Sanctuary Housing Association (202228567)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228567

Sanctuary Housing Association

9 July 2024

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

1.             The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs:

a.     To remedy damp in the property, and to resolve an issue with the garden flooding.

b.     To the oil boiler and immersion, to the fascia and guttering, and to the ceiling.

c.      To the smoke detectors and the window hinges.

2.             The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

3.             The resident is an assured tenant. The property is a house with a front and rear garden. To the rear of the property is a track, which provides vehicular access to the property. The track is adjacent to a ditch and a field.

4.             The resident emailed the landlord on 26 July 2022, expressing dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of multiple repairs to the property. This included repairs to the bedroom ceiling, unresolved damp, an issue with some window hinges, out of date smoke detectors, an ineffectual boiler, an issue with the thermostat, and an unresolved issue with garden flooding. The landlord logged the resident’s dissatisfaction as a stage 1 complaint on 27 July 2022.

5.             The landlord sent a stage 1 acknowledgment on 3 August 2022, which explained the action that it had taken in relation to the ceiling, the damp, the window hinges, the smoke detectors, and the boiler. The landlord asked the resident to clarify what other repairs he felt were outstanding, so these could be reviewed. 

6.             The resident responded to the landlord on 5 August 2022. The resident stated that the landlord was treating him unfairly by continuing to charge rent while not maintaining the property. To remedy the complaint, the resident wanted the landlord to pay compensation. The resident elaborated on the outstanding repairs.

7.             The landlord issued the stage 1 response on 7 October 2022. The landlord offered its apologies for any inconvenience caused by its handling of the repairs, and for its delay in issuing the stage 1 response. The landlord confirmed the action that it had taken to progress the repairs, including those repairs it said had not previously been reported by the resident. To remedy the complaint, the landlord offered the resident a goodwill payment of £250, which comprised:

a.     £100 in recognition of the resident’s time and trouble.

b.     £150 in recognition of complaint handling delay.

8.             The resident emailed the landlord on 7 October 2022. The resident said he was dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered by the landlord, and it had not addressed his complaint about damp or the garden flooding. He also mentioned that while replacing the smoke alarms, its operative had suggested that the property needed a new fuseboard. The resident was worried by this since the landlord had checked the electrics on 23 November 2021. He questioned whether follow-on works had been arranged.

9.             The landlord issued a reviewed stage 1 response on 18 November 2022. The landlord apologised for not responding to all the points raised in the stage 1 complaint and provided its position on the garden flooding. It said it had no record of follow-on works being reported to the fuseboard. It had arranged an appointment for its electrician to address this. It clarified that it was unable to reimburse the resident for loss of earnings under its complaint policy, but it had increased its goodwill payment to £275. This comprised:

a.     £100 for time and trouble, inconvenience, and delay.

b.     £150 for complaint handling delay.

c.      £25 for poor communication.

10.        The resident emailed the landlord on 18 November 2022, expressing dissatisfaction with the landlord’s revised stage 1 response. The resident did not accept the landlord’s offer of compensation. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s continued dissatisfaction on 25 November 2022. It said that it would raise a stage 2 complaint.

11.        The landlord sent the stage 2 acknowledgement on 1 December 2022. Following this, the landlord told the resident that it needed more time to complete its investigation.

12.        The landlord issued the stage 2 response on 27 January 2023. The landlord apologised for the delay in issuing the response. The landlord explained the action it had taken in relation to repairs to the oil boiler and immersion, the fascia and guttering repairs, the bedroom ceiling, the window hinges, the smoke alarms, the fuseboard, the damp, and the flooding of the garden. To resolve the complaint, the landlord increased its offer of compensation to £475, which comprised:

i.        £275 in respect of the failures identified at stage 1.

ii.      £150 in recognition of its failure to investigate the resident’s concerns about damp earlier, and delays completing repairs to the ceiling. The landlord’s compensation was calculated up to 31 March 2023, when the ceiling works would be completed.

iii.    £50 in recognition of complaint handling delay at stage 2.

13.        The resident brought the complaint to the Ombudsman on 16 February 2023, as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of repairs to the property. The resident said the landlord had cancelled several appointments which had resulted in repairs not being completed. He had also lost earnings, and time with his family, attending appointments that the landlord had aborted or had cancelled at short notice.

14.        The resident told the Ombudsman on 26 June 2024 that to resolve the complaint the landlord should carry out remedial works to resolve the ongoing flooding, complete follow-on works to resolve the damp in the property, and pay compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

15.        The Ombudsman would have focused its investigation on the landlord’s actions between 26 July 2021 and 27 January 2023, about the substantive matters of complaint raised by the resident. This being 12 months prior to the formal complaint being made, through to when the landlord’s complaint process was exhausted. However, the Ombudsman has exercised discretion in this case and has considered events that predate this period. This was so the Ombudsman’s investigation would better reflect the period of investigation considered by the landlord itself at stage 1 and 2 of its internal complaint process. The Ombudsman has also referenced events after the stage 2 response, where it was appropriate and relevant to the resolution of the substantive matters of complaint.

Relevant policies and procedures

16.        The landlord had a statutory obligation under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (the Act), to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The Act also required the landlord to keep in repair and working order, the installations provided for the supply of gas and electricity, and any installation provided for space and water heating. Under the Act, repairs should be carried out within a reasonable timescale.

17.        Landlords must also keep their homes free from category 1 hazards as defined by the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), which includes hazards such as damp and electrical hazards. 

18.        The landlord’s repairs handbook set out the timescales for completing repairs. The landlord had 3 repairs categories as follows:

a.     Emergency repairs. The landlord will attend the property within 24 hours, to make the situation safe.

b.     Appointed repairs. These are non-emergency repairs, such as a leaking gutter. Such repairs will be carried out in a maximum of 28 days.

c.      Planned repairs. These are repairs that can be carried out as part of a programme of works, where maintenance may take longer than 28 days to complete, where there is no risk to health and safety, and where there is no disruption to the quality of life.

19.        The landlord’s compensation policy stated that it could offer compensation for time, trouble, and inconvenience (£0 – £50 low impact, £51 to 150 medium impact, £151 to £400 high impact) and poor complaint handling (up to £150). The landlord was also permitted to make gestures of goodwill (up to authorised limits). In relation to repairs, the landlord could offer:

a.     £3 per day where there was a total loss of heating (between 1 October and 30 April).

b.     £3 per day where there was a total loss of hot water.

c.      £10 per day for missed appointments, where reasonable notice of a change had not been given. 

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the fuseboard, to remedy damp in the property, and to resolve an issue with the garden flooding.

20.        The Ombudsman will address each repair under a separate subheading.

Fuseboard

21.        It is the Ombudsman’s understanding that the landlord had carried out an electrical safety check on the property in November 2021. While the Ombudsman has not seen a copy of the electrical safety check, it is reasonable to assume that had the landlord identified an issue with the fuseboard, this would have been addressed at that time.

22.        The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the resident reported any concerns about the fuseboard until 7 October 2022, which was after the stage 1 complaint was raised. The resident claimed that while the landlord was replacing the smoke detectors in the property on 14 September 2022, its operative suggested that the fuseboard was “not up to the job”. While this is troubling, the Ombudsman has been unable to make a finding about this, since it was not possible to verify from the evidence seen exactly what happened. It is also unclear how the landlord investigated this.

23.        In its reviewed stage 1 response on 18 November 2022, the landlord stated that it had no record of any follow-on works being required to the fuseboard. But given the resident’s concerns it committed to raising a works order to assess the fuseboard. This was an appropriate response in the circumstances. However, there is no evidence of a works order being raised until 5 December 2022, which commented that the fuseboard did not meet the latest regulations. The Ombudsman has been unable to establish the impact of the fuseboard not meeting the current regulations. However, the Ombudsman considers the landlord’s lack of urgency to progress the matter up until this point to be unreasonable.

24.        But having raised the works order, the landlord acted expediently by scheduling an appointment for 6 December 2022. It was unfortunate that the resident was unable to accommodate the appointment, or any other appointments leading up to the festive period, which added unavoidable delay. The evidence shows that the landlord rescheduled the appointment to 31 January 2023, in consultation with the resident.

25.        The resident emailed the landlord on 31 January 2023, following completion of the landlord’s internal complaint process. The resident stated that its operative had been unable to complete works to the fuseboard as he “did not have time”. This caused the resident frustration, as he had taken time off work. On 2 February 2023, the landlord apologised that its operative was unable to replace the fuseboard as planned. But it did not say when its contractor would return. This would have left the resident unclear as to how the matter would be resolved. This was unreasonable.

26.        The landlord emailed the resident on 14 February 2023, to inform him that a new works order had been raised and it would complete the works on 16 March 2023. However, it is understood that this appointment was also cancelled at short notice, which caused the resident added frustration. The landlord’s records state that “the appointment had to be cancelled due to the resident not being informed they needed to contact their energy supplier to fit an isolation switch, as legally we are not allowed to pull it”. This would suggest poor planning and communication on the landlord’s part, which is a concern.

27.        It is understood that the resident was asked on 16 March 2023, to contact his energy supplier to arrange an isolation switch. The resident contacted his supplier the same day who told him that the landlord “could not legally ask for this to be installed, as this could be seen as an illegal tampering with the supply”. Following this the landlord made its own enquiries with the resident’s energy supplier, who said they could fit “a breaker” at a cost. However, in later communications, the landlord said it had come to an arrangement with UK Power Networks so the work could proceed without an isolation switch.

28.        The landlord told the Ombudsman on 12 January 2024, that it had incorrectly informed the resident that an isolator switch was not required. It was committed to working with the resident and his energy supplier to fit an isolator switch, which would in turn allow it to fit the new fuseboard. The resident told the Ombudsman on 26 June 2024, that the fuseboard was replaced on 24 May 2024.

29.        In summary, having identified that the fuseboard needed to be replaced, the landlord should have carried out this work in a reasonable timeframe. This would have been in line with its statutory obligations under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. There was significant delay in the landlord replacing the fuseboard, which was likely to have caused the resident continued worry. The Ombudsman accepts that gaining access to progress the work was problematic due to the resident’s availability. However, it was the landlord’s poor planning and lack of understanding of what was required to complete the work, that accounted for the majority of the delay.

30.        To remedy this complaint point, the landlord is ordered to pay £51 compensation, in recognition of avoidable delay in progressing the matter up to exhaustion of the landlord’s internal complaint process. This compensation has been determined in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and reflects the increased time, trouble, and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Damp

31.        The resident complained at stage 1 on 26 July 2022, that the property had been insulated in 2018, but there was still damp in the property. On 18 November 2022, the resident clarified that the insulation works had exacerbated a long-standing issue with damp in the property. The resident stated that the carpet felt damp and cold, and the tiles were lifting in the hallway. He stated his belief that there was water under the property. The Ombudsman has been unable to verify from the evidence seen if the resident had raised this with the landlord at an earlier stage.

32.        The landlord was obliged to keep the property free of category 1 hazards such as damp and mould, under the HHSRS. However, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord took any action until 25 January 2023, when it raised an urgent damp inspection for the following day. While the full extent of the damp and associated impact upon the resident is unclear, the landlord’s inaction was both unreasonable and inappropriate.

33.        In the stage 2 response on 27 January 2023, the landlord apologised for misunderstanding the resident’s stage 1 complaint about damp. To investigate the matter, it had carried out a damp inspection on 26 January 2023. It said that its repairs team would arrange any follow-on works necessary. It apologised for not taking appropriate action at an earlier stage and offered the resident compensation. It is unclear to the Ombudsman what proportion of the compensation offered related to this complaint element. 

34.        It is understood that the resident did not accept the landlord’s offer of compensation, as he felt that he should wait until the outcome of the landlord’s damp inspection was known. The evidence shows that the resident chased the landlord several times for this after the landlord’s complaint process was exhausted, however, he did not get a timely response. This suggests that the landlord’s communications with the resident did not improve.

35.        The landlord contacted the resident on 20 November 2023, as it was unclear from its own records whether there were any outstanding issues. This suggests that there was an issue with the landlord’s record keeping. After the resident confirmed that the damp had not been resolved, the landlord raised an urgent works order for its contractor to address this. It committed to tracking and monitoring the identified repairs through to completion and keeping the resident informed, which was encouraging.

36.        The resident told the Ombudsman on 26 June 2024, that 2 contractors had inspected the property since the landlord’s complaint process was exhausted. It was his understanding that recommendations had been made to address the damp, but the landlord had not been in contact for 2 or 3 months. The resident said he was unclear about the next steps and the timeline for completing the works, which is a concern.

37.        Overall, there was significant delay of 127 working days before the landlord began to address the resident’s concerns about damp in the property. The landlord’s inaction would have created uncertainty for the resident as to how the landlord was intending to address the damp. Although the landlord inspected the property on 26 January 2023, it did not share its findings or its next steps in a timely manner, which caused the resident further distress and uncertainty.

38.        To remedy this complaint point, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay £400 compensation. This order reflects the resident’s distress, inconvenience, as well as time and trouble, arising from the landlord’s delay to address the resident’s concerns about damp, and its delay to share the findings and next steps from its damp inspection. This compensation has been determined in line with the landlord’s compensation policy.

Flooding of the garden

39.        The resident reported significant flooding within the rear garden on 24 December 2020, from overflowing drains. The evidence shows that the landlord’s drainage contactor attended to rod the drains the same day, in accordance with its repairs policy. The evidence suggests that this was the resident’s first report about drainage issues at the property.

40.        Following this, the landlord investigated ownership of an unmaintained ditch to the rear of the property, which the resident believed was in the landlord’s ownership and may have been the cause of the flooding. The landlord found the land to be unregistered and committed to investigating this further with the local authority and parish council. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence to suggest that the landlord inspected the ditch itself. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that the landlord considered whether inadequate ditch maintenance was a contributory factor to the flooding, which is a concern.

41.        The landlord subsequently informed the resident that the land behind the property was not owned by it and it was not responsible for the ditches or fields behind the garden.

42.        The country entered a national lock down on 6 January 2021 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which continued until 12 April 2021. During this time landlords were required to follow government guidance, which had a direct impact on how landlords delivered their services. However, the landlord was permitted over this period, to complete inspections and carry out identified works, provided that necessary precautions were taken in line with public health advice.

43.        On 13 January 2021, the resident asked the landlord to assess the garden for damages and form a view on the adequacy of the drainage. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord acted reasonably by requesting photographs of the garden, to help it decide if an inspection was required. But a physical inspection would have provided greater assurance about the adequacy of the drainage.

44.        Upon reviewing the photographs, the landlord concluded that the back garden was very low in relation to the water table. Additionally, the property and the garden were a lot lower than the road, so any excess water from the road would add to the water levels. In its opinion, the creation of additional soakaways would not improve the situation, but it reassured the resident that any water underneath the property would naturally dry out without causing an issue, “providing that the solum vents (a type of underfloor ventilation) were clear around the property”. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, given this statement, it may have been prudent for the landlord to have checked that the solum vents were clear.

45.        The resident has told the Ombudsman, that since then, he had experienced persistent and ongoing problems with the garden flooding. However, there is no evidence that the resident reported any subsequent issues with flooding until he raised the stage 1 complaint on 26 July 2022. This either suggests that the resident was not reporting issues to the landlord, or the landlord’s record keeping was inadequate.

46.        After the stage 1 complaint, the landlord promptly made arrangements to inspect the garden on 30 August 2022. While this was encouraging, there is no evidence that an inspection was carried out. This again points to an issue with the landlord’s record keeping.

47.        In the stage 2 response, the landlord said it was sorry that the garden was flooding. However, it had not identified any failings because it had investigated the issues previously raised by the resident within a reasonable timescale. Its surveyor had previously advised that it was unable to resolve the flooding. It did not own the land behind the property and it was not responsible for the ditches or field. The Ombudsman accepts that the landlord investigated the resident’s concerns in 2021 in a timely manner, but the landlord’s response left the resident without any possibility for future resolution. This was unfair. If the landlord felt it was unable to resolve the flooding, it ought to have considered what support or advice it was able to offer the resident.

48.        It was positive that upon reviewing its position on 30 May 2023, the landlord recognised the significant distress that had been caused to the resident by persistent flooding. It reassured the resident that it would work to resolve the matter, despite its previous response advising that it was unable to offer any further assistance. From the evidence seen, the landlord increased its efforts to find a resolution to this issue, which shows that the landlord was trying to put things right. For example, the landlord:

a.     Made a one-off payment of £50 towards the cost of running a garden pump, which had been purchased by the resident.

b.     Carried out an investigation to establish if drainage around the property could be improved.

c.      Carried out an investigation to establish if landscaping could be used to remedy the flooding.

d.     Carried out further investigations around the ongoing maintenance of the ditch. It also obtained a quote to clear the ditch itself.

e.     Assisted the resident in making an application for a priority move. It is noted that the landlord rejected this application, as it felt that a solution to the flooding needed to be found.

49.        However, the resident told the Ombudsman on 26 June 2024, that the issue with the flooding remained unresolved.

50.        In summary, there was a lack of creative effort by the landlord during the complaint process to address the resident’s complaint about the garden flooding. The impact upon the resident between 26 July 2022 and 27 January 2023, was continued uncertainty. There was also likely to have been some loss of some enjoyment and amenity of the garden. However, there was noticeable improvement in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about flooding from 30 May 2023 onwards.

51.        To remedy this complaint point, the landlord is ordered to pay compensation of £400 in recognition of the inconvenience and uncertainty caused to the resident between 26 July 2022 and 27 January 2023, arising from the landlord’s failure to appropriately address the resident’s report about the garden flooding. This calculation recognises that there was some loss and enjoyment of the garden. This compensation has been calculated with reference to the landlord’s compensation policy.

52.        The landlord should endeavour to meet the resident to confirm its intentions to remedy the flooding. If the landlord is unable to offer a solution or additional support, the resident may wish to discuss his options with a solicitor, local law centre, or the Citizens Advice.

Overall

53.        The Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the fuseboard, to remedy damp in the property, and to resolve an issue with the garden flooding. The landlord should reflect upon its handling of these matters, following issue of the stage 2 response. Where failings are identified, the landlord should consider making a further offer of compensation to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the oil boiler and immersion, to the fascia and guttering, and to the ceiling.

54.        The Ombudsman will address each repair under a separate subheading.

The oil boiler and immersion

55.        The resident first reported the immersion heater was not working on 4 March 2022. The landlord replaced the thermostat on 12 April 2022. Since the resident still had access to hot water from the oil boiler, the works were completed within expected timescales for appointed repairs.

56.        The landlord’s contact notes from 28 May 2022, show that the landlord was endeavouring to arrange a routine oil service with the resident. The resident said that he was not available until 15 August 2022. There is no evidence to suggest that the service ought to have been completed in a timelier manner.

57.        There is no evidence that the resident reported any new issues with the immersion or the boiler prior to him raising the stage 1 complaint on 26 July 2022. This was also noted by the landlord in the stage 1 response, which offered to inspect the boiler and immersion if there were still issues. This was a reasonable response.

58.        After the landlord asked for further clarification about the issue, the resident explained that he was having issues with the thermostat and heating timer. In addition, he said it was difficult to heat the property. The resident seemed willing to wait until 15 August 2022 for the landlord to investigate this while it was servicing the oil boiler.

59.        During the oil service its engineer identified the need to carry out a “smartfit upgrade”. The Ombudsman understands this to be a wireless heating control system. On 17 August 2022 the landlord ordered parts and scheduled an appointment to complete the smartfit upgrade on 26 September 2022. The resident told the landlord that he could not provide access on that date. The appointment was rescheduled to 29 September 2022 when the upgrade was completed.

60.        However, while carrying out the upgrade, its engineer found a fault on the airing cupboard immersion. The landlord’s notes suggest that this was preventing the water from heating up via the immersion. Its engineer appropriately requested an electrical inspection but remarked that this was not an urgent job, since the resident still had access to hot water from the boiler. This was fair.

61.        But the following day, the resident reported having no heating or hot water from the boiler. The landlord responded promptly and in line with its repairs policy by arranging for its boiler engineer to attend after 2pm the same day. It was unreasonable that the resident had to chase the landlord for an update the same evening, after its boiler engineer did not attend. The landlord told the resident that it was unable to work on the oil boiler in the rain and would attend the next day if the rain stopped. If its engineer was unable to attend within agreed timescales, it should have proactively notified the resident of this. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord ought to have also considered providing the resident with temporary heating if it was unable to reinstate the heating that evening.

62.        The evidence shows that the landlord contacted the resident on 3 October 2022. The landlord left a voicemail stating that it would attend on 4 October 2022 to complete repairs to the oil boiler. The stage 2 response stated that the heating and hot water was restored on 4 October 2022. But the landlord’s repair notes suggest that the heating and hot water was not restored until 5 October 2022, because the resident had rescheduled the appointment. The evidence shows that the thermostat was replaced on 25 November 2022.

63.        At stage 2, the landlord acknowledged the impact that had been caused to the resident because of the breakdown. However, the landlord ought to have considered offering compensation for the missed appointment on 30 September 2022. It might have considered compensating for the total loss of heating between 1 October 2022 and 5 October 2022. It might have also considered compensating for the total loss of hot water between 30 September 2022 and 5 October 2022. This would have been in line with the landlord’s compensation policy.

64.        On balance, the Ombudsman finds that there was a minor failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the oil boiler and immersion, which caused the resident inconvenience. To remedy this complaint point, the landlord is ordered to pay compensation as set out in paragraph 63, which has been determined in line with the landlord’s compensation policy.

Fascia and guttering repairs

65.        The resident first reported issues with the fascia and guttering on 13 October 2021. The landlord responded by raising a works order on the same day, which was appropriate. The landlord made arrangements to carry out repairs within a reasonable timescale. However, upon inspection on 23 November 2021, the landlord identified that the fascia had fallen away from the building. The guttering had been installed incorrectly and this was causing damp in the property. Unable to complete the repair itself, it promptly raised a works order the same day with its specialist roofing contractor. The Ombudsman has been unable to determine from the evidence seen if the landlord carried out, or was able to carry out, a temporary repair to prevent further water ingress.

66.        The Ombudsman notes that there was a long delay between the landlord raising the works order with its roofing contractor and the works being approved on 11 March 2022. Over this period, there was a lack of proactive communication by the landlord, which would have created uncertainty for the resident.

67.        It was understandable that the landlord’s contractor was unable to complete the repairs immediately upon approval due to nesting birds. According to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, it is a serious offence to disturb any wild bird while it is building a nest, is in a nest, or is near a nest containing eggs or young. It is not possible to verify from the evidence seen when the birds stopped nesting, but it is the Ombudsman’s understanding that nesting season is considered to run between March and August in the United Kingdom. The Ombudsman notes that there continued to be a lack of proactive engagement by the landlord with the resident during this period. This resulted in the resident continually chasing the landlord for updates, creating him added inconvenience.

68.        It is unclear when the landlord’s contractor confirmed a date to complete the repairs to the fascia and the guttering. However, evidence shows the job was completed on 13 July 2022. This was 188 working days after the resident first reported the issue. This significantly exceeded the landlord’s published timescales for completing repairs. However, as evidenced, not all this delay was avoidable.

69.        In the Ombudsman’s opinion, when considered cumulatively, the landlord’s handling of repairs to the fascia and guttering fell short. However, the Ombudsman was encouraged that the landlord recognised in its complaint response that there had been failings, apologised, and committed to addressing this with its contractor. This shows that the landlord was taking responsibility for some of its failings, and it was using its complaint process to inform service improvement. While the landlord offered compensation, it was unclear what percentage of this compensation related to this complaint element.

70.        As a remedy, the landlord is ordered to pay £100 in compensation, in recognition of avoidable delays repairing the fascia and guttering. The Ombudsman makes a separate order for compensation of £50, in recognition of the landlord’s poor communications. This compensation has been determined with reference to the landlord’s compensation policy and reflects the increased time, trouble, and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Bedroom ceiling

71.        The resident told the landlord on 22 July 2022, that the bedroom ceiling was cracked and sagging. The landlord promptly told the resident that it would attend on 27 July 2022 to address this. It is noted that the inspection date was changed twice by the resident and once by the landlord before access was provided on 14 September 2022. The Ombudsman would have expected the inspection to have been achieved in a timelier manner, given that the ceiling was reported to be sagging. But it is accepted that the timeliness of the inspection was partly dependent upon the resident’s own availability, which the landlord willingly accommodated.

72.        Upon inspection, the landlord identified that the ceiling was badly cracked and needed to be replastered. It made an appointment to replaster the ceiling on 25 November 2022. The evidence shows that the landlord tried to arrange an earlier appointment, but the resident said he needed more notice. While this added further delay, this could not be avoided.

73.        The landlord texted the resident on 23 November 2022, confirming its attendance for 25 November 2022. On this basis the resident took time off work and moved his furniture. However, the landlord sent a further text message to the resident on the morning of the appointment, rescheduling its attendance to 26 January 2023. This was because the landlord’s plasterer had sustained an injury. It was understandable that the landlord may not have been able to reallocate the job to another operative at short notice. Nonetheless, this was frustrating for the resident and left the repair unresolved. The Ombudsman notes that while the landlord was unable to replaster the ceiling on this date, it did still attend the property to check that the ceiling would remain safe in the interim. This followed concerns raised by the resident about the continued safety of the ceiling. The landlord’s response was appropriate and shows that it was taking the resident’s concerns seriously.

74.        The evidence shows that the landlord cancelled the appointment scheduled for 26 January 2023, with a couple of days’ notice. After the resident expressed dissatisfaction about this, the landlord stated that its plasterer was now on long term sick leave, and it did not have any other operatives available to complete the job. It is unclear from the evidence seen whether the landlord might have reasonably foreseen this at an earlier stage. However, the landlord demonstrated its commitment to resolving the matter for the resident by instructing an external contractor to complete the job. This was encouraging.

75.        While there was mitigation for some of the delay as evidenced, the landlord did not dispute that there had been failings in its handling of repairs to the ceiling, which adversely affected the resident. At stage 2, the landlord apologised, committed to completing the repairs on 31 March 2023, and made an offer of compensation which it felt reflected the past and future impact to the resident. This was encouraging and shows that the landlord was trying to put things rights. But the evidence shows that the job was not completed on 31 March 2023 as it had committed. While it is unclear what date the works were eventually finished, the evidence suggests that there was further significant delay before the repair was completed.

76.        The Ombudsman was unable to determine from the evidence seen what percentage of the compensation offered by the landlord related to this complaint point. The landlord is ordered to pay £100 compensation in recognition of the increased time, trouble, and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the ceiling. This compensation has been determined in line with the landlord’s complaint policy and covers the period up until completion of the landlord’s internal complaint process.

Overall

77.        The Ombudsman identified service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the oil boiler and immersion, to the fascia and guttering, and to the ceiling. The landlord should reflect upon its handling of the repairs to the bedroom ceiling, following issue of the stage 2 response. Where failings are identified, the landlord should consider making a further offer of compensation to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the smoke detectors and the window hinges.

78.        The Ombudsman will address each repair under a separate subheading.

Smoke detectors

79.        It is the Ombudsman’s understanding that smoke detectors fitted with 10-year batteries have a 10-year lifespan, after which the device should be replaced. The Ombudsman has been unable to verify from the evidence seen if the property was on a smoke detector replacement programme.

80.        The resident logged a concern on 22 July 2022, that the 10-year batteries in the smoke detectors throughout the property had expired in September 2020. The landlord responded by promptly raising a works order, which was appropriate.

81.        The landlord’s notes show that it initially booked an appointment to replace the smoke detectors on 29 September 2022. While this was the first available appointment that the landlord could offer, it committed to bringing this appointment forward if it was able. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence to suggest that the smoke detectors had stopped working. However, given that the smoke detectors were nearly 2 years out of date, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have attended to this matter with some urgency.

82.        After the resident raised the stage 1 complaint on 26 July 2022, the landlord sought advice from its fire safety team who stated that the work was urgent but was not an emergency. The landlord appropriately responded by bringing the appointment forward to 9 August 2022. It was unfortunate that this appointment was not convenient for the resident and had to be rescheduled for 14 September 2022, when the smoke detectors were changed. It was encouraging that the landlord took the opportunity to replace the devices with hard-wired smoke alarms.

83.        In summary, it is not in dispute that the landlord did not replace the smoke detectors prior to their 10-year expiry. The landlord provided no explanation for this. It is not in dispute that the detectors were nearly 2 years out of date before the alarms were upgraded. While this was inappropriate, there is no evidence that significant detriment was caused to the resident. Once the landlord had been made aware that the smoke detectors had expired, it took 38 working days to replace them. However, the Ombudsman does not find this to be a failing, as it is likely that the landlord would have replaced the smoke detectors within 12 working days if the resident had been able to provide access on 9 August 2022.

Window hinges

84.        The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the resident reported any issues with the windows or window hinges until the 26 July 2022, when the resident raised the stage 1 complaint. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence to suggest that the landlord was aware of any issues with the windows prior to this. However, at stage 1, the resident claimed that its operative had previously inspected the windows and had confirmed that the hinges had dropped, and the windows were dangerous. In a subsequent communication, the resident told the landlord that this had been reported to the landlord sometime prior to March 2020. While this is troubling, the Ombudsman has been unable to make a finding about this, since it has not been possible to verify exactly what happened from the evidence seen. 

85.        However, after being made aware of issues with the windows in the stage 1 complaint, the landlord responded promptly by raising an inspection. The evidence shows that the landlord offered the resident its first available appointment, which was 30 August 2022. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord ought to have endeavoured to inspect the windows in a timelier manner, given the potential health and safety concerns that had been reported.

86.        It is understood that the resident could not provide access on 30 August 2022. He asked the landlord to inspect the windows on 14 September 2022, which the landlord accommodated. Upon inspection, the landlord identified that the “friction hinges” on the kitchen and landing window needed to be replaced. It is understood that a friction hinge is a type of window hinge, that is designed to hold a window at any desired position without the need for a separate stay. The landlord also identified the need to overhaul one of the other windows.

87.        The landlord was entitled to prioritise follow-on works according to their risk.  The Ombudsman has seen no evidence to suggest that the windows needed to be completed with urgency. The landlord’s contractor completed the job on 25 November 2022, which was within the target timescale that had been set by the landlord.  

Overall

88.        The Ombudsman finds no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the smoke detectors and the window hinges.

The landlord’s record keeping.

89.        While the Ombudsman was able to determine this case based on the evidence provided, there were gaps and omissions in the landlord’s records, as highlighted throughout this report. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contact and evidence of its actions relating to each casefile, which can be provided to the Ombudsman upon request.

90.        Landlords who fail to create and record information accurately, risk missing opportunities to identify that its actions were wrong or inadequate and contribute to inadequate communication and redress. Overall, the landlord’s record keeping, and information management was inadequate, which made the Ombudsman’s investigation more difficult.

91.        The Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Determination

92.        In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in:

a.     The landlord’s handling of repairs to the fuseboard, to remedy damp in the property, and to resolve an issue with the garden flooding.

b.     The landlord’s record keeping.

93.        In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the oil boiler and immersion, to the fascia and guttering, and to the ceiling.

94.        In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the smoke detectors and the window hinges.

Orders

95.        The landlord must write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.

96.        The landlord must pay compensation of £1,194 directly to the resident. This compensation has been determined with reference to the landlord’s compensation policy and is broken down as follows:

a.     £10 compensation for the missed appointment on 30 September 2022.

b.     £15 compensation for the total loss of heating between 1 October 2022 and 5 October 2022.

c.      £18 compensation for the total loss of hot water between 30 September 2022 and 5 October 2022

d.     £100 in compensation, in recognition of the increased time, trouble, and inconvenience caused to the resident by avoidable delays repairing the fascia and guttering.

e.     £100 compensation, in recognition of the landlord’s poor communications in its handling of repairs to the fascia and guttering.

f.        £100 compensation in recognition of the increased time, trouble, and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the ceiling.

g.     £51 compensation, in recognition of avoidable delay in progressing the resident’s concerns about the fuseboard, which caused the resident increased time, trouble, and inconvenience.

h.     £400 compensation, which reflects the resident’s distress, inconvenience, as well as time and trouble, arising from the landlord’s delay to address the resident’s concerns about damp, and its delay to share the findings and next steps from its damp inspection.

i.        £400 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience and uncertainty caused to the resident, arising from the landlord’s failure to appropriately address the resident’s report about the garden flooding. This calculation recognises that there was some loss and enjoyment of the garden.

97.        The landlord must endeavour to meet with the resident to discuss next steps to resolve the damp in the property and to agree an action plan. Thereafter, the landlord must write to the resident with an expected completion date for any repairs. The landlord must commit to complete the repairs within a reasonable timescale. The landlord must provide the resident with a copy of the agreed action plan and explain its mechanism for monitoring the action plan through to resolution.

98.        The landlord must endeavour to meet the resident to confirm its intentions towards the ongoing issues with the garden flooding. Thereafter, the landlord must confirm its intentions in writing, providing the resident with an action plan setting out the action that it will take (if any), and the support it will provide (if any). The action plan must include timescales and an explanation of how the landlord will monitor the action plan through to resolution.

99.        The landlord must provide evidence that it has complied with the above orders, within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.

Recommendations

100.   The landlord should reflect upon its handling of the repairs to the bedroom ceiling, fuseboard, damp, and garden flooding, following issue of the stage 2 response. Where failings are identified, the landlord should consider making a further offer of compensation to the resident.