Sanctuary Housing Association (202204063)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204063

Sanctuary Housing Association

18 September 2023

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the way the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of:

Rotten floorboards;
Exposed gas pipes;
An unsafe internal glazed door;
Water ingress.

This report will also look at the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident lives in a three bedroom semi-detached house with her children. She moved into the property through a mutual exchange and her tenancy began in February 2020.

Legal and Policy Framework

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. The law says that a landlord should repair a housing defect ‘within a reasonable amount of time’. This is not specific but depends on the circumstances and levels of urgency.
The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Policy lists two repair categories: Emergency and Routine repairs. Emergency repairs apply to any repairs necessary to remove a serious threat to the health and safety of the residents or the structure and fabric of the property. The landlord responds to all emergency repair requests by attending and making the property safe within 24 hours. Routine repairs include works that are not causing damage to the property and do not pose a threat to the health and safety of the resident; however, they cannot wait to be included in the landlord’s capital works programme. The landlord aims to complete all routine repairs within 20 working days (or 28 calendar days). The policy states that pre-inspections are arranged and completed within 10 working days of works being requested
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints procedure. The first stage, referred to as ‘Front Line Resolution’ (FLR) consists of, “front line staff taking swift action to resolve customers’ concerns effectively”. The second stage, referred to as ‘Investigation’ consists of an independent investigation into the resident’s concerns followed by a full written report of the findings. The landlord’s timescale for responding to stage one complains is 10 working days, while it aims to respond to stage two complaints within 20 working days.
The landlord’s Compensation Policy will award different amounts for service failure, depending on the level of impact on the resident. For low impact, the landlord will award up to £50 and this will be for minor delays in raising a complaint or delays in responding to an issue without updating the resident. Amounts of between £51 and £150 are paid for medium impact, which include delays or difficulties raising a complaint or delays in responding, which lead to increased contact form the resident. High impact, where redress is between £151 and £400 is when, for example, the resident experiences significant difficulties raising complaints and poor quality correspondence.

Summary of events

On 24 November 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to report that her foot had gone through the flooring, which she said was rotten. She had also approached the council’s Housing Standards department about this and other issues, including exposed copper piping in the lounge. The landlord booked an emergency repair and an operative attended on the same day and reported that the floorboards in the living room were infested with woodworm and needed to be replaced. A further operative attended the property on 7 December 2021 to carry out a second assessment of the flooring and agreed that the floorboards should be replaced as a matter of urgency.
The landlord called the resident on 8 December 2021 to confirm that a surveyor was booked to inspect the property on 16 December 2021. The resident’s member of parliament (MP) wrote to the landlord on the same day about the resident’s outstanding repairs. The MP stated that the resident had called the landlord a number of times but was unable to speak to anyone.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 16 December 2021 to raise a stage one complaint, in which she stated the following:

She said there were many outstanding repairs in her property, including exposed pipes in her lounge that became hot.
Her flooring was rotten and unsafe and that, after the landlord had told her it was perfectly safe, her foot went through it.
There was a single pane glass door, which she was advised by the landlord was illegal because it was not safety glass. She added that it had been like that for a year and a half.
There was tea staining marks on her chimney breast and walls, and her roof needed to be fixed.
She said she had been stuck in her bedroom with her children and that the repair issues, along with the fact she could not use her living room at Christmas, was taking a toll on her health.

The landlord wrote to the MP on 17 December 2021 to say that its surveyor was due to inspect the property the previous day but the appointment was cancelled because the council’s Housing Standards service had attended instead. It explained that the council would send the landlord a list of required works, which it would attend to. It asked the MP to reassure the resident that the matter had been escalated and that it would raise the works in line with the council’s requirements.
The council wrote to the landlord on 21 December 2021 to say that its inspection had identified hazards, “which have been assessed using the statutory assessment system under the Housing Act 2004: The Housing Health and Safety Rating System.” It told the landlord that it should remove the damaged floorboards and joists, treat all retained timbers for woodworm, fit new treated floorboards and leave the floor in a safe and sound condition. It also ordered the landlord to cover the copper piping in the lounge with a suitable material to prevent accidental contact with the hot surfaces.
The resident chased the landlord on 6 January 2022 as she had not had a response to the complaint she had sent.
The council wrote to the landlord on 17 January 2022 to say it would schedule an appointment to inspect the property and that, if there had been little or no progress, it would take action under the Housing Act 2004, part 1.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage one complaint on 19 January 2022 and, on 25 January 2022, the landlord commissioned an external wood treatment company to carry out an inspection of the woodworm infestation in the property.
The landlord sent the resident its stage one response on 21 February 2022, which stated the following:

It confirmed that the resident had reported the exposed copper pipes on 16 September 2021 and an operative attended on 28 September 2021 and advised that they needed to be boxed in. The landlord confirmed it had booked the repair for 22 February 2022.
The landlord stated that the resident reported the rotten floorboards on 24 November 2021 and, on 6 January 2022, an operative confirmed that they would need to be replaced due to woodworm. The landlord confirmed that it completed works to replace the living room floor on 30 and 31 December 2021.
When the resident called the landlord on 6 January 2022 to inform it that one of the floorboards had not been replaced, operatives attended on 18 January 2022 to replace it.
The resident had raised the issue of the single pane glass door on 30 September 2021 but the landlord stated the job had been cancelled but could not explain why. It confirmed that it had raised the job again and that this was booked for 25 March 2022.
The landlord stated that it could not see any works raised in relation to the roof but asked the resident to let it know what the issue was.
The landlord apologised for the delays the resident had experienced while waiting for the repairs to be completed and asked if she would respond with regard to the roof so it could organise for the relevant repair to be raised.

The MP wrote to the landlord again on 10 March 2022 after being contacted by the resident about outstanding repairs. They reported that the resident had been unable to use her lounge since September 2021. The landlord wrote back to the MP on 24 March 2022 to confirm it had scheduled works on 1 April 2022 to box in the pipes and an independent timber treatment company would attend to eliminate the woodworm. It said that it had been waiting for the company to send a quotation and had chased it up. It added that it had booked work to repair an immersion tank leak for 31 March 2022, and had also completed work on 7 March 2022 to address water ingress above the front door.
The resident contacted the landlord on 1 April 2022 to say that the pipes had still not been boxed in and other repairs had not been completed either. She stated that the repairs team told her that it would be carrying out the works on 21 June 2022 but, in the meantime, she was having to live in her bedroom with her children.
On 8 April 2022, the council wrote to the landlord with a Section 12 Housing Act 2004 Improvement Notice and a demand for payment.
The landlord contacted the resident on 6 May 2022 to state it had received the quote for the timber treatment and hoped the work would be raised ‘within the next few weeks’. It apologised for the delays and assured the resident it was dealing with the matter. It stated that, if the resident wished to progress her complaint, she should explain why she remained dissatisfied and what she felt would be a reasonable resolution.
The landlord completed an inspection of the property on 19 May 2022 and raised all the required remaining works, including the repairs that the council had ordered and wrote to the resident’s MP on 31 May 2022 to update them with this information.
The council wrote to the landlord on 7 June 2022 and stated that the requirements of its notice were to start the works by 6 May 2022 and complete them within 30 days. The council understood there had been a delay in the works commencing due to availability of contractors, and acknowledged works were due to start on 27 June 2022. It said it would not take any formal action at that time but, once the works were in progress, it would arrange to revisit and check on progress.
Following a telephone discussion with the resident, the landlord wrote to her on 8 June 2022 and apologised that the repairs were taking so long. It also stated that it had agreed to pay for the cost of the resident’s carpets to be refitted following the woodworm treatment.
The landlord sent a letter to the resident on 8 August 2022 as a follow up to its stage one response and stated the following:

It was pleased to see all works had been completed and understood that it had reimbursed the resident for the carpet refit.
It apologised for the delays in completing the repairs and for the landlord’s lack of communication. It offered the resident £250, which it referred to as a ‘goodwill gesture’ and broke it down as follows: £100 for time, trouble and inconvenience, and £150 for poor communication.
It asked the resident to let it know if she was happy to accept this amount as resolution to her complaint and explained how it would be making the payment.

The resident called the landlord on 9 August 2022 to say that, contrary to what the landlord had said, the works in her property had not been completed. The copper pipes in her lounge were still exposed and other repairs had not been done. She wrote to the landlord on 22 August 2022 to say she was ‘getting nowhere’ with her house and that this had been going on since 2020. She stated the she had been living in her bedroom for a year and that she wanted to speak to senior management. The landlord responded on the same day to confirm that it had escalated the resident’s complaint to stage two. It also wrote to give an update on the ongoing works, including the boxing in of pipes, which was booked for 6 September 2022,
The resident chased the landlord several times, between 1 and 15 September 2022 for updates and, on 20 September 2022, the landlord sent the resident a holding reply, letting her know that, because it needed more time to complete its investigation, there would be a delay in sending its stage two response. It said it would make sure she received it no later than 4 October 2022.
The resident wrote back on 21 September 2022 to say it wanted the landlord to take into consideration that she and her children had been ‘stuck in a room’.She was unable to use her paid satellite subscription service for a year, there was wear on her bedroom carpet and mattress as a result of not being able to use her living room, she had to pay for takeaways and she had spent hours on the telephone to try and resolve the repair issues.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 4 October 2022 to say it needed to clarify some information with its surveyor before completing its response. On 5 October 2022 it sent its stage two response, which stated the following:

It had investigated the delays in completing various repairs, which included exposed pipes, rotten floorboards, an unsafe internal glass door and a roof leak.
It said that, on 16 September 2021, the resident had first reported that a fire in her living room had been removed, leaving exposed pipes that were still getting hot and the resident was concerned for the safety of her children. An operative attended on 29 September 2021 and advised that a further visit would need to take place to assess what action it should take to address the issue.
It stated that the resident contacted it on several occasions over the following two months to chase up what was happening and she had to make sure her children were kept away from the pipes. The landlord’s gas team were unable to re-locate the pipework and an operative attended on 22 February 2022 and reported that a carpenter was required to box in the pipes.
The landlord apologised for the length of time it took its Maintenance team to complete the work and for the inconvenience caused. It confirmed that the work had been completed on 6 September 2022.
The landlord apologised for the issues the resident experienced with the floorboards in her living room and the inconvenience caused to her and her children. It confirmed that the resident called the landlord on 24 November 2021 to report that the boards were rotten. An operative attended on the same day and reported that the flooring and joists were full of woodworm and needed to be replaced.
The landlord explained that, due to the extensive works that had been proposed, it sent another operative to provide a second opinion. They confirmed the damage and stated that the floor had to be replaced as a matter of urgency. It confirmed that two operatives attended between 29 and 30 December to replace the floor.
It stated that, following recommendations made by the council’s Housing Standards department, the landlord asked its specialist contractor to provide a quote for carrying out a treatment to eradicate the woodworm. It apologised for the delay in the contractor providing the quote, which meant the works were not arranged until June 2022.
The landlord stated that, although the cost of lifting and relaying the carpet in order to complete the wood treatment would be the resident’s responsibility, it contacted the resident on 8 June 2022 to let her know that it had agreed to pay for the carpet refit.
It said that, on 30 September 2021, the resident had reported that there was an internal single pane glass door that was a safety risk. A job was initially raised for an operative to attend and assess whether a new door was required. However, this appointment was cancelled, with no reason given. It apologised for the service failure and said it had raised the issue with the appropriate manager.
The landlord explained that a further appointment was booked for 25 March 2022 but the operative was unable to gain access. An operative managed to attend on 10 May 2022 and reported that the door needed to be replaced. The landlord confirmed that a new door was fitted on 12 July 2022.
It said that the resident made contact on 30 January 2022 after a contractor said there was an issue with the immersion tank leaking in the loft. An operative attended on 31 March 2022 and reported they could not find any evidence of a leak from the cold water tank and advised they would return with another operative to inspect the chimney stack.
Following an inspection on 26 May 2022, it was reported that the condition of the chimney was ‘very poor’ and that, in order to address the issues, scaffolding was required. The landlord confirmed that operatives had attended on 21 July 2022 to repair the chimney render and lead flashing.
In addition to the compensation of £250 it had offered in its stage one response, it offered an additional payment of £50 in recognition of the delay in logging and acknowledging the resident’s complaint.
It said that, with regard to the resident’s request for compensation for the time she was unable to use her living room because of the rotten floorboards and timber treatment, it’s surveyor advised that the insecticide treatment was an advisory recommendation from the council and that, as soon as the floorboards were replaced, she should have been able to use her living room.
The landlord added that it was unable to consider the resident’s compensation claims for wear on her bedroom carpets and mattress, not being able to use her satellite TV service or the cost of buying takeaway meals.
It offered a loss of facilities payment of £78 for the time the resident was unable to use her living room from 24 November 2021, when she first reported the rotten floorboards to 18 January 2022, when the landlord replaced a floorboard that had not been initially replaced in December 2021.
It added that it appreciated the ‘major inconvenience’ caused to the resident and her children not being able to use the living room over the Christmas period and offered an further £100 for her time and trouble.
The landlord offered total compensation of £728 and broke this down as follows:

£100 for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused by delays in repairs;
£150 for the lack of regular communication at stage one of the complaints process;
£50 for the delay in complaint being logged and acknowledged;
£78 for the loss of facilities for not being able to use living room between 24 November 2021 and 18 January 2022;
£100 for the further time and trouble for the inconvenience caused by not being able to use living room until the floorboards were replaced;
£75 for the inconvenience for delay in the woodworm treatment being completed;
£100 for the inconvenience for delays in exposed gas pipes being boxed in and the internal glass door being replaced;
£50 for the numerous calls the resident made to chase up outstanding repairs;
£25 for the delay in responding to the resident’s stage two complaint.

The resident responded on 6 October 2022 and stated the following:

Some of the information in the landlord’s response was incorrect. The resident said that many operatives attended to take measurements to box up the pipes, and she kept being given different dates, which meant the pipes remained exposed and her living room was out of use from 16 September 2021 to 6 September 2022.
She said that she had rung on many occasions about the rotten floor and was told by the landlord that it was not an important job.
She had been told by an operative that the internal glazed door was illegal because the glass was not safety glass, and she had asked for it to be changed many times. The resident added that lots of operatives came to the house unannounced after work was booked, without her being told.
The resident said that she rang about the roof many times and was told she ‘was lying’ and that the contractor would not have identified a leak.

The landlord sent a further response on 26 October 2022 and stated the following:

It said it had reviewed her the further concerns with its senior surveyor.
The surveyor stated that, in his professional opinion, the living room was not unsafe to use after the floorboards were replaced.
The landlord said that, while it understood the old pipework not being boxed in may have been an inconvenience, it would not have been unsafe as it had been capped off and would not have prevented the resident from using her living room.
It said that, with regard to the internal door, while it did not replace those types of doors as part of a planned works programme, it would replace them if it was identified that they do not contain safety glass. It was sorry it did not replace the door sooner. However, while it understood that the resident had concerns about her children slamming doors, it said the door would still have been safe to use until it was replaced.
The landlord reiterated its offer of £728 and asked the resident to respond within three months if she wanted to accept the payment.

The resident wrote to the landlord on 5 January 2023 to accept the landlord’s compensation offer and the landlord responded on the same day to inform her that the money would be in her account within ten working days.

Assessment and findings

Rotten floorboards

The Ombudsman has noted and wishes to acknowledge that the resident and her family have suffered significant distress and inconvenience as a result of delays in the completion of outstanding repairs. The Ombudsman recognises how upsetting it must have been to be uncomfortable in one’s own home, and to have to live with the anxiety caused by potential hazards in their home and the disruption of repeated visits by operatives, particularly when looking after young children.
The landlord acted appropriately when it attended the property on the day the resident reported that her foot had gone through a section of flooring in her living room. The landlord was not at fault when it arranged for another operative to attend and re-assess the flooring, given the extensive nature of the job, the potential cost of the works required to replace the whole floor and the disturbance the work would cause to the resident.
It is positive to note that the landlord carried out its second assessment two weeks after the resident reported the issue, which was in line with its 10 working day timescale for completing pre-inspections, and also in line with its Maintenance & Repairs Policy. It should be noted that the outcome of this assessment was consistent with the first, and with the outcome of the inspection the council carried out on 16 December 2021. This suggests that the operatives the landlord had sent were knowledgeable and had the skills to properly assess the relevant problem, which in this case was a woodworm infestation.
The landlord acted appropriately, and in line with its Maintenance & Repairs Policy, when it completed works to replace the resident’s living room floor within 28 calendar days; and within two weeks of receiving the works schedule from the council’s Housing Standards department. The landlord demonstrated that it took appropriate steps to ensure the unstable flooring in the property was made safe and replaced as soon as possible, and that the room could be returned to normal use. It is noted that, when the resident reported further issues with the floor, the landlord re-attended the property, within its timescale to complete the remaining routine repairs.
Although it had replaced the affected flooring, it was positive that the landlord followed the council’s recommendation and commissioned a woodworm treatment as a precautionary measure. Although there was a delay in carrying out the treatment, this was largely due to the time it took for the contractor to provide a quote. In addition, the landlord acted reasonably when it apologised and offered compensation for the delay. It was also appropriate that the landlord exercised its discretion and took a customer-focused approach when it agreed to pay for the cost of refitting the resident’s carpet following the treatment.
Although it was unfortunate and understandably upsetting for the resident that the works coincided with the Christmas period, which meant the family were unable to fully enjoy their home during this time, it was appropriate that the landlord carried out the work during this period rather than delay until after the New Year. This indicates that the landlord was aware of its obligations under the Housing Act 2004, and that it responded correctly to the urgency of the repair. It was also positive that the landlord offered compensation for the delay in completing the woodworm treatment. In view of the above, the evidence shows there was no fault in the way the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of rotten floorboards in her property.

Exposed gas pipes

It is unclear why there was conflicting information from the landlord about the exposed gas pipes in the living room. The landlord’s email to the resident, dated 26 October 2022 states that its senior surveyor, “advised that whilst he understood that the old gas heating pipework not being boxed in may have been an inconvenience to you, it would not have been unsafe as the pipework had been capped off and would not have prevented you from using your lounge”. This contradicts reports from the resident that the pipes became hot, and an earlier record from an operative dated 8 September 2021 who reported, following an inspection, that: “This job needs to be followed on as the pipes get very hot and she (the resident) has young children”.
As there is no evidence the senior surveyor had inspected the property, it is unclear why the landlord failed to check its records of inspections prior to competing its response. It is clear that, in this instance, the communication from the landlord was confusing. In addition, there is no evidence to show that the landlord had capped the pipework at any time; therefore, it is unclear where the surveyor had obtained this information when providing advice to the landlord. This further demonstrates that the landlord had not reviewed its records sufficiently or verified the information it was relying on before responding to the resident.
In addition, following its inspection on 16 December 2021, the council’s Housing Standards department classified the exposed pipes as a category two hazard under the Housing Act 2004’s Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). The council’s schedule required the landlord to, “have the copper piping in the lounge covered with a suitable material to prevent accidental contact with the hot surfaces and leave in a safe condition”.
Although the view of the landlord’s senior surveyor was that the exposed pipes would not have prevented the resident from using her living room, her concerns for the safety of her children were understandable, and this was reinforced by the operative’s note that mentions the ‘very’ hot pipes and ‘young children’. There was no indication the landlord properly considered the safety implications on the resident’s children or that it treated the matter with any urgency. The landlord’s failure to recognise the implications of the potential hazard demonstrates a lack of empathy and a failure in its duty of care towards a family with small children.
In view of the delays in completing the boxing in work, the landlord could have considered providing a temporary measure in the meantime that would have prevented the resident’s children from coming into contact with the pipes, such as providing a screen or heat proof blankets to prevent contact with the pipes. It could also have advised the resident how she could make the exposed pipes less of a risk while waiting for the job to be completed, such as whether or not it was safe to put furniture against them. This would have helped to give the resident some reassurance that she could continue using her living room, as well as putting her mind at rest with regard to the risks to her children.
The landlord’s communication regarding this repair was poor and the resident was left to continually chase it up when it failed to provide updates. In addition, the landlord gave various dates as to when the work would take place, only for this to be pushed back to a later date. There is also evidence that operatives were attending the property without prior arrangements being made with the resident, which would have caused her understandable frustration and inconvenience. This indicates there was a lack of coordination and organisation between the landlord and its operatives.
It was also inappropriate that the landlord sent an incorrectly qualified operative on 22 February 2022 to carry out the repair. Given the nature of the work, the landlord should have already been aware that a carpenter was required. This again demonstrates poor communication between teams. It also meant that the resident was subject to disruption from unnecessary visits by operatives, who were unable to complete the required repair.
The landlord acted appropriately when it carried out its pre-inspection of the exposed pipes within 10 working days of it being reported, which was within its timescale. However, it took around a year for the landlord to box in the exposed pipes, which was excessively outside its timescale for routine repairs. The landlord was additionally at fault for failing to properly recognise the urgency of the repair after it was identified as a category two hazard by the council. The evidence shows that the landlord failed to take reasonable steps to respond to the resident’s reports of exposed pipework.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered has put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged the delay, and the time, trouble and inconvenience caused. It offered an apology and some compensation; however, its offer does not adequately recognise the extent of the delay. In addition, the landlord’s failed to properly recognise the safety implications of the outstanding repair or the impact this had on the resident. There is no indication in the landlord’s response that it had taken any learning from its failings or put any measures in place to address the shortcomings that had been highlighted in its investigation. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s offer does not adequately reflect the extent of the distress and inconvenience caused and requires further redress to put matters right.

Unsafe internal glass door

Although the council’s inspection on 16 December 2021 did not identify the single glazed internal door as a safety hazard, there is internal communication from the landlord that indicates that it was aware that building regulations state internal glazed doors ‘must’ have safety glass. The landlord also stated that, “as a rule we change them (glazed doors) as we come across them”. This suggests that, if residents report having non-compliant glazed doors in their properties, these should be dealt with as routine repairs and replaced accordingly.
The landlord was at fault for cancelling a pre-inspection appointment after the resident reported her safety concerns about the door on 30 September 2021. The landlord could not provide any reason for the cancellation, or why it failed to contact the resident to inform her it had been cancelled. It was left for the resident to chase up the repair as part of her stage one complaint before the landlord re-booked the appointment.
In addition, it took the landlord around six months for the landlord to inspect the door following the resident’s complaint. Although it was unable to gain access a month before the door was eventually replaced, this was still over five months after the resident raised her complaint. The delay was excessively protracted, particularly considering the landlord had cancelled the previous appointment in error.
There is no evidence the landlord had explored putting any temporary measures in place while the resident waited for the door to be replaced. It could have boarded up the glass panels, for example, in order to give the resident some peace of mind and to remove the potential risks of the glass being broken by accident. The landlord failed to demonstrate a resident centred approach when the resident was repeatedly expressing her safety concerns.
The landlord acted appropriately when it offered an apology and compensation for the delay; however, it was not until 10 months after the resident’s complaint that the landlord eventually replaced the door. This demonstrates that the landlord failed to properly acknowledge the resident’s worries over the risk she felt the door posed to her children. The lack of a customer-focused approach and excessive delay outside of the landlord’s 20 working day timescale meant that the landlord failed to take reasonable steps to property respond to the resident’s reports of an unsafe internal door.
Although the landlord apologised for the delay and offered some compensation, it did not demonstrate any learning from the failings it had identified and its offer did not adequately recognise the length of the delay or the impact on the resident or having to repeatedly chase the repair, or distress caused by the safety concerns she had for her children. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s offer does not adequately reflect the extent of the distress and inconvenience caused and requires further redress to put matters right.

Water ingress

Although there was a delay of two months before operatives attended to inspect a leak that the resident had reported on 30 January 2022, the landlord was unable to identity a leak that the resident said a previous contractor had told her about. It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged the leak and ensured that it carried out further investigations in order to identify and address the source of the water ingress.
After establishing that the cold water tank in the resident’s loft was not leaking, the landlord acted appropriately when it arranged a further inspection in order to investigate where the leak was coming from. After identifying that it needed to undertake repairs to the chimney, the landlord completed the necessary work two months later. As the repair necessitated the use of scaffolding, the landlord was not at fault for the delay in completing the work. It is positive to note that the resident reported no further concerns regarding a leak around the chimney area following the work. It was also appropriate that the landlord carried out additional works on 7 March 2022 to address water ingress above the resident’s front door. The landlord has demonstrated that it took reasonable steps to respond to the residents reports of water ingress in the property.

Complaint Handling

The landlord took nearly a month to acknowledge the resident’s stage one complaint and failed to make any contact with her about the concerns she had raised during this time. Even after the resident chased up her complaint, it still took the landlord around 10 days to finally inform her that her formal complaint had been recorded.
In addition, it took the landlord around a month to send its stage one response, and there is no evidence it sent the resident any holding replies in the meantime, or that it agreed any new timescales. Although the resident’s complaint coincided with the Christmas and New Year periods, which may have contributed to some delays, the landlord gave no proper reason why it failed to follow its Complaints Policy or the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. The landlord was correct to acknowledge its poor complaint handling, offer an apology for its lack of communication and offer compensation. It was also positive to note that the landlord’s communication improved, following the resident’s stage two complaint, and that it kept the resident updated more regularly while it carried out its stage two investigation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of rotten floorboards.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of exposed gas pipes.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of an unsafe internal glazed door.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of water ingress.
In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress with regard to its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord acted promptly to inspect the rotten flooring in the resident’s living room after she had reported that her foot had gone through it. It then replaced the affected timber within its timescale for completing routing repairs and carried out a woodworm treatment on the new flooring as a precautionary measure, following a recommendation by the council’s Housing Standards department. In addition, the landlord exercised its discretion and agreed to meet the cost of refitting the resident’s carpet following the woodworm treatment.
The landlord failed to recognise the urgency of the work to box in exposed gas pipes in the resident’s living room, after removal of an old fire. Despite the council identifying a category two hazard, it took the landlord a year to complete the work and, in the meantime, it did nothing to help ease the resident’s worry for the safety of her children by exploring any temporary measures that would prevent contact with the pipes. The landlord’s communication was poor and the resident had to continually chase it up for updates, only to be told that the work would be completed at a later date.
It took the landlord around 10 months to replace a glazed door that did not comply with building regulations, after the resident had reported it. The excessive delay took no account of the resident’s safety concerns and there is no evidence the landlord had explored any temporary measures it could have put in place in order to give the resident some reassurance that the landlord was addressing the potential risks.
Although the landlord took two months to carry out an inspection after the resident reported signs of water ingress, it was proactive in carrying out further investigations to identify the source of any leaks. The landlord was prompt in carrying out repairs to a chimney, which the evidence shows had resolved the problem. In addition, the landlord completed additional works to address water ingress above the resident’s front door.
The landlord’s complaint handling was poor. It failed to follow its Complaints Policy when it took a month for it to acknowledge the resident’s stage one complaint, and a further month to respond. It failed to update the resident while it was investigating its stage one complaint or agree any new timescales with her. However, it acknowledged its poor communication and inadequate service in its stage one response and offered £225 compensation in recognition of its poor complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord to pay the resident £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in carrying out work to address the exposed gas pipes in her living room.
The landlord to pay the resident £500 for the distress and inconvenience cause by the delay in carrying out the work to replace an unsafe glazed internal door.
The total of £1000 to be paid to the resident within four weeks of receiving this determination.
The Ombudsman understands that the landlord has paid the resident compensation of £728 that it offered in its stage two response. If it has not, the landlord to pay this to the resident within four weeks of receiving this determination.
A senior member of staff to apologise to the resident, within four weeks of the date of this determination, for the failures identified in this report.
Using this complaint as learning, the landlord to carry out a review on how it plans to address safety hazards that are identified in its properties and to report back to the Ombudsman within eight weeks of receiving this report with any procedures or changes in policy it has made as a result of its review.

Recommendations

The landlord to provide complaint training to staff, with emphasis on following its Complaints Policy and the importance of communicating with residents when there are likely to be delays in completing responses, ensuring new timescales are agreed.
In order to avoid unnecessary delays in addressing repair issues, the landlord to explore ways it can ensure that, when residents report repairs, appointments that are cancelled in error are picked up quickly and re-booked.