Sanctuary Housing Association (202113649)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113649

Sanctuary Housing Association

4 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 repairs in the resident’s property.
2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began in August 2018. The property is a 3 bedroom house with an external brick shed. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident, but has been made aware that the resident’s child has medical conditions.
The resident had historically reported various repair issues within the property between 2018 and 2021. These related to her front door, back door, shed, radiators, tiles on the roof, heating and hot water issues, toilets, electrical issues (including appliances tripping), asbestos in the loft and loft insulation, windows which had blown and 2 significant leaks.

Scope of investigation

The resident raised 4 separate complaints from 17 March 2021 concerning a number of repair issues at her property, some of which are long standing. In line with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in its opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
In view of the time periods involved in this case, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment does not consider any specific events prior to 2021. The historical issues provide contextual background to the current complaint, but the assessment focuses primarily on the repair issues raised as part of the resident’s complaint in October 2021 and the landlord’s handling and responses to those concerns.
In her communication with this Service and the landlord, the resident has reported that the landlord’s handling of the repair issues in her property has negatively impacted her and her family’s health. It is beyond the remit of this Service to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Summary of events

Events prior to 2021

The landlord has provided this Service with an electrical installation condition report (EIRC) dated 27 July 2018. The report showed the conditions of the electrics in the property to be in a satisfactory condition. The landlord’s records show that the resident had reported various sockets tripping in March 2019, June 2019, September 2019 and November 2019.
An asbestos survey was completed within the property in June 2019. This was required by a contractor due to fit insulation in the loft. The survey identified asbestos containing materials within the floor tiles below the carpet in the ground floor hall and lounge as well as cement flues in the loft. These were marked as manageable. It recommended works to remove a cement pipe containing asbestos in the loft and this was removed in September 2019.
The resident experienced 2 uncontainable leaks in the property, the first occurred in March 2020 from her toilet. The second occurred in July 2020 which was believed to be caused by the water tank in her loft overflowing. She had also reported repeated slow drips from various radiators in the property between 2019 and 2021 which led to several valves being replaced.
On 19 September 2020, a new work order was raised for 3 blown window units in 2 bedrooms following the replacement of 3 units in a bedroom and the lounge. The landlord’s records show that on 7 October 2020 it was established that these also needed replacing. The work was initially booked for March 2021.

Events from January 2021

The resident called the landlord on 22 January 2021 to discuss multiple repair issues. The landlord asked the resident to make a list of her concerns on the same day and confirmed that it had asked its surveyor to make contact to arrange an inspection. It also told the resident how she could raise a complaint if she wished to.
The landlord’s records show that the resident provided it with a list on 1 February 2021. The resident has provided communication to this Service which noted multiple repair issues, including the following:
1. Her radiator valves had leaked repeatedly which had caused damage to her paintwork. She was told that the radiators would only be replaced if they were leaking.
2. Her appliances kept tripping and breaking due to the electrics within the property. Multiple electricians had attended and had given different advice on what could be causing the issues.
3. The window seals in all of her windows had blown since moving in.
4. Her front door had been replaced previously but there were gaps around it and it was not straight. There was also liquid running down her back door.
5. She had experienced 2 large floods the previous year. One was from her toilet and one was from the loft. These had caused damage throughout the property and had resulted in her floor and wallpaper lifting.
6. The tiles on the house continuously fell off and landed on paths. A contractor had attended and said that a lot of work was needed but she had heard nothing since.
7. Despite previous works to replace the window and fix the roof of her external brick shed, water poured through the roof and everything was damp. Her child had asthma, and mobility and learning difficulties, and the condition of the shed had meant that they had been unable to use their scooter which had been covered in mould.
8. When her boiler was replaced previously, operatives had caused damage to her walls. She had also been told that new pipework was needed. She experienced loud banging noises from her pipework.
9. Her toilet had been removed to replace the floor covering months prior but there had been ongoing leaks which had caused damage to the new floor. The toilet was constantly blocked and unusable. There were cracks on the walls in the bathroom and the bath panel was not sealed, causing damage to the paintwork.
10. There was a crack in her child’s bedroom ceiling that was wet.
11. She had been informed that she needed new insulation in her loft as the loft got wet and damp. The landlord had previously said this was not needed and was a result of condensation but she did not believe this was the case.
12. She added that plastering had been completed around her light following a leak but this was not to a good quality, the fan in the kitchen did not work and let cold air in, the wood cover to her kitchen cupboards was peeling off, the front door swung into the wall which was causing a hole, her taps were leaking in the bathroom when they were turned on, the downstairs toilet tap had a coating on it that had bubbled, the gutters were due to be cleared but this had not been done, tiles were missing from the floor since she moved in and her walls, paint and carpet had been marked by workmen.
13. She believed that the issues were a result of the property not being fully inspected before she moved in and that most repairs had required multiple visits but had not been put right.
A telephone inspection was arranged for 10 February 2021. The inspection notes show that the surveyor asked that operatives attend the upstairs toilet to investigate and refit it. The surveyor also said that 2 double glazed units needed replacing in the bedroom as detailed previously and that the airbrick in the kitchen needed to be removed and filled.
The resident emailed the landlord on 17 March 2021. She was dissatisfied that the surveyor had ignored the other repair issues she had raised and asked that these were escalated. These related to:
1. Her front door and back door.
2. Dampness in her loft and the need for new insulation.
3. Bathroom taps.
4. The condition of her shed.
5. Damage to paintwork and carpets in her property.
6. Waste leaking from her toilet which had stained her flooring.
The resident’s communication was acknowledged as a complaint by the landlord on 18 March 2021. The email noted that the landlord was limiting its non-urgent repairs service and prioritising emergency works as a result of Covid-19.
Between 16 April 2021 and 1 June 2021, there was further communication between the resident and the landlord in relation to the reported repair issues. During this time:
1. The resident reported blown window units in the other 2 bedrooms, bathroom and downstairs toilet alongside those considered by the surveyor. She also asked for an update in relation to her front and back doors. She added that workmen had said that 5 radiator valves needed replacing due to rust.
2. She said that her boiler made noise and a gas engineer had previously said this was due to an electrical fault.
3. On 1 June 2021, the resident said that an operative had said that the flooring in the property needed to be removed due to the presence of asbestos, the back door needed to be replaced, and new radiators were needed. The landlord checked this with the operative who attended. They said that the floor tiles in the kitchen would need checking for possible asbestos. The tiles also ran into the hallway and living room.
The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 1 July 2021 and explained the following:
1. It apologised for the inconvenience caused and acknowledged that the time taken to complete works in the property was longer than it would have liked.
2. It detailed works recommended by the surveyor and confirmed that these had been passed on to be approved and raised. It was established that an asbestos survey was needed which had been raised. Once the asbestos survey report had been received, its maintenance team would raise the relevant works.
3. An appointment was raised for 16 June 2021 in relation to the resident’s reports of cracks in the bedroom and bathroom, but this had now been arranged for 1 September 2021.
4. A contractor would attend on 30 July 2021 to address the front and back door.
5. An appointment had been confirmed for 16 August 2021 in relation to the resident’s request for 4 other windows to be reviewed for replacement.
6. It apologised for the poor service provided and offered £150 as a gesture of goodwill, comprised of £125 for the serious inconvenience caused and the time and trouble for the works to be assessed and raised, and £25 for its delayed complaint response. It confirmed that the resident could escalate the complaint should she remain dissatisfied.
The resident responded on the same day. She enquired about the possibility of receiving decoration vouchers for the damage caused by contractors and water damage. She also maintained that the brick shed required repair and was dissatisfied that the issue had been ongoing for 2 years. She said that she would be happy to arrange for the shed to be taken down if the landlord would agreed to remove the materials. The landlord’s records show that the resident’s queries were forwarded to the surveyor for contact to be made.
On 31 July 2021, the resident reported that operatives had attended for her doors but this had created more damage and she wanted the issues to be passed to an external contractor. The landlord acknowledged this as a complaint on 2 August 2021.
A heat survey was completed on 4 August 2021. The operative recommended works to renew 7 radiators in the property.
An appointment to assess the windows of the resident’s property took place on 16 August 2021. An appointment was booked for 4 October 2021 to replace 4 additional units.
Works to replace the 3 initial window units were booked for 6 September 2021 but needed to be rearranged as it was not booked to avoid school run times and the resident was unavailable.
The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response to the resident’s door complaint on 13 September 2021. It confirmed that the front door had been repaired on 30 July 2021 and no further works were needed. The back door required a replacement rubber seal and parts had been ordered. It apologised for the lack of communication and confirmed the works were booked for 7 October 2021. It offered £50 compensation for the inconvenience and poor communication, and for its delayed complaint response.
A work order was raised for the removal of the asbestos containing floor tiles in the downstairs of the resident’s property on 22 September 2021, following receipt of a quote for its removal from an external contractor.
An appointment to replace the window glass was booked for 4 October 2021, however the resident called the landlord on 3 October 2021 as she had been informed that the appointment was all day and had not been booked to avoid the school run times. The operatives reported that they could not gain access to the property on 4 October 2021 and the appointment was rescheduled for 5 November 2021.
The asbestos contractor spoke to the resident on 6 October 2021 regarding the asbestos removal and noted she did not wish for works to proceed over concern about the floor coverings.
On 22 October 2021, a new work order was raised as the resident had reported that the front door had been damaged by an operative and the frame was now coming away.
The resident raised a further complaint with the landlord on 26 October 2021 and outlined the following:
1. She was waiting for her radiators and pipework to be replaced and these had been measured in August 2021.
2. She had received no update or acknowledgement to her concerns that workmen had damaged her property.
3. Her front door had been damaged by an operative.
4. Her concerns related to her shed had not been addressed.
5. A contractor had said that the electricity current was too high and could become dangerous. She had needed to replace a number of appliances, but contractors had told her that nothing was wrong.
6. The tiles on the house were unsafe and were not fitted securely.
7. She had experienced damp in her property following previous leaks.
8. She had been waiting for the glass in her windows to be replaced for years.
9. Her house needed to be emptied for the asbestos floor tiles to be removed. She was not able to move or store items herself and could not be left with a bare concrete floor due to her child’s disability.
10. She added that there was a “dodgy” light in the loft, the pipes were not connected in her loft which had caused a previous flood, and there was asbestos in the loft, which suggested that the property was not checked properly. She raised concern that the gas safety checks and electrical checks were not completed before she moved in.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on the same day. It explained that it may take longer to respond to the complaint due to the impact of Covid-19 but confirmed that she would be contacted within 20 working days.
The resident’s front door was repaired on 27 October 2021 and 7 radiators in the property were replaced on 8 November 2021. A work order related to electrical works required in the property was raised on 9 November 2021. On 10 November 2021, a surveyor attended in response to reports of damp and a work order was raised for operatives to inspect slipping roof tiles.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 10 November 2021 and explained the following:
1. Works to replace 7 radiators were completed on 8 November 2021.
2. It asked the resident to provide information about the alleged damage caused by contractors.
3. It was unable to consider her concerns related to the shed within its complaints process as the issue had not been raised in the previous 6 months.
4. The front door was repaired on 27 October 2021.
5. It raised a work order following the resident’s reports of damp within her complaint and said it would make her aware of the recommendations.
6. In relation to the roof, it could only locate work from the beginning of the year which would not be considered in line with the 6–month timescale within its complaints policy. It had raised a new job for a contractor to attend urgently and address the work.
7. It explained that the window glass replacement was addressed under a previous complaint. This complaint was closed after the resident had accepted its gesture of goodwill and an appointment was arranged for 16 August 2021. It acknowledged that the work on this date was not completed; the operative had submitted an extra work request and it had attempted to attend on 4 October 2021 but could not gain access. This was rebooked for 5 November 2021 and had now been completed.
8. In relation to the asbestos flooring, the work was approved and raised on 22 September 2021 and the target completion date was 15 December 2021. It explained that the floor covering would usually be the resident’s responsibility but that it was establishing whether it was able to assist with this.
9. The electrical works were being handled by its compliance team and a work order had been raised. It confirmed that its electrical contractors would contact the resident directly.
10. It had found that the annual gas service had been completed each year as per its legal obligations. In 2019, a new boiler was fitted and the annual gas servicing was not required as the same checks were completed on installation. It had also checked the EIRC (electrical safety check) for the property and said that it was next required in 2023.
The resident responded on the same day and explained the following:
1. The work to the radiators had been completed but an operative had ripped her wallpaper. The front door had been repaired again.
2. She maintained that the shed was covered in soil and grass; everything was mouldy and damp so she could not use it to store items. This was looked at in 2020 and she had been told there was no funding until April. All works then stopped due to Covid-19.
3. The windows that had been booked in were completed, but the operative had suggested that further windows needed replacing and she said she would book this.
4. The work to the back door was booked in with the window replacements initially but she had not been given a new appointment.
5. She did not feel the work to clear the property, in relation to the asbestos flooring removal, should be her responsibility as the asbestos checks should have been completed before she moved in.
6. She maintained that her fridge freezer, toaster, and kettle were damaged due to the faulty electrics within the property which had been identified in 2019. She did not feel that this would have happened had workers picked up and rectified the electrical issues.
7. She said that damp in the floor was looked at that day. Her skirting boards were crumbling, paper was bubbling and the paint was wet to touch. The surveyor had informed her that a job would be raised for new flooring in the downstairs toilet and for the mould to be cleaned and sealed upstairs.
8. She added concern that her gas, electrics, loft and asbestos were not checked before she moved in. She commented that her fuse board had a fault, there was asbestos in the loft and an electric light installed by a previous tenant.
On the same day, the resident reported that a newly installed radiator had begun to leak. On 11 November 2021, she said that 2 radiators were now leaking. She added that her paintwork and wallpaper had been ruined and that her carpet had solder on it from the works. She expressed concern that an appointment for her leaking radiators was not scheduled until 24 November 2021.
On 12 November 2021, the resident sent several emails to the landlord and attached images of damage in her property. The pictures included paint allegedly taken off the wall by workmen doing the floor, stains on a carpet after works, green corrosion on pipes where radiators had leaked and water damage following leaks from the loft.
The landlord responded on the same day and said it had cancelled the appointment on 24 November 2021 and raised an urgent repair to be attended to within 5 days. However, on 16 November 2021, the resident emailed the landlord as operatives had not attended her property within the 5 day time period. She said that the damage to her paintwork was worse due to the radiators not being fitted correctly and she was dissatisfied with the quality of the work.
On 17 November 2021, the landlord confirmed it had added the photos to the resident’s complaint file. It apologised that the appointment requested as urgent was not scheduled within the appropriate timeframe and said it would address this as a service failure when it proposed a resolution to the complaint. It was waiting for the report following the damp inspection and had chased this. It added that the asbestos removal work was with its asbestos contractor to schedule and it would arrange for the existing floor covering to be re–laid, or, if the resident provided quotes, it would consider these. It confirmed that it had raised a job for the brick shed. It said that once internal works were completed, it could arrange for an operative to paint the damaged areas. If the resident provided a quote for the carpet to be cleaned following the radiator leak, it would also consider this.
The landlord’s records show that work to repair the leaking radiators was completed on 24 November 2021.
The resident provided a quote to the landlord on 29 November 2021 for her carpets to be cleaned as a result of the leaking radiators.
On 30 November 2021, the resident provided the landlord a quote for replacement flooring in her kitchen and living room. She had been informed that her living room carpet could not be put back down if taken up.
On 30 November 2021, the surveyor provided the outcome of the inspection on 10 November 2021. Works were raised on the same day to wash down and remove the mould in the bathroom and bedroom ceiling, renew the screed flooring to the downstairs toilet and renew the skirting board and boxing. The work was scheduled for 17 January 2022.
The landlord provided an update to the resident on 1 December 2021. It outlined the damp works recommended by the surveyor and confirmed that these had been booked. It had received the quote for the carpet replacement but said it would not consider this until the flooring removal had been completed so it could assess what was needed. The surveyor had said he had not noted any excessive decoration works required and it would make good the affected areas.
On 1 December 2021, the resident sent several emails to the landlord. She outlined that damage was caused following a leak from her loft due to the landlord failing to connect pipes. She was dissatisfied with the landlord’s offer to paint patches on the walls and did not agree with its intention to take the floor up and leave bare floors until it decided what it would cover. She said that she was not able to have no flooring with 2 children and one disabled child with muscle problems made worse by cold. She asked whether the complaint was at stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process. She had asked for issues to be looked into in January 2021 but the landlord had taken 12 months to start repairs and looking at damage.
On the same day, the landlord confirmed that the complaint was at stage 1 and asked the resident to confirm what she wanted as a resolution if she wished to escalate the complaint. It confirmed that it was happy to consider the quote she had provided for carpet cleaning. It expected the carpet in the lounge to be re–laid following the asbestos flooring removal. It noted that the kitchen vinyl may be damaged when removed to allow the floor works and agreed to consider a quote for its replacement. In relation to the wallpaper damage when the radiators were fitted, it was willing to consider a quote for wallpaper. In relation to historic water stains, it agreed to make good this area only.
The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 6 December 2021 as various repair issues remained unresolved. She explained the following:
1. In relation to the flooring works, she had obtained a quote for the flooring in the kitchen and had asked for her living room carpet to be re–laid. This could not be done as the carpet would need to be stretched to be refitted properly. She had provided a quote for both rooms as she could not be left with bare concrete floors due to her child’s disability.
2. She said that she could not have 2 walls painted as this would not match the rest of the room. She added that it was woodchip paint that had been damaged and the entire room needed decorating.
3. There was water damage above the door in the living room following a leak, the bathroom paint had been taken off by workmen, there were marks where radiators had leaked, and water marks on the ceilings and walls on her landing due to a previous leak from the loft. She noted that the landlord had offered to repaint patches which she was dissatisfied with as it would not match and would not be to a good standard.
4. She had needed to replace her fridge freezer, kettle and toaster as they had tripped due to the faulty electrics. She asked that the landlord took this into consideration.
5. She had been pursuing complaints since January 2021 but works had not been completed which had caused unnecessary stress and impacted her mental health.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation on 7 December 2021 and said that it aimed to respond within 20 working days. On 7 December 2021, the resident added that there were water marks in other areas of the property due to leaks. The removal of the asbestos was through the whole of the downstairs and not just in her kitchen.
On 23 December 2021, the landlord explained that it needed additional time to investigate the resident’s complaint as it was waiting for information. It aimed to respond on or before 28 January 2022 and apologised for any inconvenience caused.
The resident provided a quote for the decoration works with a listed breakdown on 7 January 2022. This amounted to £1752 and the landlord acknowledged receipt.
The landlord’s records show that work to wash down and remove mould in the bathroom and bedroom ceiling, along with renewing the downstairs bathroom floor and renewing skirting boards, was completed on 17 January 2022.
On 21 January 2022, the resident reported that her front door had dropped again and did not fit into the frame correctly. She had previously asked for a door specialist to attend but this had not happened.
The resident contacted the landlord’s complaints team in relation to works involving her loft on 25 January 2022. She reported her concerns related to asbestos in the loft, the need for new insulation that was due to be carried out previously, the potential for a further flood due to the overflow pipe being connected to an empty tank, damp, and a light which looked dangerous. She also said that she had not heard anything further regarding her front door.
The landlord’s records show that the resident was informed that the loft was not part of the existing complaint on 27 January 2022.
The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 28 January 2022 and explained the following:
1. It referred the resident to its complaint response of 18 March 2021 which looked into how various repair issues had been managed, including a leaking toilet and blocked drain, bathroom floor, cracks on walls in the bathroom and bedroom, asbestos survey and front and back doors. It confirmed that she had accepted its gesture of goodwill at the time and that the complaint was closed.
2. It was unable to consider the shed/outbuilding repairs as its complaints policy only covered the previous 6 months. It was only able to locate historic repairs in 2019 and 2020 on its system and advised the resident to raise any repair issues with its customer services team.
3. In relation to damp and mould, a surveyor attended on 10 November 2021 and had no concerns. It confirmed that it was not necessary for repairs to be raised. They did, however, identify that repairs were required to wash down and remove mould on the bathroom and bedroom ceiling and renew the latex screed flooring in the downstairs cloakroom. These repairs were raised and completed on 17 January 2022.
4. In relation to the electrical works, it said that these works were being handled by its compliance team and a repair had been raised on 9 November 2021 to its contractors. It said that the contractors would contact the resident directly.
5. In relation to the asbestos flooring removal, its contractor had contacted the resident on 6 October 2021 to arrange works but she had advised that it was not convenient due to concerns about the replacement flooring and that she felt it should pay for the cost of the flooring.
6. On 6 December 2021, it had explained that the carpet in the lounge needed to be taken up for the asbestos work to be completed and it was reasonable to expect the carpet to be re–laid afterwards. The vinyl in the kitchen also needed to be taken up. It was aware that this may be damaged due to the way the floor was laid and if a quote could be provided it would consider this.
7. It urged the resident to allow access for the asbestos flooring in the lounge, kitchen and hallway to be removed and asked that she call its customer services team for further assistance. It noted that the resident had sent a quote for the replacement carpet but said that it was unable to consider this until the asbestos removal had been completed so it could assess as to whether this was needed.
8. In relation to the radiators, it noted that work to renew them was completed on 8 November 2021. The resident had then called on 12 November 2021 as 2 radiators were leaking and causing damage to the wall and carpet. This was resolved on 24 November 2021. It confirmed that it would offer the cost of £80 as quoted for her carpet to be cleaned as a gesture of goodwill.
9. In relation to the damaged wallpaper, it asked how many rolls would be required and the estimated cost per roll. It would review her request for compensation for this element of her complaint.
10. The resident had raised concerns on 14 January 2022 that the walls had bubbled when the radiators were changed. It asked which rooms had been affected and it would arrange for these areas to be made good. It apologised for any inconvenience caused. It said that the concerns the resident had raised in relation to when the boiler was replaced were not part of the complaint but advised her to contact its customer services team to arrange a repair.
11. In relation to the decoration works, it noted that the resident had provided a quote for the decoration of the living room, hall, stairs, landing and bathroom. Following an inspection, the surveyor had not noted that any excessive decoration works were needed but confirmed that it was happy to make good any affected areas as a goodwill gesture.
12. It was unable to consider the resident’s concerns about the leak from the pipes not being connected in her loft as this was outside of its 6-month timescale. It confirmed that it had previously offered to make good any affected areas and advised the resident to make contact if she wished to arrange these.
13. It was satisfied that it had acted appropriately and attended to various jobs within a reasonable timeframe. It was unable to uphold the resident’s complaint. However, it offered £230 compensation, comprised of £80 towards carpet cleaning costs following the radiator leak, £100 in recognition of the complaint handling delays and £50 in recognition of the time and trouble caused in relation to the numerous appointments required for repairs.
14. It confirmed that this was the final phase of its complaint’s procedure. It said that if it did not hear anything further within 10 working days, it would consider the matter resolved and close the complaint, following which, the resident would be able to approach this Service.
On 28 January 2022, the resident emailed the landlord as she was dissatisfied with its response. She said that:
1. The complaint issues were over 6 months old due to the impact of Covid-19 on the landlord’s repairs service. She said that the repair issues raised in January 2021 had not been resolved; her drains had not been checked, the loft issues had been raised but not resolved, there was still asbestos in her loft, her front and back doors were not fixed, and the surveyor had said he would sort out the loft insulation but this had not been completed.
2. She said that the 2 damaged walls were decorated with wood-chip paint not wallpaper so could not be repapered and added that the surveyor had not entered the living room and did not look at where the paint had been taken off in the bathroom by an engineer. She maintained that there had been 3 leaks caused by the landlord’s operatives and it was down to the landlord to put the damage right.
3. She was dissatisfied that the landlord said that it had found no failure in its service. She said that the repair issues had not been resolved.
The landlord also acknowledged the resident’s separate complaint of 25 January 2022 on 28 January 2022. It confirmed that it would only be able to investigate the previous 6 months and said that the resident would need to contact its repairs team in relation to the tanks in the loft and insulation as these issues had not been raised in the previous 6 months. It confirmed that work to the front door was booked for 16 February 2022. The resident maintained that the issues had been raised in the previous 6 months. She was dissatisfied that the asbestos in the loft had not been removed.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s further correspondence regarding her complaint on 3 February 2022 and apologised for the delay in responding. It said it would review the resident’s complaint and provide a further response within 20 working days. It sent a further email on the same day to explain that the issues the resident had raised on 21 January 2022 in relation to her door, roof leak and gaps around the window did not form part of the complaint under consideration.
It also spoke to the resident on 4 February 2022, and she maintained that she could not be left with bare concrete flooring due to her child’s medical conditions. The landlord then agreed to help with the removal of furniture and to replace the floor covering.
The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response to the resident in relation to the water tanks in her loft, windows, doors and roof on 9 February 2022. It apologised for the issues experienced and confirmed that works for each issue had been booked in for 14 and 15 February 2022, and 7 March 2022. In light of the time, trouble and inconvenience experienced by the resident, it offered £200, comprised of £50 for delays, £50 for communication and £100 time and trouble. The evidence provided shows that the complaint was closed on 10 February 2022.
The landlord arranged for an operative to attend and measure for new floor coverings on 15 February 2022.
The landlord’s records show that electrical works were completed on 25 February 2022, however, the landlord had not provided evidence as to what the work consisted of.
On 3 March 2022, the landlord advised that there had been a delay in issuing its final response to the resident’s complaint. It said it needed to extend the deadline as it was waiting for information from its contractors regarding the flooring. It aimed to respond by 24 March 2022. It apologised for the inconvenience caused.
The landlord issued a further final complaint response to the resident on 24 March 2022 and explained the following:
1. The resident said that the works to the drains and front door were still outstanding on 28 January 2022. These issues, along with her concerns related to loft insulation, did not form part of its complaint investigation. It advised the resident to contact its customer services team.
2. It confirmed that it was happy to raise a repair to make good the affected area of damaged wall paint and told the resident to contact its customer services team to arrange the repair. It apologised for any inconvenience caused.
3. It noted the resident’s concerns regarding damage to woodchip and paint on 2 walls. Taking into account the resident’s individual circumstances, it offered £100 compensation. It apologised for any disruption caused.
4. As previously advised, it had been unable to consider the resident’s concerns about leaks from the loft space as this was outside of its 6–month complaint policy timeframe. It understood that it had offered to make good the historic water stains. It said that the resident could contact its customer services team to arrange this.
5. It confirmed that a contractor had attended on 25 February 2022 to complete the electrical repairs. It acknowledged that there was a delay in the operative attending due to a resource issue within the contractor’s maintenance team. It apologised for the resident’s experience and said it had highlighted concerns to its contracts surveyor to improve its level of service in the future.
6. A work order had been raised to fit vinyl flooring in the lounge, kitchen and hall. Due to Covid-19, there had been difficulties obtaining the materials and the current estimated fitting date was June or July 2022. It had escalated this to a senior surveyor to try and obtain an earlier installation date. It confirmed that it was monitoring the works and would keep the resident updated in relation to the removal of the asbestos prior to the vinyl being fitted. It apologised for the resident’s experience and delays.
7. It offered the resident a gesture of goodwill which accounted for the expected completion date of the flooring in July 2022. It confirmed that if there were further delays, this would need to be considered as a separate matter. It offered a total of £930, comprised of:
  1. £230 as per its previous complaint response.
  2. £200 for the delay in sending its final response.
  3. £100 towards the woodchip and paint on 2 walls.
  4. £400 for the overall time and trouble caused to the resident and delays in removing the asbestos and fitting the vinyl flooring (until July 2022).
The resident referred her complaint to this Service as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s responses to her concerns. She initially expressed dissatisfaction that the flooring and rewiring work had not been completed. She added that she was unhappy that the landlord was refusing to consider work to her shed despite this forming part of her complaint. She wanted the landlord to cover the cost of decorating and complete works. She also said that the electrical faults had caused damage to her belongings and wanted this to be addressed.
The landlord has advised this Service that following an inspection on 20 July 2022, its surveyor established that the removal of the floor tiles which contained asbestos was not necessary as these were in a good condition and posed no risk. It was agreed that new flooring would be laid over the tiles and this work was arranged for 19 and 20 September 2022.

Assessment and findings

Policies and Procedures

The tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for repairs required to the structure and exterior of the property, including the roof, outside walls, doors and windows. It is also responsible for repairs to internal walls, floors, ceilings, major internal plasterwork, installations for the supply of water, including pipes, and heating equipment, including radiators. The resident is responsible for the internal decoration of the property, reporting repair issues and allowing access to the property for repairs to be carried out.
The landlord’s repairs policy confirms that emergency repairs should be attended and made safe within 24 hours. Non-emergency repairs should generally be completed within 28 days. Some repairs, including where major works are required to a property, may need additional time due to specialist parts or contractors being necessary. Where there are delays, the landlord would be expected to keep residents informed of the progress of the repair and provide an update as to when works are to be completed. The policy further states that where damage has been caused to items belonging to a resident, the resident should claim on their home insurance. If damage is a result of the landlord’s action or inaction, this would be investigated as a complaint.
The landlord’s compensation guidance states that the landlord may consider offering compensation for any additional costs experienced by the resident as a result of its actions or where there has been damage to, or a loss of, belongings or decoration due to its action or inaction.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that it has a 2 stage formal complaints procedure. The policy states that in some circumstances, the landlord may not accept a complaint. This includes issues that occurred more than 6 months previously, unless there is evidence that this has been raised to staff and no action has been taken. The landlord aims to respond to stage 1 (Front line resolution stage) complaints within 10 working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they are able to escalate their complaint to stage 2. At stage 2 (investigation stage), the landlord aims to respond within 20 working days.

The landlord’s handling of repairs in the resident’s property

In this case, it is evident that there were various repair issues in the resident’s property that fell under the landlord’s responsibility to address. As above, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised in the resident’s formal complaint on 26 October 2021, namely repairs related to her radiators, damage caused to her internal decorations by workmen, her front door, electrics, window glass, her reports of damp in the property and the flooring which contained asbestos. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns in relation to her shed and tiles falling off the roof as part of its handling of her complaint below.

Radiator replacement works and leaks

The resident had historically reported issues with her radiators leaking from the valves between 2018 and 2021; these reports resulted in multiple appointments with several valves and a radiator in a bedroom being replaced. The resident raised concern that her radiators were old and rusted within her communication to the landlord in February 2021. The surveyor noted that the resident had said that some radiators had corrosion following the telephone inspection on 10 February 2021. It was ultimately reasonable that no work was raised at this time as the landlord had limited is repairs service as a result of Covid-19 and was prioritising emergency repairs. There is no evidence to suggest that the resident had reported an active leak and it was therefore reasonable that the issues were not considered to be an emergency.
The landlord’s records show that the resident had reported that 2 radiators were rusting at the back and that workmen had told her that all of the radiators needed replacing on 16 April 2021. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence to confirm when the resident was told this, however, given her concerns, this Service would have expected to see evidence that an appointment was raised to assess the radiators. While it was reasonable for the landlord to ask which radiators were impacted, there was a delay in its communication between the resident’s communication on 16 April 2021 and its response on 12 May 2021. Following the resident’s response on 1 June 2021, the landlord acted appropriately by raising a work order on the same day for the radiators to be inspected.
It is noted that the assessment for the radiators was booked on 10 June 2021 for 4 August 2021, almost 2 months later. There is no evidence to suggest that the reason for the extended timescale was explained to the resident at this point, which would have been appropriate given the length of time she had been reporting her concerns.
Following the assessment, work to replace 7 radiators was raised on 12 August 2021. The evidence provided shows that this was raised as a routine repair with a target completion date of 9 September 2021. The landlord’s records show that the date for the work was extended on 9 September 2021 and 7 October 2021 but was added to its repair calendar on 22 October 2021 following communication from the resident chasing works.
Following the resident’s complaint on 26 October 2021, the work was then booked in for 8 November 2021 when repairs took place. This was approximately 2 months outside of its target completion date and considered unreasonable. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord kept the resident adequately updated, provided an explanation for the delay or an expected completion date which would have been appropriate to avoid any unnecessary inconvenience to her.
The landlord’s internal records show that it had acknowledged internally that there had been a delay in completing works to replace the radiators and that the resident had needed to spend effort chasing the works before they were booked in. However, the landlord did not communicate this failing to the resident or fully acknowledge the impact of the delay on her within its complaint responses.
The resident reported that 2 of the newly installed radiators were leaking between 10 and 12 November 2021. In her communication, the resident expressed concern that these were not due to be inspected until 24 November 2021. The landlord acted reasonably by cancelling the appointment and re-raising the work as an urgent repair on 12 November 2021 to be completed within 5 days. However, this was not booked in, and the evidence shows that the leaks were resolved on 24 November 2021. It remains unclear as to why the urgent repair was not completed within the specified timescales.
The landlord acted fairly within its communication to the resident on 17 November 2021 by apologising and confirming that it would address this matter as a service failure when it proposed a resolution to the complaint. However, it failed to comment on this matter further within its subsequent complaint responses. While the landlord acted fairly by agreeing to compensate the resident for the cost of cleaning her carpet, which had been stained following the leaks after the radiator replacements, it failed to offer suitable redress for the inconvenience caused by the delays in this case.

Flooring works

The landlord has a ‘duty to manage’ asbestos, as specified by regulation 4 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012. The landlord is required to take reasonable steps to identify, maintain records of, protect residents from exposure to, and execute a management plan for asbestos. A landlord would not be obliged to remove asbestos unnecessarily as the removal could pose some risk. The regulations state that if existing asbestos containing materials are in good condition and are not likely to be damaged, they may be left in place, their condition monitored and managed to ensure they are not disturbed.
It is noted that as part of the asbestos survey completed in 2019, the floor tiles below the carpet of the resident’s lounge and hall were identified as asbestos containing materials. The flooring below the kitchen lino was not accessible during the survey due to the floor covering present. At the time of the survey, the floor tiles identified were deemed manageable and there was no recommendation for these to be removed. As such, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord should have removed the tiles at an earlier date.
The flooring in the kitchen was presumed to contain asbestos by an operative who had attended to internal works in May 2021. Following the resident’s correspondence on 1 June 2021, the landlord acted appropriately by arranging an asbestos survey. It then obtained a quote for the removal of the flooring and raised a work order for the flooring to be removed on 22 September 2021. This initially had a target completion date of 15 December 2021. It remains unclear as to what prompted the landlord to arrange for the flooring containing asbestos to be removed, however, it is noted that the resident had reported that several tiles were damaged in her hall.
The landlord’s records show that the external contractors had contacted the resident on 6 October 2021 to book the work, but she had refused the work at the time as the floor coverings would need to be replaced. The landlord initially explained that the removal of furniture and the replacement of the floor coverings would be the resident’s responsibility. This is in line with the tenancy agreement albeit the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to consider making adjustments where there are household vulnerabilities.
The landlord changed its decision following a call with the resident on 4 February 2022 where she explained that she could not be left with bare concrete floors due to her son’s disabilities and she could not move the furniture on her own to allow the works to progress. While it was reasonable for the landlord to change its decision and offer additional support to her in view of the household vulnerabilities, the resident had made the landlord aware of her son’s medical conditions in her complaint on 26 October 2021 and on several occasions between December 2021 and February 2022. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered the options available to it sooner to avoid any unnecessary time and trouble being spent by the resident in pursuing a resolution.
The landlord acted fairly by agreeing to help the resident with the removal of furniture and to replace the floor coverings with a standard vinyl. Within its complaint response on 24 March 2022, it acknowledged the time and trouble the resident had spent pursuing this and the expected delay in sourcing the replacement floor covering until July 2022. While the delay was somewhat outside of its control due to resourcing issues, it acted fairly by apologising to the resident and offering compensation which was proportionate in view of the timescales involved, the time and trouble spent by the resident and the inconvenience caused.
The landlord has advised this Service that following an inspection on 20 July 2022, its surveyor established that the removal of the asbestos flooring was not required as the tiles were in a good condition and posed no risk. It remains unclear from the evidence provided as to why this was not established at an earlier date as the landlord’s internal notes from 1 February 2022 stated that the removal of the flooring was not required, and the recommendations were to manage and monitor. It is, however, noted that the full extent of the tiles may not have been visible until the vinyl floor covering was removed in the kitchen. The landlord was entitled to rely on the opinions of its qualified contractors who determined that the asbestos containing floor tiles did not need to be removed.
The landlord ultimately acted fairly by upholding its agreement to replace the floor covering and has confirmed that this work was completed between 19 and 20 September 2022. The landlord’s overall offer of £400 compensation for this aspect of the resident’s complaint is considered proportionate in view of the inconvenience and time and trouble caused to her as a result of its failings in relation to the flooring works in this case, alongside the discretionary work to replace the floor coverings.

Electrical works

It is noted that the resident had raised historical concerns of her electrics tripping and specific concerns in her communication in February 2021 about repeated faults and differing advice she had received about what could be causing the issues. The landlord has provided limited information to this Service in relation to the electrical works at the resident’s property. When asked to provide additional information about the nature of the works required and carried out, the landlord was not able to offer this. The omissions indicate poor record keeping by the landlord in that it was not able to provide the relevant information when asked.
In its responses to the resident, it confirmed that a quote had been raised to its contractors on 9 November 2021 and that works were completed on 25 February 2022. The landlord acted reasonably by acknowledging a delay, apologising and explaining that this was due to contractor resource issues. However, there is limited evidence to suggest that the landlord effectively communicated with the resident regarding the delay and this was likely to have caused inconvenience. In addition, the landlord failed to fully consider that the resident had raised concerns about the electrics in February 2021, a year prior, or explain the reasons why it had taken until November 2021 for a quote to be obtained for works.
Given the lack of available evidence regarding the electrical works, it is also unclear as to whether the resident was provided with a clear diagnosis of the issue or that the nature of the required works was explained to her. While it is noted that the landlord advised the resident that the electrical works were being dealt with by a different department, it should have systems in place to ensure that information relevant to repairs is shared between departments and that information related to the nature of repairs can be provided to this Service when requested.
The limited documentary evidence of the electrical repairs prevented the landlord’s complaints team from providing a complete response to the resident and this was likely to have caused inconvenience to her. It is also unclear from the evidence as to how, or whether, the landlord considered the potential urgency of the work, risk to the resident, or how it satisfied itself that the work undertaken would resolve the reported issues with sockets tripping.
While the landlord acknowledged some delay, it did not seek to offer suitable redress to the resident for the inconvenience caused by the delays or her time and trouble pursuing the matter. Given the identified unexplained delays and the lack of communication with the resident regarding the works, it is the Ombudsman’s view that additional compensation is warranted to be paid to her in recognition of the time and trouble, and inconvenience caused. An order has been made below.
In her communication with this Service and the landlord, the resident raised concern that her personal belongings were damaged as a result of the electrical issues in the property. It should be noted that it is beyond the remit of this Service to determine whether the landlord was liable for the resident’s damaged items or order the landlord to pay the resident for the damage to her items she alleges was caused by a failure to address the electrical issues. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have addressed her concerns within its complaint responses as the resident clearly outlined that she believed it was liable for the damage. A further order has been made below in relation to this.

Front Door Repairs

It is clear from the evidence provided that the resident had experienced recurring issues with her front door and had raised this issue within 2 separate complaints in March and July 2021. The landlord’s records show that the door was attended to on 30 July 2021 and the issues were reported as completed, although it remains unclear as to what the work consisted of.
The resident raised a further report that the front door had been damaged and the frame was coming away following the previous appointment on 22 October 2021. She pursued this work as part of the complaint on 26 October 2021. The landlord’s records show that work was completed, and the door was fixed on 27 October 2021, which was within a reasonable timeframe. However, while the landlord had relied on its operatives’ confirmation that the work had been completed, there is limited evidence to show what work was completed or how the landlord satisfied itself that the work would resolve the recurring issues experienced by the resident.
Given the repeated reports the resident had made of her door dropping and gaps around the frame, the Ombudsman would have expected to see that the landlord had considered the repair history, diagnosed the cause of the repeated issues and taken steps put this right to prevent any additional inconvenience to the resident. While the landlord’s records show that responsive repairs were completed, there is a lack of evidence to show that it had viewed the repair issue holistically to fully resolve the issues.
This led to further repair issues being reported in January 2022 which were dealt with as part of a further separate complaint. In her communication to this Service in September 2023, the resident has advised that the door issues are unresolved. She has said that the door keeps dropping and has large gaps around it. She added that she had been told by an operative that there was nothing further they could do to fix this. As such, the landlord is ordered to complete a survey of the door to definitively establish the cause of the recurring issues and take steps to resolve them. The landlord is also ordered to pay compensation to the resident for the time and trouble she has spent pursuing a lasting repair to her front door.

Damp and Mould

Within her complaint on 26 October 2021, the resident raised concern that she experienced damp in her property following previous leaks. While the resident had previously reported damage following the historic leaks, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence to suggest that she had reported damp at an earlier date, other than in her loft and external brick shed. It was reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to arrange a damp survey, which was completed on 10 November 2021 within an appropriate timescale.
Following this, there was some delay in works being booked in and completed. Despite the landlord’s records showing that it had chased the outcome of the inspection with its surveyor, the surveyor did not provide their response until 30 November 2021 which contributed to a delay. The landlord should have systems in place to ensure that its surveyors provide the outcomes of inspections within a reasonable timeframe to avoid any unnecessary delay or inconvenience to its residents.
Nevertheless, the landlord acted appropriately by raising works to wash down and remove mould in the bathroom and on the bedroom ceiling, renew the screed flooring to the downstairs bathroom and renew skirting boards and boxing on the day it received the surveyor’s report as instructed. The landlord was entitled to rely on the opinion of its staff and contractors when determining what work to undertake and there is no evidence to suggest that further works were required at the time. The evidence shows that the works were completed on 17 January 2022.
Within its complaint response to the resident on 28 January 2022, the landlord said that the surveyor had raised no concerns in relation to damp and mould and that no repairs were required but it had also raised repairs to wash down and remove mould, and renew flooring, skirting boards and boxing. This was contradictory and likely to have caused some confusion to the resident. While the landlord acknowledged the overall time and trouble spent by the resident within its complaint responses, it would have been appropriate for it to have identified the delay and to have confirmed the steps it would take to prevent similar service failures in the future.

Window glass replacement

It is evident that work to replace window units in the resident’s property were delayed on several occasions. It is noted that the landlord initially established that the glass of 3 units in 2 bedrooms needed replacement on 7 October 2020, following the replacement of some other units in September 2020. This work had not been completed at the time of the resident’s initial formal complaint in March 2021, but the evidence shows that this was cancelled due to the impact of Covid-19. The landlord acted fairly by acknowledging the delay in raising and booking the work within its separate complaint response to the resident on 1 July 2021 and offering compensation to her at the time.
The resident reported that there were blown units in the other 2 bedrooms, bathroom and downstairs toilet alongside the works that had been raised for 2 of her bedrooms in April 2021. The initial complaint was closed on the basis that an appointment had been arranged to assess the additional windows in the property on 16 August 2021. While it is noted that the landlord was likely experiencing delays to its repairs service due to Covid-19, which was outside of its control, there is no evidence to confirm that it explained to the resident why the work to assess the windows was delayed by approximately 4 months, which would have been appropriate in order to manage her expectations and provide transparency.
The landlord’s records show that the appointment went ahead on 16 August 2021 and 4 further units were identified as needing replacement. The landlord’s repair records show that the resident had repeatedly asked that when appointments were made, it should avoid the “school run” time between around 8:30am and 9:30am. However, 2 appointments for the window replacements needed to be rebooked as they had been scheduled in for “school run” hours. The first was for the initial 3 units on 6 September 2021 and the second was for 4 October 2021. On both occasions, the resident had called the landlord the day before to query the appointment time as she had previously advised that it would need to avoid school run times.
Given that the resident had repeatedly informed the landlord of her schedule, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have taken this into account when it booked the appointments. While it is understandable that the landlord may not be able to accommodate a resident’s personal preferences around times for appointments on every occasion, it is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord contributed to the overall delay in completing works by failing to take this into consideration.
The window units booked in were then replaced between 5 November 2021 and 30 November 2021 when the resident confirmed to the landlord that the works had been completed during a post-inspection call. While the landlord had acknowledged the initial delay in completing the work to replace the 3 window units in its separate stage 1 complaint response of 1 July 2021, it would have been appropriate for it to have addressed the further delay in completing the work within its subsequent complaint responses to the resident. While the landlord noted that there was no access to the property on 4 October 2021, it failed to identify that this was due to the scheduling of the appointment and that the need to rebook appointments (due to them not being booked to avoid the school run times) was likely to have caused inconvenience to the resident.
It is noted that work to measure the glass for 5 further units was raised on 18 January 2022 and completed in February 2022. As the landlord’s handling of the further works did not form part of the complaint under investigation, these will not be addressed further within the report.

Damage to decorations

Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, the resident would usually be responsible for the internal decoration of the property, including wall painting or papering and floor coverings. However, where an operative causes damage or a resident believes that the landlord is liable for damage caused, it would be expected to put right the damage or consider this as part of a liability claim either internally or through its liability insurer.
In this case, it is noted that the resident had initially raised concern about damage to her decorations in her communication in February 2021 where she made specific reference to the damage following 2 large floods the previous year. She also raised concern about damage to her decorations in her complaint of 17 March 2021, her communication following the landlord’s separate stage 1 complaint response on 1 July 2021 and her formal complaint on 26 October 2021. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord had sought additional information about the alleged damage until its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 10 November 2021. The delay in acknowledging and addressing the resident’s concerns was likely to have caused inconvenience to her as she needed to repeatedly raise the same concerns.
Within its complaint responses to the resident, the landlord agreed to “make good” areas which had been damaged. This included areas where walls had been damaged when the radiators were fitted, and areas affected by historic staining. It also agreed to reimburse the resident £80 to cover the cost of cleaning her carpet following the leak from radiators and £100 towards the cost of decorating 2 walls which had woodchip paintwork – this was reasonable in the circumstances.
It is noted that the resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s intention to complete patch repairs and wanted it to either accept the quote to decorate her living room, hallway, stairs, landing and bathroom or complete full decoration works. It should be noted that the landlord would only be expected to “put right” the damage and would not be expected to decorate rooms in their entirety unless there was extensive damage which could not be put right with patch decoration. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence to suggest that there were extensive decoration works required in the property and its offer was reasonable in the circumstances. It is recommended that the landlord keeps this offer open should the resident decide that she wishes for it to complete making good decorations.

Summary

Within its final complaint response on 24 March 2022, the landlord offered the resident £630 in relation to its handling of the repair issues. This was comprised of £80 towards carpet cleaning costs, £50 in recognition of the time and trouble caused in relation to the numerous appointments required for repairs, £100 towards the woodchip paint on 2 walls, and £400 for the overall time and trouble and delays caused to the resident in removing the asbestos and fitting the vinyl flooring until July 2022.
While the landlord’s total offer goes some way to recognise the impact on the resident, it is not considered proportionate in view of the overall impact on her as a result of the multiple longstanding repair issues, the delays experienced and the efforts she had to go to in order to obtain a resolution over a significant period. As such, the landlord is to pay the resident additional compensation as detailed in the orders below.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Following the resident’s complaint on 26 October 2021, the landlord responded at stage 1 on 10 November 2021, which was within a reasonable timeframe. However, it failed to provide the resident with information on how she could escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied with its response and did not provide any additional information as to how the complaint could be escalated until 6 December 2021. This was likely to have caused inconvenience to the resident, who believed her complaint was at stage 2 of the process by this time.
The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 6 December 2021. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 28 January 2022, which was outside of its policy timescales. The landlord acted fairly by informing the resident that there was likely to be a delay on 23 December 2021 and informing her of its new expected response timescale of 28 January 2022. It also acted fairly within its stage 2 complaint response by acknowledging the delay, apologising, and offering £100 compensation for its complaint handling delays at this stage – this is considered proportionate in the circumstances.
The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response on 28 January 2022. The landlord acknowledged this and confirmed it would review its response further on 3 February 2022. It then issued a reviewed stage 2 complaint response on 24 March 2022. Given the resident’s ongoing dissatisfaction, it was not unreasonable for the landlord to review its stage 2 complaint response further albeit it is noted that a third stage is not listed under its complaints process.
The landlord acted fairly by noting the delay in acknowledging the complaint. It took reasonable steps to inform the resident that there would be a delay in providing its response on 3 March 2022 and acknowledging the delay within its further response. Its offer of £200 compensation for the inconvenience caused is considered proportionate in recognition of the delays and the additional time and trouble spent by the resident in pursuing her complaint.
In considering the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint, the Ombudsman has also considered whether it was appropriate for the landlord to exclude elements of the complaint from its complaints process. It was reasonable that the resident’s concerns related to her back door were not considered by it within the complaint responses as the resident had not raised these as part of her formal complaint on 26 October 2021.
However, the landlord said that it was unable to consider concerns that had not been raised in the previous 6 months in line with its complaints policy. The landlord’s complaints policy states that the landlord may refuse to accept a complaint where issues occurred more than 6 months previously, unless there is evidence that this has been raised to staff and no action has been taken. The landlord’s decision to exclude repair issues that had not been raised in the previous 6 months led to a failure to consider whether issues had been reported to staff or whether appropriate action had previously been taken. In addition, in its stage 2 complaint response on 28 January 2022, the landlord said that any incidents or concerns which occurred before the 6-month timeframe would not be considered unless they directly related to the complaint that had been made. This statement was likely to cause confusion for the resident as the issues reported did relate to her active complaint.
The evidence shows that the resident had reported the condition of her shed as part of her list of repairs in February 2021. Her concerns were not addressed at the time despite being reported. The resident had also raised this issue as part of her complaint on 17 March 2021 and the landlord acknowledged the shed as being part of her complaint on 16 April 2021. The resident had reported the shed issues again on 1 July 2021 in response to the landlord’s stage 1 complaint, which had not commented on her concerns. There is no further evidence to confirm that any action was taken in response to the resident’s concerns, and she then raised concerns as part of her formal complaint on 26 October 2021.
Given the above, it was not appropriate for the landlord to exclude the resident’s concerns regarding the shed from its complaints process as the evidence shows that the issue had been reported but no action had been taken to resolve her concerns. The landlord’s approach led to a missed opportunity to address the resident’s concerns at an earlier date and prevent additional inconvenience and time and trouble being spent by her in pursuing a resolution.
The resident had also reported that tiles continued to fall from her roof and her concerns in relation to this in her list of repairs in February 2021. There is no evidence to suggest that any action was taken following her report or that this was addressed at the time. While the landlord raised an appointment for the roof tiles at the time of its stage 1 complaint response on 10 November 2021, it said it would not investigate her concerns as the issues had not been raised in the previous 6 months. As above, the evidence shows that the resident had raised concerns in February 2021, but these had not been addressed by staff. The landlord’s position that it could not review its handling of this matter was therefore unreasonable and was a missed opportunity to acknowledge its previous failure to address her concerns.
Within her complaint on 26 October 2021, the resident also added concerns that there was a “dodgy” light in the loft, the pipes were not connected in her loft which had caused a previous flood, and there was asbestos in the loft. The landlord did not specifically address these concerns within its stage 1 complaint response, however the resident raised additional concerns about asbestos in her loft and a light installed by a previous tenant on 10 November 2021 in response to the landlord. While these issues were not raised in the resident’s formal escalation request on 6 December 2021, it is the Ombudsman’s view that there was a missed opportunity to address the resident’s concerns in its initial response. Its failure to do so meant that the resident’s concerns remained outstanding, and she needed to spend additional time and trouble pursuing these.
Within its responses, the landlord failed to demonstrate that it had taken points of learning from the resident’s complaint. There were missed opportunities by the landlord to learn from the outcome of the case and put steps in place to prevent similar failures occurring in the future. While it offered compensation for her time and trouble and for the numerous appointments required, it failed to explain what the specific failings were. The landlord’s lack of learning from the complaint was a missed opportunity to improve its service moving forward.
It is the Ombudsman’s view that several elements of the resident’s complaint were unfairly excluded from the complaint. This was a missed opportunity to put things right for the resident and act fairly. The failure led to additional time and trouble being spent by the resident in pursuing the repair issues and a resolution. The Ombudsman would have expected to see evidence that the landlord had investigated why the repairs had not progressed and confirmed its position to the resident. Its failure to do so meant that its complaint investigation was flawed, and this was likely to have caused uncertainty to the resident as to how seriously the landlord treated the complaint.
The landlord took adequate steps to put right its complaint handling delays and its offer of £300 compensation offered for these was reasonable. However, the overall level of compensation is not considered proportionate in view of the additional time and trouble spent by the resident in pursuing her concerns as a result of the landlord unfairly excluding certain repair issues from its complaints process.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs in the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

While the landlord’s offer of £630 compensation in recognition of the time and trouble spent by the resident pursuing repairs, numerous appointments and the delay in sourcing the replacement floor covering went some way to rectify the inconvenience caused to her, it failed to communicate failings it had acknowledged internally or fully put right its failings in this case.
The landlord acted fairly by acknowledging complaint handling delays, apologising and offering £300 compensation to the resident. However, the landlord unfairly excluded several elements of the resident’s complaint from its complaints process and failed to consider some aspects which led to additional time and trouble being spent by her in pursuing her concerns.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
In addition to its previous offer of £930, the landlord is to pay the resident an additional £600 within 4 weeks of the date of this report. This is comprised of:
1. £400 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused, and time and trouble spent by the resident in relation to the landlord’s handling of the repair issues.
2. £200 in recognition of the inconvenience and time and trouble caused to the resident as a result of the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is to write to the resident to confirm whether she is able to make a compensation claim for her damaged electrical items which she alleges were as a result of the landlord’s failure to complete electrical works in her property. It should confirm what evidence the resident would need to provide in order to progress this.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to update the resident’s account with any household vulnerabilities and times to avoid, such as the school run if it has not already done so, to ensure that these can be taken into consideration when completing any future repairs.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to contact the resident to discuss any outstanding repair issues in the property and complete an inspection of the resident’s property to identify any outstanding repair issues. The inspection should include, but is not limited to, the resident’s front door and windows.
Within 2 weeks of this inspection, the landlord is ordered to write to the resident to confirm its conclusions and outline the scope of any works required and an expected completion date. It should also assign and provide details for a member of staff to be a point of contact for the resident and monitor the ongoing works through to completion.
Within 6 weeks of this report, the landlord is to complete a management review of this case to establish points of learning and steps it can take to improve its services in the future. A copy of this review should be provided to the Ombudsman.
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within the specified timescales.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord considers carrying out staff training for complaint handlers to ensure that appropriate discretion is used when applying the 6-month timeframe for complaints to ensure that elements of a complaint are not unfairly excluded from its complaints process.
It is recommended that the landlord reviews its contractual relationships and service standards for its surveyors and contractors to ensure that reports following inspections are provided within a reasonable timescale to avoid any unnecessary delay or inconvenience to its residents.
It is recommended that the landlord reviews its approach and handling of cases where multiple repairs are reported in a property to ensure that each repair issue raised is followed through to completion and residents do not need to spend time and trouble re-raising issues. It should consider implementing a single point of contact in these cases to avoid any unnecessary confusion about works required.
The landlord should confirm its intentions in respect of the above recommendations within 4 weeks of the date of this report.