further issues with the immersion heating. She said there was no hot water, and the boost function was not working. On 5 May 2021 the resident told the landlord the contractor had attended to complete repairs to the immersion but had not resolved the issue with the hot water.
On 13 May 2021 the resident’s husband contacted the landlord by telephone. He said the property was in a state of disrepair and that work had been completed to neighbouring properties but not their own. At this time the landlord raised a notification for an inspector to attend the property.
Also on 13 May 2021 the landlord noted it had spoken to the electrician who had fitted new thermostat at the property. The landlord recorded that water was heating but not staying hot for long and that a new element was needed. A work order was raised for this on 18 May 2021.
On 26 May 2021 a surveyor for the landlord attended the property. At this time the surveyor requested an urgent order be raised for an electrician to check the hot water cylinder at the property. The surveyor noted the resident was without hot water. The landlord stated in internal correspondence that it was aware of the issue and an operative was to attend that day. The resident has informed this service that the main heating element was replaced by a contractor that day, but the backup element, which was burnt out, was not replaced. The landlord’s repair records indicate that the ‘bottom element was replaced’.
The surveyor noted at this time that the following work was to be carried out to the property:
1. Check all heaters and replace bathroom heater.
2. Service the extractor fans.
3. Mould treat and repair artex ceilings in bedrooms and the bathroom.
4. Repair plaster behind the downstairs toilet.
5. Check loft insulation.
The landlord recorded on 2 June 2021 that an electrician had attended the property and had found no fault with the water cylinder. The electrician had noted an element had been replaced on a previous visit and that, while the resident was unhappy, water was heating up to temperature.
On 23 June 2021 the landlord took samples for asbestos checks required. On 1 July 2021 the surveyor noted the asbestos report was needed prior to completing work to the property. She also noted the resident said the heating was too expensive to run and that there was black mould in the bathroom.
On 27 July 2021 the resident complained to the landlord. She referred to an inspection of the property completed which had identified a number of issues. The resident listed issues with the property:
1. Night storage heaters that were “outdated and expensive”.
2. Leaking downstairs toilet that was at risk of damaging a newly repaired floor.
3. Bathroom with damp and flooring that was a “trip hazard”.
4. Garden fence that was falling down.
5. Ceilings in every room had water damage and possible asbestos.
6. Damage to the wall in the second bedroom which had not been fixed prior to tenancy beginning.
7. An immersion heater which had not operated properly since February 2021.
8. Flooring issues in the hallway.
9. Issues with joists and a bedroom wall.
The resident said that 8 weeks had gone by, and no action had been taken about the repairs. She said this was “hugely detrimental”, both to her family’s health and financially.
The landlord received the asbestos survey on 8 August 2021, which showed no asbestos had been detected. On 10 August 2021 the landlord told the resident it had received the asbestos report and it was now waiting for works to be raised.
On 11 August 2021 the landlord raised another request for an inspection of the property noting that some of the issues raised in the complaint had not been covered during the first inspection. The landlord sent an email to the resident on 18 August 2021 to confirm this.
On 23 August 2021 the landlord’s surveyor completed a further inspection. She noted:
1. The resident said the hot water cylinder was not working properly.
2. Work was needed to stain block ceilings in lounge, hall and kitchen.
3. Repairs were needed to rectify nail holes in the ceiling. She noted the walls had a small area of damage which could be decorated by the resident.
4. Mould in bathroom needed to be cleaned off and treated and artex was flaking from the ceiling.
5. The bathroom flooring had come unstuck in places and new flooring was needed.
6. A section of floorboards in the hallway needed to be replaced.
7. Fencing in garden needed to be replaced.
On 2 and 9 September 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to query whether any work had been raised following the then recent inspection. She said it continued to affect the health and well-being of herself and her daughter, who was autistic. The landlord advised the resident that it could not see any work orders had been raised.
On 22 September 2021 the landlord raised a work order to inspect the hot water cylinder and heating system at the resident’s property. It subsequently noted a contractor had attended on 23 September 2021 and had found the system was working as it should be.
On 6 October 2021 the resident sent an email to the landlord. She said the contractor had attended but had failed to rectify the issue with the hot water cylinder. She said the contractor “made excuses” and did nothing to fix the issues. She questioned again the progress of the repairs which she said the landlord continued to “drag out”. She said there seemed to be a “lack of desire” from the landlord to complete repairs.
On 7 October 2021 the landlord raised a work order for the following work:
1. Stain block and paint ceilings.
2. Replace rotten boxing behind toilet.
3. Replace flooring in the bathroom.
4. Remove nail holes in the ceiling.
5. Replace section of floorboards in the hallway
The landlord sent an email to the resident on 8 October 2021 to say that work had been booked to be completed between 9 and 11 November 2021. It also said it was arranging for a contractor to reattend to fix the issue with the hot water cylinder.
On 8 October 2021 the landlord sent an internal email. It said the resident’s husband had requested that a specific operative not be assigned to any of the work. He said he had not been happy with the standard of work of this operative in the past. The landlord told the resident’s husband that dates for the work may need to be changed because of this.
On 11 October 2021 the resident sent an email to the landlord querying the extent of work to be completed. She said repairs needed were “greatly affecting” her family. She said repairs needed to one of the bedrooms to provide a “safe and healthy” space for her autistic daughter.
On 12 October 2021 the landlord sent an email to the resident. It said it had spoken to the contractor who checked the heating and hot water system. It said it was working as it should be. The landlord said the contractor had advised the issue was with the expense running heating/hot water. It told the resident that an electrician had been booked to check the electricity board at the property. The landlord also said that issues relating to the ceilings and damp works had been raised as part of the work starting on 9 November 2021.
The resident responded to the landlord the same day. She disputed the conclusion that the heating and hot water system was running as it should be. She said the problem was not with the electrics, it was because the tank was outdated and inefficient. She declined an appointment the landlord had booked to check of the electricity board. The resident said the other outstanding work demonstrated the landlord did “not care one bit about bringing the WHOLE house up to standard”. She said the matter was having an impact on the mental health and well being of all of her family.
On 14 October 2021 the landlord raised a work order for a full boundary fence replacement at the property.
On 19 October 2021 the landlord told the resident it had referred the issue of the hot water cylinder to its surveyor to consider.
The landlord contacted the resident on 4 November 2021 to rebook the work planned to start on 9 November 2021. It said this was due to long-term operative sickness. Later the landlord set out in an internal email that it would now send outstanding work to an external contractor.
On 15 November 2021 the landlord sent an email to the resident. It said its surveyor had suggested the resident check with her electricity supplier if her bills were higher than average. The landlord said if that were the case it would then need an electrician to check the system.
The resident responded to the landlord the following day. She said the electrics were fine and the issue was that the heater only worked on high, which caused excessive usage. The resident said the heating and hot water system had been “condemned” by the surveyor who attended the property in May 2021. The landlord responded on 21 November 2021. It said it had sent the resident’s comments about the heating and hot water system to the surveyor to advise on the next steps.
During November 2021 the resident obtained quotes to replace storage heaters in the hall and living room and elements in the water heater at the property. She later arranged for this work to be completed at the end of November 2021.
On 21 November 2021 the landlord sent an email to an external contractor about a date to complete the work at the property. The following day the repairs contractor responding saying it had called the resident who had refused the appointment given. It said the next appointment was not until late January 2022. It later booked an appointment for 28 January 2022.
The landlord recorded on 6 December 2021 that the resident reported her immersion heating was not working. That day the landlord attempted to arrange for an external contractor to attend but was unable to do so. The landlord noted it contacted the resident to advise it would attend the following day. However, later that day the landlord recorded the resident cancelled this appointment.
On 11 January 2022 the landlord sent an email to the resident. It questioned whether the resident was still experienced problems with heaters/increased bills since its contractor last visited. It also said:
1. Outstanding internal work was booked to be completed by an external contractor starting on 28 January 2022.
2. Fencing work had been completed.
On 14 January 2022 the resident sent an email to the landlord. She questioned:
1. What the landlord was doing to chase its repairs contractor about the delayed repair work.
2. Why the landlord had not approached another external contractor about earlier availability.
3. What was happening to rectify the issues with damp and condensation in the bathroom. She said there had been no attempt to rectify this since it was identified by the surveyor 8 months before.
The resident said:
1. There were issues with the fencing work completed in November and December 2021. She said rubble had not been removed following this work and that there was a gap she considered needed to be filled next to the house.
2. There were issues with handles on internal doors and with a leaking kitchen tap.
3. She had completed work to replace heaters and the elements in the immersion heater herself.
4. She sought for the landlord to reimburse the cost of this work – £1,495.20.
5. She sought £100 towards costs incurred decorating her daughter’s bedroom. She said this was to rectify damage to the artex ceiling and to the wall left by the previous resident. She said this needed to be done urgently for her autistic daughter’s wellbeing, after months of waiting.
On 28 January 2022 the landlord responded to the resident. It said:
1. It would raise new repairs regards the handles on internal doors and the kitchen tap.
2. It had raised the issues with the fence work.
3. It had not recommended the immersion heater for renewal.
4. It had been told by its external contractor that work scheduled for that day had needed to be cancelled due to a floor layer being unavailable. The landlord apologised for this and said this would be rebooked as a matter of urgency.
On 11 February 2022 the landlord recorded contact from the resident’s representative about an operative who had attended to look at the fence, door and tap repairs. It noted that the resident’s representative said:
1. The operative had completed work to the taps, but they were unhappy with the way the operative had spoken to him.
2. He had refused to let the operative complete work to the doors.
3. The operative considered there was no issue with the work completed to the fence, which they remained unhappy about.
That day the landlord sent an email to the surveyor who attended in May and August 2021. It noted that orders to replace a heater in the bathroom and to check the roof for leaks had not been raised.
The landlord also issued its stage 1 response to the complaint on 11 February 2022. It noted the resident disagreed with operative who visited that day about fencing work. It said this complaint had been referred to a trade supervisor. It added:
1. It had requested that a roofing contractor attend to identify possible issues with the bathroom. It said it had also raised a work order for the ventilation to be reviewed. It said a contractor would make contact with the resident the following week to arrange an appointment.
2. Internal work at the property was still going ahead and it had been in communication with its external contractor to establish when this work would be completed. The landlord said it appreciated there had been a significant delay in this work and it was trying to rectify this.
3. It would not be reimbursing costs the resident had incurred in relation to the immersion heating. This was on the basis that it did not consider the resident had given it adequate opportunity to attend and repair this.
4. It acknowledged that there had been delays, and it wished to offer compensation of:
  1. £200 for the overall impact, inclusive of time, trouble and inconvenience.
  2. £150 for the delays communicating and responding to the complaint.
5. The landlord said that this payment would normally be credited to the rent or service charge account if there were any arrears.
The resident responded to the landlord on 14 February 2022. She said the compensation offered was unacceptable. She requested that the matter be escalated. The resident said:
1. It was unacceptable that she had waited 7 months for a complaint response.
2. Internal work had been cancelled in November 2021 and again in January 2022.
3. She had given the landlord ample opportunity to resolve the hot water issue before reaching the point of arranging the work herself.
4. She wanted all outstanding repairs to be completed as a matter of urgency. She also asked that the landlord to:
  1. Apologise for its conduct and failings.
  2. Reimburse her for the cost of work to replace heating and hot water elements and pay £100 towards work to decorate her daughter’s bedroom.
On 18 February 2022 the landlord sent an email to its external repairs contractor. The landlord noted a work order in respect of the resident’s property had been cancelled for an unknown reason. It asked that a new work order be issued as a matter of urgency.
On 27 February 2022 the resident sent an email to the landlord outlining repairs that remained outstanding. This included bathroom damp issues, which she said were causing black mould on walls, ceilings and woodwork.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 3 March 2022. It noted it had been sent communication from the resident via the resident’s representative’s email address. It said it did not hold third-party authority for the resident’s representative to discuss the tenancy and asked that the resident complete an authority form in respect of this.
On 11 March 2022 the landlord recorded that the work order raised on 7 October 2021 had been cancelled as the resident had completed the work.
The landlord emailed the resident on 18 March 2022 stating that it needed to extend the date for its stage 2 response by 20 days. The resident responded expressing her dissatisfaction. She said the landlord had repeatedly “stalled for time”. She said it was nearly a year since she had raised the complaint through the landlord’s repairs line.
On 28 March 2022 the landlord issued a stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint. Within this it said:
1. It noted the surveyor’s initial report had requested the replacement of the bathroom heater. No order had been placed for this, and it wished to apologise.
2. After the surveyor’s second inspection, an order had been raised on 22 September 2021 for it to attend and inspect the hot water and heating system at the property. The landlord said its contractor had confirmed this work was completed on 23 September 2021 and that no faults were found.
3. It noted the resident’s concern about the leak in the downstairs toilet and the risk of this damaging a repaired floor. However, it said it could see no evidence the resident had reported a leak from the toilet in the last 12 months. The landlord said it believed the toilet floor repair was still outstanding. It apologised for this.
4. It noted internal repair work had been cancelled twice. The landlord said it subsequently recorded the work had been completed by the resident and the order was cancelled. The landlord apologised for this error.
5. It noted the resident’s concern that ceilings at the property were water damaged and under investigation for asbestos. The landlord said it had received a negative asbestos report for the property in August 2021, and that the surveyor had noted the bedrooms and bathroom ceilings needed attention.
6. It also noted the resident said that damage to a bedroom wall had not been fixed prior to the tenancy starting in 2006. It noted that small areas of damage were identified by the surveyor during the second inspection and that the surveyor had recommended decoration. The landlord said that nail holes formed part of the work order raised, which was cancelled in error.
7. There had been several repairs undertaken to the immersion heating since February 2021, including replacing heating elements and thermostats. It said it had found the resident’s hot water system to be in good working order.
8. It acknowledged the lengthy delay in with the work that remained outstanding. It apologised for this and said it would arrange for a final inspection of the property by a senior surveyor. It said it would provide the senior surveyor with the list of outstanding repairs set out by the resident on 27 February 2022.
9. It noted the previous award of compensation during its stage 1 complaint response. It increased its compensation award to £625, made up of:
  1. £225 for late stage 1 and stage 2 response, which included £25 for the delay in obtaining a third-party authorisation for the resident’s representative.
  2. £100 goodwill gesture for the multiple visits in respect of the hot water tank.
  3. £300 for the overall impact of the service failure – time, trouble, inconvenience and delays.
On 8 April 2022 the landlord’s senior surveyor attended the resident’s property with a housing officer. However, the landlord noted at this time that the resident declined to allow the housing officer into the property. The resident’s representative has explained that this was due to serious ongoing complaint against the housing officer. The landlord subsequently arranged for the senior surveyor to reattend on 12 May 2022.
On 21 May 2022 the landlord’s surveyor sent an email to the resident following a visit on 12 May 2022. The surveyor said the landlord was arranging for an external contractor to complete the work.
The surveyor listed the following areas of the property that needed work:
1. Flooring in the hallway that needed to be replaced.
2. Wall in downstairs toilet that needed treatment to the plaster and redecorating.
3. Treatment and replaster walls in bathroom and install new extractor fan to deal with the level of condensation. The surveyor also noted work was needed to deal with the water damage to the ceiling of the bathroom and to consider any repairs necessary to the bathroom floor.
4. Creaking floorboards in the bedroom and historic water damage that needed to be investigated.
5. Consider the possibility of fitting a filter to the immersion heater to prevent the build–up of calcium.
6. Access the loft space to inspect roof felt for previous water ingress.
7. Clean soffits and fascias, clear debris from gutters, take back roof tiles to investigate felts an batons for damage.
The surveyor also noted:
1. He would request that the contractor provide a quote to replace all internal doors at the property as some were in poor condition.
2. The rear fence work sound and fit for purpose. However, he noted a small area that needed gravel to fill a hole and a loose paving slab
The landlord’s surveyor sent an email to the resident’s representative on 14 June 2022. He said the landlord had arranged for an external contractor to complete work because of the resident’s concerns about its operatives. The senior surveyor said he would meet with the external contractor on site on 17 June 2022 to discuss the scope of the work.
Between 4 July and 2 August 2022 the landlord raised work orders including the following:
1. Full bathroom renewal including, removal and renewal of ceiling, mould wash, and new extractor fan.
2. Clearing out and testing guttering and cleaning of soffits and fascias.
3. Renewal of flooring in the hallway, and other floor.
4. Mould washing of walls.
5. Repairs to the downstairs toilet wall.
6. Renewal of internal doors.
7. Repairs to the ceilings and artex.
8. Draining down and testing of water cylinder.
On 12 October 2022 the landlord’s senior surveyor attended the property with the external contractor. He noted that all issues had been resolved apart from the following:
1. The landlord was looking to build a small ramp into the garden as a safety measure.
2. The external contractor was looking to replace the shower curtain with a weighted one.
3. The external contractor was to return to adjust the bathroom door as it was not closing correctly.
The landlord’s internal records show that the landlord spoke with the resident’s representative on 4 July 2023. The call note indicates that he reported “shoddy” work to the bathroom door frames and painting and that the door rattled and banged. He also said there was a problem with the lock on this door and that he was unhappy with artex at the property. Following this, the landlord arranged an inspection and raised a work order for the repairs/decoration of the bathroom door on 8 August 2023. The landlord’s records do not show whether this work is complete.
The resident’s representative told this service that the resident was unhappy with the way the landlord had conducted itself. He said that the resident was in rent arrears. He said 50% of this was due to money she had spent completing repairs the landlord was responsible for.
The resident’s representative said the resident’s relationship with the landlord had been completely destroyed by the landlord’s poor handling of the repairs. He said the resident wanted the landlord to:
1. Act on repair reports in a timely manner.
2. Pay compensation for the time and effort the matter had involved.
3. Reimburse the cost she had incurred replacing heating element and storage heaters in 2021.
The landlord’s email to the resident dated 18 December 2023 has confirmed that following a visit to the home on 20 November 2023 it offered to credit the rent account by £1,737.24. This was to cover:
1. The works completed in December 2021.
2. The bathroom heater replacement in February 2023.
3. Immersion heater element replacement in May 2023.

Assessment and findings

Repair issues reported by the resident in May and July 2021.

On 13 May 2021 the resident’s husband reported concerns about the condition of the property. The landlord took appropriate steps by arranging for a surveyor to attend to inspect the property on 26 May 2021. At this time the surveyor noted a number of repairs that needed to be completed, including mould treatment in the bathroom.
The landlord subsequently noted that an asbestos report was needed prior to completing repairs. Before the landlord received this, the resident raised a complaint about the lack of action following the surveyor’s first visit. It was understandable that the landlord waited for an asbestos report if that was required before starting repairs. However, it would have been reasonable for it to let the resident know this at the outset, and to set out a schedule for the work identified. That might have helped to avoid the resident’s concern that nothing had been done despite several weeks passing since the inspection. It was poor communication by the landlord.
The landlord’s action on 11 August 2021 to arrange another inspection of the property was reasonable as the resident had raised new repair concerns. However, it would also have been reasonable for it to progress the repairs it had already identified. That did not happen. Aside from heating/hot water repairs, work orders were not raised until 7 October 2021. That was poor, and a missed opportunity to resolve some of the repairs that the resident had raised concerns about.
The resident requested that one of the landlord’s operative did not attend to complete any of the work. It is acknowledged that this may have restricted the landlord’s options on when work was completed. However, it is also noted that the landlord appropriately informed the resident of this, and that it may need to reschedule work due to start on 9 November 2021.
The appointment was cancelled due to operative sickness and a lack of cover. The landlord informed the resident of this on 4 November 2021. It took the reasonable decision to arrange for this work to be completed by an external contractor. It is acknowledged that the contractor contacted the resident in November 2021 to book work, and that she refused the appointment offered. However, following this, when the contractor said a suitable appointment was not available until 28 January 2022, it would have been reasonable for the landlord consider whether work could be started earlier any other way. That was suggested by the resident on 14 January 2022. It is unclear why the landlord did not take such action at the time. It is noted that it may not have been possible to do so. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided further explanation in relation to this.
The landlord had identified in earlier inspections black mould that needed treatment, and extractor fans in the bathroom it needed to service. It was appropriate that the landlord had identified actions to deal with the mould and condensation it had identified. But it lacked urgency in seeing through these, and other repairs identified. An order has been made that the landlord consider what measures it has in place to monitor repair orders.
By 28 January 2022, when the appointment to start work had again been cancelled, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to take additional steps to ensure work was completed as a matter of urgency. Instead, there is no evidence that the landlord took significant steps to ensure this work was rebooked. It then erroneously cancelled the work order on 11 March 2022. The lack of any significant action to ensure work was completed, more than 9 months after it had been identified, was exceptionally poor.
In its stage 2 response the landlord told the resident it would arrange another inspection of the property by a senior surveyor in order to deal with the outstanding repairs. As more than 6 months had now elapsed since the last inspection it was reasonable for the landlord to arrange this so that it could ensure the full extent of issues/concerns were addressed.
The landlord’s records do not state what date work was eventually completed to the property. But it appears it was shortly before 12 October 2022, when the senior surveyor attended to inspect the work.
The landlord noted in its complaint responses that no work order had been raised to replace a bathroom heater following the surveyor’s inspection in May 2021. However, the landlord’s repair records still do not show that a work order for this has been raised and completed. In light of this, an order has been made that the landlord check whether a replacement bathroom heater is required.
It is acknowledged that the landlord has now made a significant effort to address concerns the resident has raised about the condition of her property. But the resident should not have had to wait so long for work identified in May and August 2021 to be completed. Amongst other things, these were to investigate and deal with damp and mould reports and other repairs. While it is acknowledged the landlord needed to complete an asbestos report, the resident might reasonable have expected repairs to be completed within the landlord’s 28-day repairs target. Overall, there were significant failings by the landlord in its handling of repairs that were instead outstanding for 17 months.
The landlord acknowledged in its complaints responses the impact of delays by awarding the resident £300. It also awarded £100 for the multiple visits required for the hot water. While the award made is in line with the landlord’s compensation guidance, it does not go far enough to recognise the adverse effect on the resident and her family of the repairs being outstanding for so long, and for the time, trouble, inconvenience and disappointment caused.
The evidence provided to this service shows the resident and their representative had to chase the landlord over several months about the action being taken to arrange repairs. The resident told the landlord, when she chased it in July 2021, of the detrimental impact upon her family of the outstanding repairs. She continued to tell the landlord of the ongoing effect of this on her family’s health and wellbeing, and of how she felt the landlord did not care. The resident should not have had to wait until August 2022 for the landlord to begin internal repair work. The resident’s representative said the resident felt her relationship with the landlord had been completely destroyed by its handling of these repairs. That is a further detrimental impact on the resident.
The resident and her family were caused disappointment because of the cancellation of work on 2 occasions, with long waits before work was rescheduled. They also had to live with black mould, damp and unremedied condensation, along with other outstanding repairs, for far longer than they should have had to. There was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs reported in May and July 2021. With reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, and the circumstances of the case, an additional award has been ordered to recognise the impact on the resident and her family.
The repairs records show that the resident contacted the landlord on 22 February 2021 and reported that they were receiving very little hot water from the immersion heater and the boost function was not working. The landlord logged the repair as urgent and an operative attended the same day. The record of their visit indicates that they got the boost function working again. However, they recommended that a plumber should attend again to renew the heating elements. The follow up appointment was marked as non-urgent and was provisionally booked for 26 March 2021; however, this was then re-arranged for 24 April 2021. The resident called the landlord on 8 March 2021 to highlight that the boost function was not working again. The landlord noted that the resident did not have an electric shower. However, the appointment was not logged as urgent and an operative attended on 16 March 2021. The operative removed limescale from the cylinder and fitted new heating elements.
On 3 May 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to report that again the immersion heater was not working and there was no hot water even via the boost function. An operative attended on 5 May 2021, but the resident called later that day to confirm that the immersion heater, including the boost function, was not working. It is not clear what action the landlord took at this time, if any. The resident called again on 11 May 2021 to report that the immersion heater and boost function was still not working. It appears that an electrician attended and fitted a new thermostat. The repairs records note that their feedback was that the immersion system was heating the water to temperature, but the water was not staying hot for long. They suspected that there was a build up of silt and the household’s requirements for hot water was high. The electrician recommended that a new element was installed.
The landlord’s surveyor attended on 26 May 2021. They recommended that the landlord checked all the storage heaters and replaced the bathroom heater. The surveyor called the landlord the same day and asked for an electrician to visit urgently to look at the hot water cylinder, which ‘may not have had the electrics set up correctly and the resident has no hot water’. The landlord’s repairs records indicate that the ‘bottom element was replaced’ on 26 May 2021. The landlord attended again on 2 June 2021. The operative reported that no faults were identified with the immersion heater and it was working as expected. The operative noted that the resident expected hot water throughout the day and night and was not happy with the performance of the immersion heater.
The landlord’s surveyors visited again on 1 July 2021 and 23 August 2021. The feedback from the visit on 1 July 2021 does not indicate that the heaters or hot water system were assessed. The surveyor on 23 August 2021 noted that the immersion heating system had required elements to be replaced on several occasions and may not be working correctly. They also highlighted that the bathroom heater was rusted and had not yet been replaced.
The surveyor asked Low Carbon Exchange (energy efficient engineers) to assess and provide an independent report on the hot water system. This request was not raised until 22 September 2021, it is not clear why there was a four-week delay, but the landlord asked for an urgent appointment and Low Carbon Exchange attended on 23 September 2021. Its operative checked the hot water and heating system and found it to be working as it should be. The resident’s representative has stated that they did not assess the storage heaters in the property. As the resident had noted that the immersion heater was very expensive to run, Low Carbon Exchange recommended that an electrician attend to check the electricity board in the property. The operative’s feedback is noted in the landlord’s repairs records following a telephone conversation with Low Carbon Exchange. The landlord has not provided a copy of Low Carbon Exchange’s report of the visit. As such, it is not clear exactly what was inspected, what its conclusions were and what it recommended for further action.
The landlord booked an electrician to attend on 18 October 2021. The resident’s representative emailed the landlord on 12 October 2021 and declined the appointment. They explained that the problem was that the tank was beyond its life and was inefficient. The resident’s representative highlighted that the off-peak and boost functions were not working as they should despite the changes to the thermostat earlier in the year. The landlord’s internal records indicate that it referred the matter back to its surveyor to consider any alternative solutions. After protracted email correspondence, the surveyor suggested that the resident speaks to their electricity supplier to check if they considered the electricity usage to be higher than average.
The resident’s representative replied on 16 November 2021 to advise that there was no issue with the electricity, the problem was the heaters only work on a high setting and this is causing high electricity usage and excessive energy bills. They stated that the engineers had advised them that the boost element was blown and the bottom element replaced in May 2021 was failing. The resident’s representative explained that they had been left with no choice but to proceed through the process of instructing the lowest quote provided to complete the heating and hot water remedial works themselves. The landlord replied on 21 November 2021 to confirm that it was obtaining further information and would respond in due course.
The resident obtained a quote dated 8 November 2021 for £1,495.20 which covered replacing the two elements for the water heater and removing the existing hallway and living room heaters and replacing them.
The resident reported to the landlord that there was no hot water and the boost function was not working on 5 December 2021. The landlord was unable to arrange an emergency appointment and informed the resident that an operative would attend on 7 December 2021. The telephone notes show that the resident called back on 6 December 2021 to cancel the appointment as they wanted to pass the matter to Environmental Health.
The resident has provided an invoice which indicates that the previously quoted work was completed on 9 December 2021. The resident’s representative emailed the landlord on 14 January 2022 and confirmed that they had paid to have two heaters and the immersion heater elements replaced. They provided a copy of the invoice and requested reimbursement for these costs.
It is clear that that there were multiple occasions when the landlord did not respond to reports that the property was without hot water within 24 hours. The landlord also missed a number of opportunities to consider alternative solutions with the hot water issues. Although it is accepted that it arranged for an independent second opinion in September 2021, the landlord’s records do not show that it considered what other measures could be taken. This is despite the recurring nature of the problem. For example, the landlord could have considered improving the insulation of the cylinder tank so that it could retain heat for longer periods. Alternatively, it could have offered a product that reduces limescale in the tank and thereby increase the life of the elements. Another option was to install an electric shower to lighten the load on the immersion heater. There is also no evidence to show that it took a wider view and considered whether the heating system was appropriate for the household’s needs at all or whether they would be better overall switching to a combi gas boiler.
The landlord also failed to act on the surveyor’s recommendation in May 2021 that the heaters should be checked and the bathroom heater should be replaced. The surveyor flagged the bathroom heater replacement again following their second visit and still no action was taken. The landlord’s poor handling of the resident’s concerns about the heating and hot water is a significant failing. The landlord’s delayed responses to the failures exacerbated the situation and further undermined the landlord/tenant relationship. However, the landlord’s recent decision to refund the cost of the work in December 2021 to the rent account has appropriately redressed its failings related to heating and hot water. It is ordered that the landlord confirms that it has credited the rent account by £1,495.20.

The resident’s request for reimbursement for repairs she completed.

The resident arranged for the replacement of heating elements in the immersion tank and new heaters in December 2021. They paid for the work in January 2022. In response to her request for these costs to be reimbursed the landlord said on 28 January 2022 that it had not recommended the replacement of the immersion heater. It later said in its stage 2 response that it had found the immersion heating to be in good working order.
It is apparent that the resident raised issues she was experiencing with heating and hot water system during the surveyor’s first and second visit. At the time of the first inspection the landlord was already in the process of responding to hot water issues the resident had reported. Its contractor attended that day to replace an element in the immersion heating. Subsequently the landlord’s contractor stated there were no faults with the immersion heater. It is noted that while this work to replace the element has been confirmed by the resident, the landlord’s records do not show this. That is evidence of a failure in record keeping by the landlord.
Subsequently, the resident raised during the second inspection by the surveyor that hot water was not working properly. As a result, the landlord arranged for a contractor to inspect the heating and hot water system, which took place 23 September 2021. It is acknowledged that the resident remained dissatisfied and concerned about the inefficiency and expense of the heating and hot water system.
Given the length of the delays the resident experienced in relation to the landlord taking action with the heaters and the hot water, it is understandable why they chose to take matters into their own hands. However, the landlord’s decision not to reimburse the resident for the repairs they arranged in December 2021 was not unreasonable. Ultimately, the most recent plumbing engineer opinion it had obtained (in September 2021) had reported no faults with the heating and hot water system. Although the scale of this investigation is unclear due to the landlord’s poor record keeping, previous plumbing engineers had also reported that the performance of the immersion heater was as expected. In addition, the landlord’s surveyor had only recommended that the heaters were checked, they did not state that they should be replaced (with the exception of the bathroom heater, which was not part of the work completed in December 2021).
There was insufficient specialist opinion to confirm that the remedial work the resident arranged in December 2021 was essential and that therefore the landlord should reimburse them for these unapproved improvements. Without consent to act, landlords are not obligated to compensate residents for improvements they have paid for. Although the resident’s representative suggested to the landlord that they were going to undertake repairs themselves, the evidence does not show that they formally submitted a request to the landlord supported by quotes until after the work was completed on 9 December 2021. The landlord’s decision to credit the rent account by way of reimbursement should therefore be considered a gesture of goodwill to try to repair the landlord/tenant relationship.
The resident also requested that the landlord pay a contribution of £100 towards decoration work she had completed in her daughter’s bedroom. The damage left by an earlier resident does not fall to be considered as part of this investigation. However, it is clear the resident was waiting for some decorative work to be completed to her daughter’s bedroom, which had been agreed by the landlord.
It would have been reasonable for the landlord to recognise this in its consideration. Instead, it said it would not consider reimbursement of the damage left by a previous resident. Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s decision-making on this point. The resident said outstanding decorative work was affecting her autistic daughter’s wellbeing. The resident’s desire to complete the work after months of waiting was understandable in these circumstances. An award has been ordered to reflect the landlord’s poor response.

The complaint handling

Despite the resident raising a formal complaint on 27 July 2021 the landlord did provide a stage 1 response until 11 February 2022. That was far outside its published timescale of 10 working days. The landlord appeared to take the view it should address the resident’s repair concerns first. But that was not appropriate to leave the resident waiting more than 6 months for a response to her complaint. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to respond to the complaint at stage 1 setting out how it would address the repair concerns. It could have used this opportunity to provide the resident with a clear schedule of work to be completed, while also progressing necessary repairs. That might have helped to allay the resident’s concerns about what was happening address her concerns about the property.
The resident had waited a considerable time for repairs by the time of the landlord’s stage 1 response. It would have been reasonable to consider what additional measures it should take to ensure work was completed without further unnecessary delay. It is clear that did not happen as instead the work order was cancelled. The landlord was aware that the resident had raised a complaint about a member of staff. Therefore, the attendance of that member of staff to the resident’s home in April 2022 was inappropriate and further eroded trust in the landlord/tenant relationship.
The landlord further delayed in providing the resident with its stage 2 complaint response. It is clear from the resident’s correspondence of 18 March 2022 that this caused her frustration. That is understandable as the complaint had been outstanding for nearly 7 months by this time. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
The landlord awarded the resident £200 for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused by the delays in its complaint responses. While this is exceeds the scales in the landlord’s compensation guidance, it does not adequately recognise the level of inconvenience, time, trouble and frustration caused by the landlord’s delayed complaint responses. With reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance a further award has been ordered.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repair issues reported by the resident in May and July 2021.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for reimbursement for repairs she completed.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s related complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint that the landlord had not provided decoration vouchers offered to her in 2006 and 2010, and about damage left by a previous resident in 2006 is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.
In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about a hot water issue in April 2023 is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.

Reasons

The landlord failed to complete repairs within a reasonable time. This left the resident with unresolved black mould, damp and condensation issues for 17 months. There were multiple occasions when the landlord did not respond to reports that the property was without hot water within 24 hours. The landlord also missed a number of opportunities to consider alternative solutions with the hot water issues and did not take action to check the storage heaters as the surveyor recommended.
The landlord failed to consider that the resident had waited several months for decorative repairs it had said it would complete to her daughter’s bedroom when it refused her request for a contribution towards costs she incurred completed decorative work. This was after waiting several months for the landlord to start work it had agreed to undertake.
The landlord was delayed in providing it stage 1 and stage 2 complaint response to the resident, causing additional time, trouble and frustration to the resident over a 7–month period.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. Arrange for a senior member of staff to apologise to the resident in person (or in a format such as letter or email if preferred by the resident), for the failings identified in this report.
2. Make a total payment to the resident of £3,820.20 (this is inclusive of the landlord’s existing compensation offer of £625). This is comprised of:
  1. £1,700 for its failings in handling repairs (not related to heating and hot water) and the distress and inconvenience caused.
  2. £1,495.20 for its failings in handling heating and hot water repairs and the distress and inconvenience caused. This amount is to be credited to the rent account as confirmed in the landlord’s email dated 18 December 2023.
  3. £100 for the multiple appointments.
  4. £25 for the delay requesting a third-party authorisation.
  5. £100 for its poor response to the resident’s reimbursement request for the costs incurred decorating her daughter’s bedroom.
  6. £400 for its complaint handling failures.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. Review processes it has in place to monitor longstanding repair orders, specifically those with external contractors, with the aim of ensuring the failings identified in this report are not repeated.
2. Confirm that it has read and considered implementing the recommendations within the Ombudsman’s recent Spotlight report on record keeping.

Recommendations

The landlord should contact the resident to ensure it has recorded vulnerabilities for her family accurately.
The landlord should arrange for the landlord’s senior surveyor to visit the property and identify any missed and outstanding works to be completed.