Sanctuary Housing Association (202111146)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202111146

Sanctuary Housing Association

13 October 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of work to repair damage caused by a leak.
2. The landlord’s communication and complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident lives in a one bedroom house. The resident is a tenant of the landlord and the tenancy began on 7 January 2020.
The landlord states its records show the resident has asthma and depression.
The landlord has a two stage complaints policy. At stage one it will acknowledge the complaint within five working days and provide a written response within ten working days. At stage two the landlord aims to respond within twenty working days.
Section five of the landlord’s repairs policy states it categorises repairs into two categories, Emergency which will be responded to within 24 hours of receipt of the request and Appointed repairs which the landlord aims to complete within 28 days and at the appointment time originally agreed with the resident.

Summary of Events

The landlord acknowledges that the resident first made a repair request for a ceiling in her living room in January 2020, following a leak from a bath waste pipe the previous month. Between January 2020 and March 2020 the landlord conducted an asbestos survey due to the resident’s ceiling being artexed which came back negative for asbestos in March 2020. The landlord states the resident was contacted by its contractor on 5 March 2020, to arrange an appointment for the repairs to be carried out. The landlord’s records show the contractor stated the resident refused the appointment as she felt the contractor would not turn up. The resident contacted the landlord the same day asking if an alternative contractor could be used and was advised by the landlord it was not possible. The repairs order was cancelled.
There is no evidence of any contact between the landlord and resident until 16 December 2020. The landlord’s records show it requested it’s contractor to attend the residents property following reports of cracks on a ceiling, due to a leak from the bath waste pipe.
On 29 January 2021 a quote for extra works was received by the landlord from the contractor which required authorisation by the landlord.
On 11 March 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident and informed her that it had received an extra works request from the contractor for the ceiling repairs and that was going through the landlord’s approval process.
On 24 May 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord and stated the ceiling repair had been outstanding for nearly seventeen months and still did not have a date for the repair. The resident raised a complaint.
On 10 June 2021 the resident contacted the landlord for an update to the repair. The landlord responded the same day and said it had reviewed the repair request and confirmed the quotation had completed the final stage of approval and the order was due to be raised within the week for the contractor to be allocated the work. The contractor would contact the resident to make an appointment. The landlord asked if the resident still wish to log a formal complaint.
The resident responded on 11 June 2021 and said as she had been waiting over a year for the repair and still did not have a date, she wanted the complaint raised as requested.
On 14 June 2021 the landlord contacted the resident and informed her that the works had been approved and a works order was sent to the specialist contractor to attend before 9 July 2021. The resident was asked if she would be happy for the landlord to log the repairs under the term team chase ownership, this meant all details would be logged in a joint calendar to ensure a team member would chase the contractor for updates weekly and would contact the resident to provide regular updates. The resident responded the next day to say she agreed as long as her complaint was still being logged.
On 17 June 2021 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and informed the resident she would be contacted in due course. The landlord informed the resident of what repairs were scheduled to be completed at the property.
On 1 July 2021 the resident phoned the landlord to say the landlord’s contractor had arranged to visit her on that day but had not turned up. The resident said that after contacting the contractor, she was told they would not be able to do the work as she could not empty her living room and kitchen. The resident stated this was despite the landlord being aware of this in March 2021 and it not being a problem when the appointment was arranged.
The landlord spoke to the contractors on 3 July 2021 who stated the resident refused the works to be completed. The contractor stated the resident would not let the contractor move her items, so that it could use access equipment to carry out the works to the ceiling.
On 8 July 2021 an officer of the landlord spoke to the resident and established that the resident had not refused access but that the contractor failed to turn up for the appointment on 1 July 2021. The resident said she spoke to the landlord in March 2021 and explained as the property was one bedroom there would not be room to move larger items like a sofa. The resident said the landlord agreed dust sheets or an alternative solution could be used and that she could move some items just not all. The landlord updated the contractor and asked it to rebook the appointment.
The landlord spoke to the resident and contractor on 13 July 2021 and established that if the resident could move all small items, the contractors would move any bulky items to one side of the room and work at the clear side and vice versa. The resident reiterated she was not happy with the landlord’s contractor due to previous works it had completed and failure to attend previous appointments. The resident asked the landlord if the works stated were necessary for the repairs to be completed. The landlord informed the resident it had to use certain contractors. Internally the landlord inquired if a trade supervisor or landlord operative could attend and report back about the works required.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 21 July 2021 and was told by the resident, the contractors were trying to contact her to arrange an appointment for the ceiling works but she had been declining the calls as they were calling at inconvenient times. The resident informed the landlord she had been unhappy with the contractor in the past including lack of contact, not attending when arranged and the contractor accusing her of not letting them into the property.
On 22 July 2021 the landlord confirmed plastering was booked for 9 August 2021 and redecoration for 13 August 2021.
On 9 August 2021 the landlord spoke to the resident who informed the landlord she was refusing to sign a disclaimer from the contractor. The disclaimer stated that the contractor would not be liable for any damage caused by moving the large items of furniture around the room due to them not being able to be moved out of the room. The landlord confirmed the disclaimer would have to be signed for the works to be completed. The resident said she was not happy and would seek legal advice.
On 13 August 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord and stated:
1. The landlord had failed to carry out the repair in a timely manner.
2. She had wasted two days by a failed appointment in July 2021 and the contractor not completing the works due, to her not signing the unacceptable indemnity against any damage they may have caused.
3. For over a month the resident had, had restricted room upstairs, due to items she had moved in preparation for the repair works.
4. Was not kept informed despite being in the landlords chase calendar.
5. Had the contractors repaired the original leak on the first visit rather than the third the damage would not have happened.
6. She had contacted this Service and requested the landlord escalate the complaint.
The landlord’s records show it spoke to the resident on 23 August 2021 who confirmed she had spoken to our Service but had not taken legal advice. The resident told the landlord that she had spoken to other contractors who advised her they had not known for a waiver to be signed as that was what public liability insurance was for. She said the contractor’s supervisor who originally came out to her, understood her items could not all be moved from the room and he never once mentioned a waiver to her. The landlord considered if another contractor could carry out the repairs and internally asked if a signed waiver was necessary.
On 27 August 2021 the landlord spoke to the resident to offer the option of moving items into storage so the works could be completed. The resident felt that was a lot of upheaval and did not feel comfortable with the contractor doing the works. The resident requested for a second opinion from another plastering company.
The evidence provided shows the landlord discussed the residents request on 1 September 2021 and concluded that in many instances there were claims after the works were completed so was not comfortable sending any contractor to the residents property and would rather the resident put items into storage and she deal with the storage company.
On 13 September 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident and stated:
1. The contractor requested the downstairs be cleared of all items to ensure they could complete the work.
2. The resident confirmed she had moved as much as she could upstairs however was not able to move the large items such as sofas as there was not anywhere to store them.
3. The contractor had confirmed they would complete the work with the large items there, and would cover them with sheets, but they would require a waiver to be signed before they could complete the work. It was advised by the resident she was not prepared to sign the waiver.
4. The other option which was discussed with the resident was for the landlord to arrange storage of the large items until the repairs were completed. The resident advised she was not in favour of that option and asked if it was possible to find an alternative contractor who would not require a waiver to be signed.
5. It had asked its repairs team if this was possible and they advised that the items would need to be put into storage if the waiver wasn’t signed and it was not possible to instruct another contractor.
6. The resident would need to confirm if either of the proposals would be agreed to.
There was no evidence provided to show the resident’s response. On 27 September 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord and informed it that the contractor had phoned her to say tried to make to make an appointment for the next day, despite already having made an appointment for that day. The contractor was not aware of having made the appointment and it’s workmen were unable to attend. The resident said she had four appointments in three months with the contractor and nothing had been done at her property. The resident stated she had not heard from the landlord regarding her request to escalate her complaint in August 2021.
The landlord responded to the resident on 29 September 2021 and said it had spoken with the contractor, who informed it that they were unsure where the information for an appointment has come from for 27 September 2021. They had apologised and attempted to rebook which the resident refused. The landlord said it’s records showed that with regards to appointments that the contractor called on 9 September 2021 to state they were on route from 10am onwards, however this was cancelled by the resident, they offered an appointment for 16 September 2021 but was informed by the resident she was unwell and to contact the following week to rearrange. The landlord informed the resident of the letter that was issued to her stating her larger items were required to be placed in storage or she was required to sign the disclaimer, the resident was asked which option she had chose for the work to be undertaken.
The resident responded the same day and stated:
1. She had repeatedly told the landlord she was not available in the mornings so why was the landlord calling her in the mornings.
2. The contractor was either lying about the missed appointments or its staff was not communicating with each other.
3. On 9 September 2021, the contractor arranged an appointment for ‘mid morning’, but not before 10am. The contractor said it could not attend in the afternoon when she requested a PM appointment. She phoned the contractor at 11.20 am to ask where the operative was. They informed her he was at another job which was going to take a couple more hours. He would then have to drive to her property. As the contractor couldn’t tell her what time he would be at her property, and as she had arranged to be somewhere at 4pm, she explained that this was not possible. The resident said she did not cancel the appointment, the contractor apparently changed it from mid morning to afternoon without telling her.
4. The contractor called her on 15 September 2021 in the afternoon to arrange an appointment for the morning of 16 September 2021 giving her less than 24 hours notice. She was ill at that time so that appointment could not proceed.
5. The contractor called on 22 September 2021 to arrange an appointment for Monday 27 September 2021, and it was agreed for the contractor to come in the afternoon. The contractor stated it had written this appointment in the diary.
6. She didn’t refuse an appointment on 27 September 2021. The contractor phoned her on 27 September 2021 at lunchtime to arrange an appointment for the next day. When she mentioned the contractor was due that day, the contractor told her they didn’t have any record of her conversation with them, and no contractor was coming on 27 September 2021. The contractor gave her less than 24 hours notice for this appointment, and she had another appointment that day.
7. She had six appointments with the contractors that year, and they had not done any work. The resident said the contractors ignored appointment times, and turned up when they felt like it, or just didn’t turn up at all.
8. She had already told her Housing Officer that neither the waiver or moving her property into storage was possible, as the waiver was unfair and unusual, and storing her property would make it impossible for her to stay in her home. The resident believed the work was excessive, asked that someone came to reassess the damage and no-one from the landlord had looked at the ceiling. She felt the landlord was neglecting its duty of care to tenants and putting the interests of contractors before theirs. The resident said the landlord was also ignoring the fact that she had long term health problems, and that this was adding to her anxiety.
On 4 October 2021 the landlord established it was unable to obtain a copy of the waiver the resident was asked to sign due to members of the contractor’s staff no longer working for the contractor. The contractor advised it was it’s standard waiver form that it used.
On 6 October 2021 the landlord noted it should get a surveyor to visit the resident’s property, reassess the whole situation and give the work to another contractor as the existing contractor had closed the works order. The landlord spoke to the resident the same day and arranged for a surveyor to attend her property on 20 October 2021.
The landlord, following inspection of the resident’s property sent the works to another contractor to quote for the works required. A new contractor attended the resident’s property on 27 October 2021 to carry out an assessment.
On 10 November 2021 the landlord following contact by this Service looked into the status of the resident’s complaint as the resident believed her complaint was at stage two of the complaint process. The landlord established that the resident’s complaint was not at stage two.
The landlord issued its stage one response on 11 November 2021. The landlord stated:
1. Since the complaint had been logged, the landlord was aware that there had been some issues between the resident and a previous contractor. The issue was with access to do the work and a disclaimer that was asked to be signed by the previous contractor if items were not moved.
2. It was aware that due to those issues it was in contact with its housing team trying to get the matter resolved. Those issues had delayed works. It was then decided to raise an inspection to reevaluate what was needed and to arrange to attend the resident’s property.
3. It’s chase team had informed the landlord that the surveyor who attended the resident’s property on the 20 of October 2021, completed the inspection and organised the necessary works. An alternative contractor was requested to quote for the works required.
4. It had tried to call the resident to find out if an appointment had been booked but there was no answer, so a voicemail message was left, and a follow up email sent.
5. It’s next stage would be to confirm the date that had been agreed and once agreed it would then look to close the complaint.
On 12 November 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord and stated that the landlord had not responded to her email sent on 29 September 2021 asking for her complaint to be escalated to stage two. The resident said that except for the communication with the landlord’s surveyor and one missed phone call she had had no other communication from the landlord since September 2021. The resident informed the landlord that the appointment took place with the new contractor on 27 October 2021.
On 17 November 2021 the new contractor provided the landlord with a report of it’s assessment of the resident’s required repairs.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 22 November 2021 and asked the resident to resend the email she had stated she had sent on 29 September 2021. The landlord said if the resident still wanted the complaint to be escalated to confirm and advise the reason for doing so.
The resident responded on 25 November 2021 and provided the previous email she had sent asking for the complaint to be escalated. The resident stated she had previously requested the complaint be escalated in September 2021 but that she had actually asked for the escalation in August 2021.
The landlord responded the next day and stated it appeared it had not received the email and confirmed the complaint would be escalated.
The landlord confirmed to the resident the complaint had been escalated to stage two on 30 November 2021. The landlord stated that it would provide an acknowledgement within the next five working days and a final response within twenty working days.
On 1 December 2021 the landlord issued a letter informing the resident her complaint had been escalated to stage two and a response would be issued by 30 December 2021.
The evidence provided shows the landlord tried to contact the resident and the contractor on 2 December 2021 to establish if a repair date had been booked or if the contractor had attended. The resident was contacted on 9 December 2021 and confirmed she had not received a call from the contractors and as she had her belongings upstairs, she was not sure if they should be kept upstairs.
On 16 December 2021 the landlord’s records show the contractor confirmed there was an order made but there was confusion over whether the contractor or the landlord’s internal team would carry out the work.
On 20 December 2021 the landlord arranged for its internal repairs service to complete the repairs at the resident’s property the next day. The resident agreed for the repairs to be completed. The work was completed, and the resident was satisfied with the works carried out.
The landlord issued its stage two response on 30 December 2021. The landlord stated:
1. The resident had complained on 10 and 15 June 2021 following repairs not being completed in the home. The complaint was raised on 8 July 2021 and responded to on 11 November 2021.
2. In the resident’s email on 24 May 2021 the resident stated the works to the ceiling were outstanding for over seventeen months. It could not comment on historic faults as the landlords timescale for recording a complaint about an issue was within six months of the incident.
3. On this occasion given the repair was raised on 31 January 2020 it had looked into how that repair had been managed since that date.
4. It reassured the resident, it’s findings had been discussed with relevant senior managers and contractors to improve future services provided.
5. It partially upheld the complaint and apologised for the inconvenience and delays experienced and that the resident expended time and trouble pursuing the matter. The landlord said while it was clear there were occasions when it had not responded to the residents communications, it had made every effort to keep the resident updated.
6. It acknowledged the complaint was asked to be logged on more than one occasion and once it was logged was not completed in a timely manner.
7. Apologised that the correct process was not followed and in recognition of its handling at stage one offered the resident £100 compensation.
8. Offered an additional £100 compensation for time, trouble, inconvenience and delays of the repairs. The landlord also offered £20 for two missed appointments.
9. The offer of compensation was open for a period of three months and then the offer would be withdrawn.
The resident responded to the landlord on 4 January 2022 and stated she was not happy with the stage two response and did not accept the offer of compensation. The resident said due to the number of points she disagreed with and that the landlord had underestimated the stress and inconvenience caused, she would provide a more detailed explanation in the next few days.
The landlord responded on 6 January 2022 and asked the resident to state any points she felt were not investigated and any evidence along with her expected outcome within 10 working days.
On 13 January 2022 the resident wrote to the landlord with a detailed reply to the stage two response. The resident stated:
1. She did not accept the lack of blame to the contractor or the landlord.
2. The landlord overlooked the fact it’s contractor caused the initial issue that caused the leak and failed to investigate the problem on the first two visits resulting in the damaged ceiling.
3. The landlord had understated the stress and inconvenience that the situation had caused her, and overlooked the fact that she had to store most of her belongings from the living room and kitchen in her bedroom except for furniture for over six months, making it impossible to utilise her bedroom.
4. The landlord ignored the fact that the contractor overstated the work required. This was proven by the landlord’s surveyor visiting the property and arranging for lesser works which took a few hours rather than two days.
5. The contractor failed to turn up on four occasions during the past year, but the landlord did not compensate one missed appointment fully. As the landlord did not believe her regarding this, the landlord should make those appointments rather than residents and provide reference numbers for all jobs so missed appointments could be proven.
6. The landlord should carry out repairs without making it so difficult for their tenants and didn’t understand why the landlord was so reluctant to maintain its properties.
7. Did not believe the landlord took the concerns of tenants seriously, staff seemed to believe the contractors over tenants, despite having a duty of care to tenants.
8. Was still waiting for an explanation for the landlord not being able to contact the second contractor, as she had managed to contact it a few days earlier.
9. Was also unhappy that she was accused of rejecting calls from contractors and staff when they repeatedly called her at times they knew her phone was switched off.
10. The generic email system was hopeless. Staff should have individual email addresses to improve efficiency. Emails often seemed to get lost before reaching the correct person, and repairs were never picked up if reported through the landlord’s contact form.
On 10 February 2022 the landlord issued a response to the resident. As part of the response the landlord stated:
1. It confirmed the investigation focused on the outstanding works to the residents home, which she had asked the complaint to be raised for. The cause of the damage would not have been investigated as this was not raised as part of the complaint.
2. Concerns raised in the past about the contractor whilst noted, would have not prevented work being raised for them to complete.
3. Confirmed the order was cancelled as it was unable to offer the resident an alternative contractor and she had refused to make an appointment. It was sorry to hear the resident was unable to contact it and stated that whilst the country had experienced lockdowns since March 2020, it’s repairs and customer service helplines had been open and staff available to speak with customers.
4. It was unable to verify that the resident experienced a missed appointment on 1 July 2021 but offered £10 in respect of that.
5. The contractor was a private company and the landlord was not at liberty to question its processes regarding liability to damaged goods.
6. It was unfortunate the contractor called the resident at inconvenient times and apologised for this.
7. Apologised and stated it understood that the removal that the removal and storage of goods or the relocation of furniture and household goods may have caused inconvenience. It’s intention was to try and get the works completed as soon as possible with the minimum amount of inconvenience to the resident.
8. The resident was correct that the landlords contractors were required to have liability insurance, but if they wished to request a separate disclaimer to be signed by a resident, they had the right to do so without question from the landlord.

Post Complaint

The landlord has confirmed to this Service that it had reviewed the stage two response at a senior level. The review confirmed it had delayed appointing different contractor and the subsequent inconvenience the resident had endured in perusing the complaint and living with the repair issue. The landlord offered the resident £750 which the resident accepted and the payment was made on 26 July 2022.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident in her complaint response has mentioned the landlord’s actions in repairing a leak from her bath waste pipe that caused the damage to her ceiling. This was not part of the complaint made to the landlord which focused on the landlords handling of the ceiling repair following the leak. This investigation will therefore focus on the action the landlord took to resolve the ceiling repair and not the actions the landlord took to repair the bath waste pipe leak.

The landlords handling of work to repair the damage caused by a leak.

There is no evidence available to determine the reason for the gap between April 2020 when the original repair request was cancelled and the repair request was re-raised in December 2020.
The landlord’s repairs handbook states large ceiling repairs are the responsibility of the landlord and small ceiling repairs are the responsibility of the resident. It was not disputed by the landlord that it would be completing the required repairs to the ceiling.
Section 5.4.3 of the landlords repairs policy states an appointed repair will be completed within 28 days and at the appointment time originally agreed with the resident. The policy also states if an appointment time is changed the service user will be contacted to agree an alternative appointment. The policy states if a service user needs to move an appointment they will be offered an alternative date provided they give at least half a days notice. The policy does not specify how much notice the landlord needed to provide to the resident if it changes an appointment.
The landlord was responsible for the repair in the resident’s property even if the work was being completed by a contractor on its behalf. Therefore the responsibility was on the landlord to ensure the works were completed on time and in line with its repairs policy. If any issues or disputes occurred between the contractor and the resident the landlord needed to take control of the situation to get any issues resolved.
The evidence provided shows the landlord’s contractor inspected the resident’s property in January 2021 and raised an extra works order which was not approved for the works to be completed until June 2021. This was a delay by the landlord and not the resident. There is no evidence provided to explain why there was such a delay or that the resident was appropriately kept informed by the landlord.
Once the repair works were agreed, they were further held up by the request from the landlord’s contractor to have a waiver signed by the resident which the resident refused to sign. A copy of the waiver form has not been provided to this service. There is evidence the landlord took some steps to try and resolve this dispute, by asking internally if another contractor were able to complete the works without a waiver. Ultimately no progress was made or another contractor appointed, until the landlord took the step to inspect the resident’s property in October 2021. From the evidence provided this would appear to be the first time the landlord itself visited the property to inspect the ceiling. It is unreasonable that the landlord was not pro-active in organising its own inspection of the property to reach a decision on the amount and location of possessions despite the dispute between the resident and contractor holding up progress of works.
During this period the landlord was aware the resident had moved some belongings and furniture out of her living room for the work to progress and was living with the outstanding repair issues but there is no evidence this was considered by the landlord during the complaint process.
It is not disputed by the resident or the landlord that appointments by the landlord’s contractor were not completed. The resident stated this was due to the contractor not turning up and the contractor stating the resident refused access. The resident had made it clear to the landlord how she was having difficulty with the contractor arranging and fulfilling appointments. The landlord stated it would add the resident’s repair to its chase calendar to enable it to provide updates to the resident. The resident on 13 August 2021 informed the landlord she had not been updated. There is no evidence provided by the landlord that shows the resident was kept updated using the chase calendar or that the landlord was keeping the resident updated during the repairs period.
During the repairs process the resident asked for an alternative contractor to be used and was told by the landlord on 5 March 2020 and 13 September 2021 it was unable to instruct an alternative contractor. However on 20 October 2021 the landlord did send it’s surveyor to the resident’s property and subsequently did instruct an alternative contractor. The landlord has not evidenced why it changed it’s decision, why it took the time it did to agree to change the contractor or provided the resident with a reason for the change of decision.
From the evidence provided it is clear the landlord did get information from the contractor and resident that was conflicting. Ultimately the landlord was responsible for the repairs at the residents property. The landlord had given this work to it’s contractor to complete, but it has not evidenced that it took steps early enough to take control of the situation once it was aware there were differing accounts as to why the works were not being completed. This also contributed to the delays in the works being completed.
The landlord made the decision on 20 October 2021 to have its surveyor visit the resident’s property, which resulted in another contractor being asked to complete the repairs. Following failure by that contractor to contact the landlord, the repairs were completed by the landlords internal repairs service on 21 December 2021. This was a positive step taken and ultimately resolved the repairs. However it was not made clear by the landlord why it waited significantly beyond its repairs policy timescales, to do this despite being aware of the residents ongoing issues with the current contractor.
The landlords repairs policy states, appointed repairs would be completed within a maximum of 28 calendar days. The landlord in its complaint response considered the period from 31 January 2020 when it acknowledges the repair was raised. It took until 21 December 2021 for all the repairs and remedial works to be completed. This meant the repairs took a total of 692 calendar days. Although the resident did not report the repair between March to December 2020 and some delays were likely outside of the landlord’s control due to the impact of Covid-19 restrictions and necessary arrangements to allow works to proceed, the landlord contributed to this lengthy timescale by delaying reaching a view on the presence of possessions and changing contractors.
The landlord in its stage two response offered the resident £100 compensation for time, trouble, inconvenience and delays. It also offered £20 for two missed appointments. This amount of compensation was not considered by this Service to be appropriate redress by the landlord. The landlord on review of the complaint increased the compensation to £750 which the resident accepted. While acknowledging that this amount would have included the £100 previously offered to the resident for the landlord’s handling of the complaint. The remaining amount of £650 offered to the resident is considered to be a suitable offer of redress to the resident, for the landlord’s failings in it’s response to the works required to repair the damage caused by the leak to the residents ceiling. Compensation within this range is what the Ombudsman would recommend for a delay over a significant period of time that has had a major impact on the resident. Given the period of delay and the affect on the resident’s living conditions, this level of compensation was proportionate.

The landlords handling of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord in its stage one response provided the resident with an update to her situation. The complaint response however did not address the complaint points raised by the resident or offer any explanations to the resident. The response failed to acknowledge the difficulties the resident had faced and failed to offer any apologies to the resident for the delays she had endured. The landlord failed to acknowledge the delay in its stage one complaint response and did not offer explanation for the delay. The landlord did not offer an apology or redress to the resident for its handling of the stage one complaint
The stage one response was issued on 11 November 2021 but failed to acknowledge when the resident first made the complaint. The landlords internal records stated the complaint was made on 8 July 2021. The evidence seen by this service shows the resident first raised her complaint on 24 May 2021. The stage one complaint response was issued 122 working days after the resident first made her complaint. This was significantly outside the landlords complaint policy timescale of 10 working days.
The landlord was informed by the resident she wished for the complaint to be escalated to stage two on 13 August 2021. This was before the landlord had issued its stage one response. The landlord was correct to not escalate the complaint at that time as the stage one process although significantly delayed, had not been completed.
The resident after receiving the stage one response asked again for the complaint to be escalated on 26 November 2021 which the landlord acknowledged 30 November 2021. The landlord however stated it had escalated the complaint on 1 December 2021. It is not clear from the evidence why the landlord chose the 1 December 2021 as the escalation date. The landlord is reminded that as per this Service’s Complaint Handling Code, it is required to escalate the complaint from the date the request is received and the time for the complaint response to be issued applies from the date the escalation request is received.
The stage two response was more detailed and provided a more thorough response to the resident. The landlord did acknowledge it’s failings in the repairs process. It also stated how it would learn from the complaint and it did apologise to the resident. The landlord offered £100 for its handling of the resident’s complaint.
Although the landlord eventually awarded compensation within a range that offered sufficient redress for It’s handling of the ceiling repairs, it is of concern that it took an additional six months to do so after the complaint exhausted its complaints process. The Ombudsman’s view is that landlords should fully assess the impact of failings through their complaint investigations. In this case, the landlord was aware of the extent of its failings and the impact on the resident at the point it offered its final complaint response and there was therefore no reason it should have delayed in offering appropriate redress. This represented a complaint handling failure on the part of the landlord. In addition to the compensation already paid, an additional £150 should be paid to the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the residents ceiling following a leak
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Reasons

The landlord failed to complete the repair within the timescales in its repairs policy. There was a delay in the authorisation of the works and a further delay due to the issue of a waiver needing to be signed which the landlord did not evidence it took enough steps to resolve. The landlord on review of the complaint has acknowledged these failures and provided a level of compensation that is considered appropriate by this service for the delays incurred by the resident.
The stage one response was issued outside the landlords complaint policy timescales and failed to offer an a full explanation to the resident’s complaint points. The landlord failed to offer suitable redress through its initial investigation into the complaint and only provided a suitable offer after a further six months after its final complaint response and after contact from this Service.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is to pay the resident £150 for its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Recommendations

The landlord reviews its record keeping and procedures to ensure information relating to repairs including appointments are logged on its systems to ensure it can responded to residents concerns and keep residents informed.