South Tyneside Council (202227369)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202227369

South Tyneside Council

28 March 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about:
1. The resident’s heating system including water/heating pipes banging.
2. Leaks and damage to the property’s porch, including concerns about asbestos in the porch floor and ceiling.
3. Necessary glazing repairs.
4. Plastering and painting repairs
5. The lack of insulation in the property walls and noise caused by a neighbour’s dog barking.
6. Trees in the property garden which were damaging a neighbour’s fence.
7. The need to replace the property kitchen and kitchen door.
8. Repairs needed to the property’s gutters.
9. The required repair of electric sockets.
10. The landlord not taking into account the resident’s mental health, wellbeing, and difficulties with reading and writing while dealing with his service requests.
11. The landlord’s failure to notify of appointments.
12. Water damage in the property hallway
13. The requirement to complete boxing work.
14. About asbestos at the property.

We have also investigated the landlord’s communication and complaint handling.
We have also investigated the landlord’s knowledge and information management.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, the Ombudsman considers that the part of the resident’s complaint that relates to those complaints at paragraph 1(l-n) are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
Paragraph 42 (a) of the Scheme says that “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s 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.”
The issues set out in paragraph 1(l-n) have not been the subjects of complaints that have exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure and are therefore outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
The resident’s remaining complaints about the landlord’s response to repairs at the property and other issues as set out at paragraph 1(a-k) and the landlord’s complaints and communications with the resident are investigated below.

Background

The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord for over 10 years.
The landlord’s records show the resident has Asperger’s syndrome and suffers from anxiety. The records show the resident also told the landlord on 22 June 2022 that he is hypersensitive and has other disabilities.
The records show that the resident required that repairs appointments should be in the afternoon and not on a Monday or a Thursday.

Scope of the investigation

The resident has complained that the landlord did not take into account the resident’s disability, mental health, wellbeing, and difficulties with reading and writing while dealing with his service requests and this issue has been considered below. However, this Service cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place and whether the landlord has complied with its obligations under the Equality Act, as these are legal issues which ultimately would be matters for a court.

Summary of events

Policies, procedures and legal obligations

The landlord operates a 3-stage complaint’s process. It describes stage 1 as its ‘informal problem-solving stage’ and stage 2, as its ‘investigation’ stage. It says it will deal with stage 1 in 10 working days and stage 2, within 15 working days. It says a manager should visit the resident as well as sending the formal written response as part of the investigation.
It also offers a stage 3 which it describes as a ‘second opinion’. If the resident wishes to have a second opinion, the complaint will be referred to a panel of officers (not involved in the complaint) who will be supported by a head of service.
The landlord has a repairs and maintenance policy (the policy). It says it designed the policy to comply with its duties under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, to discharge its repairs and maintenance responsibilities. It says it will try to ensure that repairs are completed in one visit to a resident’s home. If this cannot be done, it will inform the resident of the likely date for repair completion and arrange to agree an appointment for the return work.
It says it is the responsibility of the resident to allow access to the property and failure to do so is a breach of the tenancy.
It says urgent repairs are those that affect the resident’s ability to live comfortably in their home such as a partial loss of electricity. These will be completed within 1-3 working days. Routine repairs such as a repair to an internal door handle are to be completed within 20 working days and planned repairs, such as major plastering, are to be completed within a maximum of 3 months.
The Housing Ombudsman Complaints Handling Code, (“the Code”), issued in July 2020, sets out requirements for landlords who are members of the Scheme. Compliance with the Code forms part of the membership’s obligations. Of particular relevance to this investigation, the Code says, among other things:
Where residents raise additional complaints during the investigation, these should be incorporated into the stage 1 response if they are relevant and the stage 1 response has not been issued. Where the stage 1 response has been issued, or it would unreasonably delay the response, the complaint should be logged as a new complaint. (section 5.7)

Summary of events

On 26 September 2022 the resident called the landlord. He said that certain repairs had not been carried out and that he would not pay his rent until the situation was resolved. He complained that the failure to complete repairs meant that he could not decorate his property and that while waiting for works to be undertaken, the price of carpet that he had planned to install had increased.
The landlord recorded sending a letter of acknowledgement to the resident regarding his stage 1 complaint on 27 September 2022 and on 29 September 2022, to better understand the detail of his complaint, the landlord visited the resident with a surveyor.
In its stage 1 response to the resident on 6 October 2022, the landlord set out what it said it had discussed with the resident about repairs. It recorded that the resident had raised a number of issues. Below, we have set out the records we have seen related to the issues reported at stage 1 and the work the landlord said it had arranged in response to those issues:

Check full heating system and radiators for air locks. Fit trunking to passage wall pipe.

Previous records showed the landlord had discussed the use of trunking and surface mounted pipework with the resident. He had been unhappy that pipework was not chased into the wall. The landlord had told the resident that this was not a service that it would deliver as standard and that trunking was used as a process to minimise the disruption during heating installation work. The records show the work went ahead on 17 February 2022.
The records show that numerous issues had been raised regarding the heating at the property over the preceding years. However, these appear from the records to have been attended to either on the day raised or within a day or two. The last repair raised about heating before the resident took this complaint to the landlord was on 11 November 2021 and was attended to, according to the landlord’s records, on that date.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it had arranged for a heating repair to check the full heating system for any airlocks and to fit pvc trunking to the passage wall pipes, for 10 October 2022. While one of the landlord’s records says this job was completed, other records say that it did not go ahead. It had been arranged for the afternoon but the landlord recorded it was refused by the resident upon attendance. The records do not say why. An identical repair is recorded as being raised on 12 January 2023 although it was recorded as being cancelled. The records do not say why.
At stage 2 of the complaint’s process, the resident said the heating pipes banged when he used hot water. This was recorded as having been an issue that was raised on 2 November 2022. It was listed as an urgent job and recorded as being completed on 7 November 2022. In a call on 19 January 2023 with the resident the landlord recorded that the resident said the heating was not the issue he was concerned about. He was instead concerned about the plastering work. At the time the resident took his complaint to the Ombudsman in February 2023 he did not mention that there were still issues with heating. A joiner to seal full front porch inside/outside and refit any loose laths.
We have not seen any records to show this issue was reported to the landlord before being raised at the landlord’s visit on 29 September 2022. Following that visit the records show it raised a repair in relation to that issue. It was recorded as having been completed on 18 October 2022, along with a job to ease and adjust the living room window sash and to adjust the front gate.

Check felt and upstands to front porch roof – water ingress to ceiling

The records do not show that a specific issue relating to water ingress from the front porch roof had been raised before. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it had arranged for a roofing repair to be scheduled for 18 October 2022. However, while the records indicate this job was completed, it is not clear that this repair went ahead or was effective. This is because of a further report on 15 November 2022 from the resident, when he called the landlord again to say that the porch roof was leaking. He reported that he thought there was asbestos in the ceiling and that this had been compromised because of the leak. The repair log says this job was completed on 18 November 2022.
However, the records show that the resident called the landlord on 18 November 2022 asking to discuss the job with someone. He said that there would be no point in anyone attending that day if they could not do the job and said he had numerous operatives attend who could not complete the repair. Then, on 21 November 2022 the records show that the resident called again to say that a contractor had been due to attend on that day in relation to replacing the felt in the porch and he thought he had missed a knock at the door. A further record shows an appointment was made on 24 November 2022 for the porch felt. A plastering repair to the porch ceiling is recorded as being completed on 10 January 2023. The overboard and skimming of the porch ceiling is reported to have been carried out on 9 February 2023. However, there is also a record which says that the porch ceiling was skimmed on 13 February 2023. A further repair was raised on 30 March 2023 to fit pvc lath and seal to the porch ceiling to cover any gaps, which was recorded as being completed on 27 April 2023.

Renew timber glazing beads to rear door.

We have not seen records to show this issue was reported to the landlord before being raised at the landlord’s visit of 29 September 2022. Following that visit the landlord told the resident in its stage 1 response that it had arranged a glazer to visit the property on 26 October 2022. The landlord recorded that the resident refused attendance when an operative attended and the job was raised again on 31 October 2022. It is not clear from the records why attendance, which was during the afternoon, was initially refused. The job was recorded as being completed on 22 November 2022. However, a later record says that this repair was still due to be completed on 29 November 2022.

Plaster patching to the stairwell of the property had not been reinstated following artex removal.

The records show that the landlord had arranged to remove asbestos from the property on 11 February 2022. We assume this to be the artex that it is referred to in its stage 1 response to the resident. Initially, there seems to have been some disagreement about how this work was done and it is unclear exactly when this was removed. However, on 22 February 2022 the resident complemented 2 members of landlord staff on how helpful they had been in resolving his issues. On the same day the resident called the landlord in the afternoon to ask why an operative had not attended to complete a job in relation to pipework that day. A plaster patching job was raised in the hallway for 25 February 2022 but this was later cancelled by the resident. The records do not say why but say the work was completed on 3 March 2022.
However, the resident then complained on 23 June 2022 that a number of repairs for over 2 and a half years had not gone ahead. It is difficult to tell from his complaint which repairs he meant.
On 6 July 2022 this complaint was not upheld because the landlord said there had been access issues. The landlord recorded having discussed the situation with the resident and that he agreed he had missed appointments for a painter to attend and for a kitchen designer to attend. It was also recorded that the resident agreed he had not rebooked the appointments. Plastering was arranged in the kitchen for 14 July 2022 with a painting job to follow thereafter.
In relation to the plastering work required on the stairwell, we have not seen any records that indicate this work was reported as not having been completed before the landlord’s visit on 29 September 2022 and on this date, it was scheduled in for 21 November 2022.
The landlord apologised for any inconvenience the matter of the artex cut outs not being reinstated had caused the resident. It also offered to decorate the stairwell and passage “…to try and assist the customer.”
Later notes on the landlord’s systems on 18 November 2022 report that the plastering repair was recorded as ‘abandoned’ on 2 November 2022. The notes show that the landlord was concerned that this and other repairs should be completed. It was concerned about an escalation into a disrepair claim or the resident coming to the Ombudsman. A later record shows the plastering to the ceiling and wall was due to go ahead on 30 November 2022.
On 13 December 2022 the records show the resident called to say the resident was chasing up an appointment for the plastering work. The records show he called again on 16 January 2023. He said he was chasing up a plastering job that was supposed to be completed on 10 January 2023 but the plasterer had told him he was unable to do the job. The resident said he did not want to be put through to anyone on that day because of how his condition was affecting him. The landlord sent an email regarding the works to the repairs manager who had dealt with the stage 1 response. On 19 January 2023 the resident was still chasing a response in relation to the plastering work.
It appears the work had been completed by 6 March 2023, when the records show the landlord met with the resident to discuss painting where the plaster work had been completed.

Escalation to stage 2

On 31 October 2022 the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2. The landlord acknowledged his request on 1 November 2022 and on 3 November 2022 the landlord noted that the resident had contacted it again to say that he would not pay his rent until all the repairs were completed. Although the resident said that the repairs manager who had visited had been sympathetic and apologetic, arranging for more jobs than had originally been raised for completion, there had been a number of failings that meant he could not heat or decorate his home adequately and had to put off putting new carpet down. He stressed that while waiting for repairs the price of the carpet he had wanted to put down had increased. He also said he was unhappy with the quality of the work that had been completed. He said that:
1. Holes had been left in the ceilings.
2. There was asbestos in the floor and ceiling which meant repair men had left without completing the work.
3. The heating pipes banged when the toiled flushed or when using hot water which had led to complaints from his neighbours.
4. There were pipes sticking out of the walls and holes in the ceiling.
5. There was an uneven socket in the hallway.
6. There were issues with guttering which led to water pouring down the wall next to the living room when it rained.
7. The kitchen door required a doorstop to stop damage re-occurring.
8. There was no insulation in the walls and the property next door was very noisy with a dog that barked all day – the resident considered insulation would help.
9. The landlord kept sending the wrong workmen to carry out repairs and failed to inform him when follow up jobs were needed. Sometimes workmen turned up for appointments without notification. He said over 60 jobs had been cancelled or refused in the last year because of workmen attending in the morning rather than the afternoon (the resident had specified he could only accept afternoon appointments).
10. The landlord sometimes hung up on him, not recognising that he had a disability that meant when he got upset, he raised his voice. The resident was also unhappy about the recorded messages he had to listen to when waiting for an answer. He also said he did not receive call backs when asking to speak to a manager and the kitchen supplier also failed to call him back.
11. A tree in the garden was damaging his neighbour’s fence but although he had contacted the landlord about this no one had got back to him.
12. He had difficulty reading/writing and wanted help with financial support as he felt he had missed out on support with payments.
Upon receipt of the resident’s 3 November 2022 escalation, the same day the landlord made enquiries regarding the issue with the tree in the resident’s garden and with its welfare support team.
On 25 November 2022 the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint saying that there were several outstanding repairs, but that there had also been delays due to no answer or the resident refusing to allow repairs to go ahead. We have set out below how the landlord addressed the issues at its stage 2 response that the resident had previously raised at stage 1 of its process:
1. Holes had been left in the ceilings – the landlord said it had arranged plaster patching to the ceiling and walls on 30 November 2022 with a painter to follow.
2. The heating pipes banged when the toilet flushed or when using hot water which had led to complaints from his neighbours – the landlord said it had arranged a plumber to attend the property on 23 November 2022 following the resident’s refusal on 10 October 2022.
The landlord also referred to the resident’s 15 November 2022 complaint about there being asbestos in the porch floor and ceiling which meant, he said, that repair men had left without completing the work. It did not say if this was a new complaint but it may be related to the resident’s initial request to have the porch felt repaired to prevent water ingress – the landlord said the asbestos team had been in contact with the resident about this issue. The records report that the repair to the porch ceiling was completed on 10 January 2023. However other records show that the overboarding and skimming to the porch ceiling was not completed until 13 February 2023. A further job was raised on 30 March 2023 to fit pvc lath and seal to the porch ceiling to cover gaps. This was recorded as having been completed on 27 April 2023. The renewal of tiles to the porch floor is recorded as having been completed on 20 April 2023.
The landlord also addressed a number of issues that were not issues raised at stage 1 of the complaint’s process. It responded to these as follows:
1. The landlord kept sending the wrong workmen to carry out repairs and failed to inform him when follow up jobs were needed – the landlord said the records showed that multiple repairs were either refused or no access was granted. It said this caused multiple unavoidable delays in being able to carry out repairs and general maintenance at the property.
2. The landlord’s failure to make reasonable adjustments for the resident’s disability and failure to return calls – the landlord apologised that the resident had telephone calls hung up on by contact centre staff. It said it would undertake staff training to highlight the need to check housing systems notes during a call.
3. There was an uneven socket in the hallway – it had raised a job to correct this on 22 November 2022.
4. There were issues with guttering which led to water pouring down the wall next to the living room when it rained –the landlord raised a job to address on 1 December 2022.

The available evidence shows that prior to this issue being raised at stage 2 of this complaint, the last repair that was raised in relation to the guttering issue was in September 2019.

The kitchen door required a doorstop to stop damage re-occurring – it had arranged an inspection of the kitchen door on 7 December 2022.

The available records show that the landlord replaced the kitchen door and provided a doorstop on 3 March 2023.

There was no insulation in the walls and the private property next door was very noisy with a dog that barked all day – the resident considered insulation would help –the landlord arranged an inspection for 7 December 2022.

The landlord later told the Ombudsman that a survey carried out in February 2019 indicated that the property already had above the recommended cavity wall insulation.

A tree in the garden was damaging the resident’s neighbour’s fence but although he had contacted the landlord about this no one had got back to him. – The landlord informed the resident of the steps it had taken in this regard with the trees department.

The records show that although this issue did not form part of the resident’s 26 September 2022 complaint, the resident had raised this as an issue with the landlord in August 2022, when he complained that he had previously called the landlord about the issue a month before. The records show that the landlord arranged a date and time for inspection of the issue on 3 January 2023. The resident later called the landlord again in March 2023 to say the inspection had not gone ahead and his neighbours had threatened the resident with a civil suit if the issue was not dealt with. The records say the necessary work was completed on 28 April 2023.

The resident had difficulty reading/writing and wanted help with financial support as he felt he had missed out on support with payments. – The landlord said it had requested that the welfare team contact the resident to see if he was eligible for any financial support.

A note on the landlord’s systems shows the landlord’s welfare team contacted the resident on 25 November 2022 and confirmed that he was already receiving the correct amount of support.

There were pipes sticking out of the walls and holes in the ceiling – it did not specifically address this issue but said it had arranged for a joiner to attend on 29 November 2022 in relation to boxing in the kitchen, hallway and bathroom.

The landlord also said it had been in contact with the team that dealt with kitchen replacement. This issue did not form part of the complaint the resident took to the Ombudsman, although he did mention that because he was ill, he had not been given a new kitchen. He also said that at the time he was complaining to us he was living in his sitting room as everything was in boxes. For the sake of completeness, we note that at stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint’s process, the resident was told that a kitchen would be installed the following year and the landlord has informed us that the kitchen was replaced in February 2023, which would have been about the time the resident complained to the Ombudsman. The landlord said there had been delays because of several missed appointments with the kitchen designer and team. The records show a missed appointment with the kitchen designer on 4 August 2022.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s heating system including water/heating pipes banging.

The records show this was raised as an issue at stage 1 of the complaints process on or around 26 September 2022 but it is not entirely clear when it was resolved. However, while the issue of banging pipes may have been frustrating, it was not an urgent repair and the records also show that an initial appointment was refused on 10 October 2022, which would have represented an attendance within the policy timeframe of 20 working days if it had gone ahead. We do not find there was a service failure here and are mindful of the fact that this does not appear to have still been an issue when the resident took his complaint to the Ombudsman in February 2023. However, there are some errors in the landlord’s record keeping which we will comment on below because it means it has been difficult to tell what works actually went ahead, when they went ahead or why they did not.

Leaks and damage to the property’s porch, including concerns about asbestos in the porch floor and ceiling.

We assume references to porch roof repairs are what it meant by ‘roofing repairs’. This is because the resident only raised issues relating to his porch roof and in the landlord’s stage 1 response to those issues, it recorded having set up a ‘roofing repair’ on 18 October 2022 in response to issues with the porch.
There are no records of an issue to the porch roof having been raised prior to the landlord’s call about the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 29 September 2022. Following that, the records show the repairs were completed within the 20 working day timeframe on 18 October 2022.
However, other records appear to contradict this information. If the necessary repairs had gone ahead and had been effective it is unlikely that the resident would have reported a leak on 15 November 2022 from the porch roof. It appears from the records that the felt was not replaced at the front porch until at least 24 November 2022 and that the plastering to the ceiling did not go ahead until 10 January 2023. We consider there to have been a service failure.

Necessary glazing repairs

Again, we have not seen records to confirm if this issue was reported to the landlord before the stage 1 process commenced. However, when it was reported, it appears from the records that the landlord arranged an appointment on 26 October 2022 to deal with the issue. The records show that the appointment was arranged for the afternoon and so it is difficult to say, without any notes having been made by contractors, why it was refused by the resident. It is not recorded as having gone ahead until 29 November 2022. However, we consider that the landlord made reasonable efforts to address this issue within its 20 working day timeframe and do not find any maladministration here.

Plastering and painting repairs.

It is difficult to tell from the records if all the plastering work that was required was completed. What we have been able to ascertain from the records is that there was some outstanding plastering work to be completed when the resident complained in September 2022. This appears to have been accepted by the landlord. It then also appears that this did not go ahead for some reason although it is not clear what the reason was from the records. Later records indicate it was completed on 30 November 2022 but this appears to have been after the resident took his complaint to stage 2 saying there remained holes in the ceilings.
As there is evidence there was some plastering work that does not seem to have been completed within appropriate timeframes, and certainly the plastering work that was reported as necessary in September 2022 was not completed within the 20 working day timeframe, this was inappropriate. We also note that the resident thanked the landlord for painting works in March 2022 which suggests this work was not completed until around that time. As this was not urgent work and so the impact of a failure to address would have been less significant, we do not make a finding of maladministration but it was still past the 3 months allowed under the landlord’s repairs policy for planned repairs and we therefore consider there was service failure in this regard.

The lack of insulation in the property walls and noise caused by a neighbour’s dog barking.

The landlord arranged an inspection to address this issue, which the available records show had only been raised as an issue at stage 2 of the complaints process. The landlord says it has no records showing that the resident had reported the neighbour’s dog barking as a noise nuisance issue through its antisocial behaviour department so in that regard, the landlord would not have been able to respond until this point. Further, we are satisfied with the landlord’s response that it has identified the property already has cavity wall insulation which is of a higher density than is required. There is no maladministration.

Trees in the property garden which were damaging a neighbour’s fence.

This was not urgent work but it is clear that since the landlord eventually completed the necessary work to deal with the tree, it accepted its responsibility with regard to helping the resident address the issue. However, the records show the resident had to chase the landlord in order to complete this work for around 7 months. While this sort of work does not neatly slot into the landlord’s housing repairs responsibilities, it was an unreasonable time for the resident to have to wait for an effective response to this issue and it was unreasonable that it did not chase up the relevant department to ensure it was dealt with sooner. The resident, who the landlord was aware was vulnerable, had explained that it was concerning and was causing friction with his neighbour. We consider the length of time and number of missed opportunities to help remedy this situation amounts to service failure.

The need to replace the property kitchen and kitchen door.

As set out above, the resident did not complain about the need to replace his kitchen when he came to the Ombudsman. He told us that he had not been able to have a replacement kitchen because he had been unwell. For the sake of completeness, we have noted that the records show that the landlord did attempt to complete an inspection for a new kitchen in June 2022 and that the landlord recorded that the resident accepted he had missed appointments from kitchen designers. The landlord continued to communicate about this issue and did so again in its stage 2 response. We are informed that a replacement kitchen was installed in February 2023 and so we do not consider there was any maladministration here or that this appears to remain a live issue for the resident.
The landlord’s records show it arranged an inspection of the resident’s kitchen door on 7 December 2022. However, it did not replace the resident’s kitchen door and doorstop until March 2023, which given this was an issue that was raised in November 2022, was inappropriate. While it was an unreasonable time to take to conduct a repair, it would not have caused significant distress so we have only made a finding of service failure rather than maladministration.

Repairs needed to the property’s gutters.

While the resident had issues, which were attended to by the landlord in previous years, this was an issue that was raised at stage 2 of the process and the landlord’s records show was completed on 1 December 2022. The resident did not mention this as an issue when he came to the Ombudsman and we do not therefore consider it necessary to add more here. We have not found maladministration.

The required repair of electric sockets.

This was an issue that was raised at stage 2 of the complaints process. The records show a repair was raised at stage 2 of the process, which was appropriate.

The landlord not taking into account the resident’s mental health, wellbeing, and difficulties with reading and writing while dealing with his service requests.

The landlord’s records show that the resident had made the landlord aware in previous years of the reasonable adjustments that might be needed when communicating with him. However, he does not appear to have specifically complained about this as an issue until the stage 2 complaint in September 2022. Given the known vulnerability of the resident, the landlord would be expected to demonstrate that it had taken steps to ensure that it understood the needs of the resident and to demonstrate that it had responded to those needs in the way it provided its services in line with its obligations under the Equality Act 2010.
The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response that it had on occasion hung up the telephone during conversations with the resident. The landlord’s apology for this and its undertaking to provide staff training was a reasonable response, demonstrating that it had learnt from this and was now taking steps to ensure that it considered its obligations under the Equality Act going forward. We note that the landlord has now added an alert to the resident’s account so that as soon as his account is accessed by an advisor or officer, a box appears which gives some brief information about his disability and advises them to check through any relevant information before proceeding. The landlord says that the advisor will need to click ‘ok’ on the box before they can access the resident’s account. It also appropriately contacted its welfare team to try and provide him with any available assistance. We do not find maladministration.

The landlord’s failure to notify the resident of appointments.

It is difficult to assess how proactive the landlord was in this respect. There are notes on the file which indicate that the resident refused some appointments. There are also notes which show that the landlord specifically tried to arrange appointments in the afternoon. In the circumstances we cannot make any finding of maladministration but will address this issue under the section on record keeping below.

On the landlord’s complaints handling

The landlord was responsive and sympathetic in its complaint responses to the resident. At stage 2, in accordance with section 5.7 of the Code, it incorporated the issues the resident had complained about such as the repairs to the property porch, into the stage 1 response.
However, if a repair issue, such as the request to adjust the living room sash or attend to a gate, had been raised for the first time, (and it seems that they had) these are not necessarily complaints but service requests. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have addressed those issues as such and separated them out from the issues which it had been raised previously and the resident felt had not been dealt with.
It was difficult, from the records, for the Ombudsman to always tell which was which and it might have reassured the resident to know that service requests would be dealt with and those requests that were not processed, could be raised separately as complaints.
At stage 2 of the process, the resident raised further issues. The landlord recognised that these were issues that had been raised after stage 1 and were new issues, but it still dealt with them in its stage 2 response. It is laudable that the landlord was taking a proactive approach to repair requests but such an approach means it is difficult to track when a complaint has been resolved or when a complaint has begun. It follows that it makes it difficult for the resident to track a complaint. In accordance with the Code, where the stage 1 response has been issued, or it would unreasonably delay the response, the complaint should be logged as a new complaint. (section 5.7)
At stage 2, the landlord acknowledged there had been some missed appointments but also noted that the resident had also refused appointments. When there are acknowledged failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether any redress offered by the landlord 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 (an apology and undertaking to carry out works to put things right), was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord’s acknowledgement that it had missed some appointments, should have been met with an offer of compensation for the distress and inconvenience that would have caused the resident, especially given his vulnerabilities.
We have made orders that require the landlord to make payments we consider are proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused in the circumstances.

On the landlord’s knowledge and information management

It was difficult for the Ombudsman to always be clear about which repairs had been undertaken and which repairs had not. This would have also likely caused problems for the landlord, who would have benefitted from a clearer understanding of what works it had completed in order to better organise its response to the resident’s repairs. This was particularly so as the resident is vulnerable and responses required a coherent action plan. Examples of when the records caused confusion in our investigation are:
1. An appointment to check the resident’s heating on 10 October 2022 was recorded as both completed and at other places, refused.
2. The reasons for refusal of appointments from the resident or cancelled appointments were not recorded, such as the appointment to check the resident’s heating on 12 January 2023.
3. It is unclear when the porch skimming took place, either on 9 or 13 February 2022, as it was reported to have taken place on both days. It could be that more work was needed but it would have been helpful if this was clear in the records.
4. The records did not record any reason given by the resident for the refusal of an appointment on 26 October 2022.
5. The records show an appointment to complete glazing was completed on 22 November 2022 but other records show it had not been completed by 29 November 2022.
6. The records do not say why an appointment on 22 February 2022 was cancelled, although a disagreement was reported.
7. It was unclear from the records when the plastering work was completed. For instance one record indicated it was due to go ahead on 30 November 2022 but other records indicate it had still not been completed in January 2023.
There was therefore maladministration by the landlord in relation to its record keeping. When works were raised, such as the issues with the plastering or the works necessary to the porch roof, an efficient record system would have enabled the landlord to be more easily alerted to the fact that works had not been completed, or that follow up work was required that it could have communicated more fluently with the resident about. This would have made the landlord’s approach to repairs much more responsive.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports about heating issues at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of repairs required to the porch roof of the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports about renewing the timber glazing to the rear door.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of plastering and painting works required at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports about a lack of insulation in the walls of the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports about a tree at the property which was damaging his neighbour’s fence.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for a kitchen door or doorstop.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for a repair to the electric socket.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns that the landlord had not taken into account the resident’s mental health, wellbeing and difficulties with reading and writing while dealing with his service requests.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord because of its failure to always meet appointments.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in regard to it complaint’s handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its knowledge and information handling.

Reasons

The landlord responded appropriately to issues with heating at the property, arranging an appointment within a reasonable timeframe.
The records indicate there were delays with the landlord’s response to issues with the porch roof which caused the resident some distress.
The records indicate the landlord responded appropriately and within reasonable timeframes to issues relating to renewing timber glazing at the property.
The records indicate the landlord was delayed in responding to plastering and painting works at the property. While these were not urgent, the repeated failed appointments would have been frustrating for the resident.
The records indicate the landlord responded appropriately by arranging an inspection to address reports of poor insulation at the property. The records also confirm that the property already has sufficient cavity wall insulation.
The records indicate that the resident had been raising concerns with the landlord about issues with a tree at the property since at least August 2022 and these were not followed up fully and addressed completely until March 2023. This was an unreasonable delay in addressing a distressing situation for a vulnerable resident.
The initial request for a replacement door and doorstop was made in September 2022. This was not completed until March 2023. While it was not an urgent request, this is still outside of a reasonable timeframe and would have caused the resident some distress.
The records indicate the landlord’s response to the repair of the electrical socket was appropriate.
The records show that the landlord dealt sensitively and appropriately with the resident’s complaint that his mental health and wellbeing, including difficulties with reading and writing, had not been taken into account.
While the records are not entirely clear, it is accepted that the landlord missed some appointments for repairs and this would have caused the resident some distress.
While the landlord’s complaint handling was sympathetic and responsive to the residents needs, it was not always clear whether it was addressing service complaints and would have been appropriate if it had addressed new issues after stage 1 as being separate complaints rather than under the stage 2 response.
The landlord provided the Ombudsman with multiple spreadsheets setting out appointments made, targets for those appointments and dates showing when repairs were completed. However, the information in different records was sometimes contradictory, particularly around completion dates. Further, it did not provide any information about why appointments were cancelled or not attended, which would have been helpful in managing the landlord’s response to the resident’s vulnerabilities and repair requirements.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks a senior member of the landlord’s staff should apologise to the resident in writing. The apology should acknowledge the maladministration, accept responsibility for it, explain clearly why it happened, and express regret.
Within 4 weeks, the landlord should also make a payment of £800 to the resident, comprising of:
1. £100 to acknowledge the distress caused by the landlord’s delay in responding and addressing the issue with a tree on the property that was damaging his neighbour’s fence.
2. £200 to acknowledge the distress caused to the resident by the delays in completing works at the property front porch.
3. £100 to acknowledge the distress caused by the landlord’s missed appointments during the period.
4. £100 to acknowledge the service failure caused by the landlord’s complaint handling failings.
5. £300 to acknowledge the maladministration in relation to the landlord’s knowledge and information handling.
The payment is to be made direct to the resident and not used to offset any monies that the resident may owe to the landlord. The landlord must update this Service when payment has been made.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to inspect the property to assess if there are any outstanding repairs. If works are required the landlord should send the resident and this Service details of the works, together with a timetable for the works to be carried out within 2 weeks of inspecting the property.