Sovereign Housing Association Limited (202007310)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202007310

Sovereign Housing Association Limited

29 March 2023

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Reports that the property is cold and draughty and its handling of repairs to rectify the problem.
2. The associated complaint.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
In her correspondence with this Service, the resident also raised concerns that she had requested information from the landlord, but that the records weren’t provided. This aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction as complaints relating to subject access requests and freedom of information fall properly within the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) (www.ico.org.uk). As per paragraph 42(k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which properly fall within the remit of another Ombudsman or complaint handling body. As such, if the resident remains dissatisfied with this matter after taking the matter through the landlord’s complaints procedure, she may wish to approach the ICO.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident exchanged into the property on 11 April 2019. The property is a three-bedroom house, and the resident occupies the property as an assured tenant on an affordable rent. There are no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
The resident explained that when she exchanged into the property, she was advised by the outgoing tenant that the landlord had planned to replace the windows in the property.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that residents can report repairs 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It defines a responsive repair as minor in nature that has been generated from contact with a resident. The policy states that in most cases the landlord will arrange for an operative to attend and fix any problems that have been identified. But it may be more appropriate for the issue to be fully investigated and the scope of the remedial work fully specified. The policy defines an emergency repair as an incident that could damage a person’s health or the property. The policy states that the landlord will keep the resident updated on the progress of the repair and will prioritise appointments by recognising:
1. The health and safety of residents or members of the public.
2. The urgency of the work or nature of accommodation affected.
3. The availability of the resident.
The policy also states that from time to time, the landlord may identify ad hoc major repairs. This is normally as a result of responsive repairs activity. Such as building components which haven’t reached the end of their theoretical life, but have failed on a one off basis, for example boilers or windows. The policy states that a works order must be raised before work begins and the landlord will set a target time of 90 calendar days to allow time for design, procurement and completion on site.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints process and states that it aims to respond to stage one complaints within ten working days. If a resident is unhappy with the stage one response it can request a stage two review. The landlord aims to respond to stage two review requests within 20 working days. The policy states that complicated complaints make take an additional 30 days to respond to. The landlord has the following customer commitments:
1. We make it easy.
2. We take responsibility.
3. We get it done.
4. We keep in touch.
The landlord has a centralised compensation budget. It states that when considering compensation officers should remind resident’s that it is a charitable organisation, and compensation should only be offered if the resident has suffered financial loss due to the landlord’s failure in delivering a service. It states that the aim of compensation is to return the resident to the position it would have been in before the problem happened.

Summary of events

On 3 July 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to complain that she had telephoned to discuss concerns regarding various repair issues at the property and had been told that an officer would return her call, but that she was yet to receive a call. She explained that she was waiting for a response regarding her windows being replaced. She stated that the windows were draughty and that the bathroom window could not be locked. She also advised that she was still waiting for a repair to the eaves tray and guttering, and that the TV aerial that was already in situ was loose. She asked for the issues to be resolved as soon as possible and also asked for a written response within the following two weeks.
The landlord responded on 6 July 2020 and allocated a complaint reference number, it apologised for the lack of contact and stated that someone would respond and seek to resolve the issues raised.
Later the same day, the landlord contacted the resident again and said that it had been trying to contact her and that it was chasing the relevant team within the organisation to find out what recommendation had been made regarding the repair to the eaves tray. It also asked for photos of the loose aerial. With regards the windows, it said that the windows were due for inspection in 2019, but not due to be replaced until 2025, it added that windows have an expected life span of 30 years and the windows in her property were only 25 years old. Nevertheless, it said that it would arrange a survey and action any repairs.
The resident sent a further response, explaining that when an operative had previously attended the property, they stated that the roof tiles did not overhang the building and therefore the rain water ran straight down the external wall. She also stated that when she moved into the property two birds’ nests were removed from each corner of the outside roof. According to the operative who visited the property there was an issue with how the holes had been filled, which was the cause of water ingress into the building. With regard the replacement of windows, she said that the outgoing tenant advised her that windows were due to be replaced. She also explained that the lock on the bathroom window was rusty and did not lock. In addition, she explained that there were several draughts coming in through the windows and front door, and that on windy days the wind ‘whistles’ through the property. She could also feel a draught through the built in wardrobe. She stated that the draught was constant and suggested that the external cladding, which covered the first floor of the property, might have been faulty. The resident said that the last time she spoke to the landlord regarding the windows was on 28 February 2020 and was told that someone would return her call. The resident provided photos of the aerial as requested.
The landlord responded on 17 August 2020 and said that a contractor would contact her directly to deal with the loose aerial. It also said that it had asked a contractor to quote for the supply and install of eaves guard. It explained that the previous tenant had not given access to replace the windows and so the budget had been spent elsewhere. Consequently the resident would need to wait for replacement windows, until the budget was available. The landlord asked the resident if she wanted it to inspect the windows.
An internal email dated 8 September 2020, asked for an update on the email sent on 17 August 2020
On 16 October 2020, the resident contacted the landlord again, stating that she wanted to raise a formal complaint. Her complaint was:
1. That there were draughts in all three bedrooms and that the draught went downstairs into the dining, room, kitchen and living room. She explained that the living room was only warm if the door was closed. In addition, she said the downstairs toilet was freezing as it didn’t have a radiator in it. She asked the landlord if it would be possible to put a radiator in there.
2. That when she exchanged into the property she had been told by the outgoing tenant that the windows were due to be replaced. She said that the windows were draughty and that the wind whistled through them. She also said that the bathroom window did not lock, due to rust and that it was a safety hazard for her young daughter, who had been able to open the window and lean out.
3. That she was waiting for a date for the eaves trays to be fitted and that when it rained, water ran down the external walls. She also added that her hours at work had been reduced and she was concerned about the cost of heating the property.
The landlord replied on the same day and asked for details of the date she first raised her concerns. In response, the resident said that the issues with the windows had been ongoing since she first exchanged into the property, and that she also raised a complaint on 3 July 2020, but that the last contact she had regarding that correspondence was on 17 August 2020. She stated that she had emailed the officer dealing with her concerns on 21 August 2020 and 24 August 2020, but that she had not had a response. She explained that she had already provided all her concerns regarding the issues she was complaining about to the landlord.
The landlord sent a further response on 19 October 2020, apologising that the issues were still outstanding and explaining that the complaint had been chased with the appropriate officer in the organisation for urgent action. Later that same day, the landlord contacted the resident again to arrange a convenient time to visit the property in order to find a solution to make the issues causing most of the problems more manageable. It stated that it would then consider a longer term solution.
An internal email dated 23 October 2020, showed that the landlord visited the property the previous day and noted that ‘lots of work required in certain areas’ and that there were issues regarding the landlord not contacting the resident. The landlord stated that it would raise some works, but that both sides of the cladding on the property needed to be sorted and it needed insulating. The landlord also said that it would need to manage expectations and not promise stuff that it wouldn’t be able to deliver ‘at the drop of a hat.’
The landlord contacted the resident on the same day, to advise that it was organising the repairs and again on 30 October 2020, to confirm that all the repairs discussed on the visit on 22 October 2020 would be raised and that schedulers would be in contact with her to arrange appointments. The email stated that the only job that would not be raised was for the cladding as it was such a large job the landlord would need to get quotes for this. Once quotes were received the landlord would raise the works.
In response the resident asked the landlord to confirm what repairs were being raised and the time frames for completion. This Service has not seen a response to the resident’s email.
An internal email exchange dated 2 November 2020 shows that an officer within the organisation sought confirmation of the works that had been raised, so as to relay this back to the resident. In response, the officer was advised that the complaint could be closed following a conversation with the resident. It is not clear to this Service when the conversation with the resident took place or what was discussed and or agreed.
On 16 November 2020, the resident contacted the landlord again and stated that she had a formal complaint that had been put on hold and that six repairs had been booked in. She explained that she was waiting for a response to an email she sent on 5 November 2020. She stated that whilst she appreciated the situation with Covid, she did hope that the landlord could respond to her email.
The resident contacted this Service on 30 November 2020, setting out her complaint with the landlord.
This Service wrote to the landlord on 8 December 2020 and explained that the resident was complaining about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs required to her windows. Specifically, the resident had said, she was told when she moved into the property new windows were due to be installed however this hadn’t happened. The resident also said she was unable to keep her daughter’s room warm and was seeing increased bills. This Service also advised that as a resolution, the resident wanted the landlord to carry out the required works to the windows and the cladding.
The landlord responded to this Service on 9 December 2020 and confirmed the complaint reference number given to the resident on 3 July 2020. It also agreed that all windows needed to be replaced and that a survey would have been completed that week to inspect the cladding.
However, an internal email exchange the same day stated that the complaint had been closed at stage one. The exchange also confirmed that the landlord would replace all the windows and that it needed to arrange a quote for this work, It stated that it would update the resident. In addition, there was an action for the landlord to drive past the property to inspect the cladding.
An internal email dated 10 December 2020, confirmed that it was a metal style cladding with hidden fixings and that in order to make the property less affected by draughts, the cladding would need to be removed.
On the same date it contacted a contractor and requested a quote to replace the cladding. The following day, it advised the contractor that there had been a change in plan and that it would no longer require the quote.
The landlord contacted the resident on 14 December 2020 and confirmed that a contractor had been instructed to replace the windows. It also confirmed that the cladding had been inspected and had been found to be secure. But that it would revisit her concerns with the cladding once the windows had been fitted. The resident stated that there were draughts in her daughter’s bedroom and that the temperature rarely gets above 16 degrees. In response, the landlord confirmed that it would raise another job for further inspection.
An internal email dated 10 February 2021, showed that the resident contacted the landlord again and that she was angry that she hadn’t had a response to the complaint she submitted in July. A follow on email on the same day instructed an officer to contact the resident to let her know that her complaint was being dealt with and that further contact would be made once more information had been gathered. The email also states that although there had been an instruction in December to raise and order for the windows to be replaced, this appears not to have happened.
The following day, an internal email confirmed that the landlord had raised an order for replacement windows and that the contractor would contact the resident to arrange a convenient date for installation. With regards the cladding, the email confirmed that it had been previously agreed that the draughts would be investigated further once the windows had been replaced.
On 7 April 2021, an internal email exchange confirmed that the windows were being installed 9 April 2021. It also confirmed that the second element to the complaint was with regard the cladding being defective and draughty. It confirmed that whilst the cladding had been inspected and had not been found to be defective, the landlord had agreed to revisit once the windows had been fitted. It was also confirmed that it would discuss this with the resident following the windows being fitted.
On 27 April 2021, the contractor confirmed that the windows had been installed but that one window needed to be sealed externally and that it would instruct an operative to do this within the following one to two days.
On 9 May 2021, the resident emailed the landlord in response to a conversation on 7 May 2021, she stated that since the windows had been installed she had noticed that there was a gap in the lower corner of the daughter’s bedroom window and that it was open to the elements. She stated that she had attached photos of the issue she described. This Service has not seen those photos. She stated that the photos showed that the floorboards and the wooden ‘sash’ had been rotting as a result of exposure to the elements. She also stated that the photos evidenced that the cladding was not secured to the building, and that she had shown this to the landlord during a visit on 22 October 2020. She noted that shortly after the inspection on 22 October 2020, an inspection of the cladding was carried out. The resident also stated that from the photos it was clear that there was nothing behind the cladding or in between the floors of the building. She reiterated that since July 2020 they had noticed draughts on the first floor, which also travelled downstairs. She stated that the landlord assured her that the replacement windows would resolve the problem. The resident explained that she had purchased an oil filled radiator to keep the property warm. In addition to the resident asking for the issues regarding the draughts in the property to be resolved before the winter and a plan of action setting out how this would be achieved, she also asked for a copy of the cladding report.
The landlord visited the property on 11 May 2021 and noted that the windows had been installed, but that there were several more jobs relating to the complaint that needed to be booked in.
On 16 June 2021, the landlord issued its stage two response. It stated that operatives visited the property on 20 May 2021 and carried out the work that had been agreed during the visit on 11 May 2021, which included:
1. Replacing damaged floorboards in the larger front bedroom
2. Reaffixing external cladding
3. Sealing around cracks in walls inside the cupboard in the smaller front bedroom
The landlord also stated that it had attempted to contact the resident and had left answerphone messages, but had not had a response. Consequently it was closing the complaint, but that if the resident considered any aspect of the work relating to the complaint that she felt was still outstanding that she should make contact with the landlord. It also advised that if she was still unhappy with the response she could take the complaint to the Housing Ombudsman.

Post complaints process

Following the stage two response the resident contacted the landlord on 22 June 2021 to express that she was unhappy that the complaint had been closed given that there were still issues outstanding. She was advised that her email would be forwarded to the relevant officer. As she had not had a response from the landlord, she made contact again on 6 July 2021, 27 July 2021 and 4 August 2021.

In an internal email dated 5 August 2021, the landlord confirmed that all work at the property had been completed on 20 May 2021, and that after numerous failed telephone calls to the resident, it had sent her a letter confirming that it was closing her complaint. In an internal email the following day, the landlord stated that it had attempted to contact the resident again that day but that there had been no response.
The resident contacted the landlord for an update on the cladding repair on 31 August 2021, 17 September 2021 and again on 24 September 2021. Landlord records show that each time the resident contacted, the call was forwarded to an appropriate officer.
On 22 October 2021, the resident raised another formal complaint with the landlord. She stated that an officer had been out to the property a few weeks prior, and said that the landlord would instruct a company to survey the cladding and insulation. She reiterated that the property was draughty and that she had been complaining about this for over a year.
An internal email dated 29 October 2021 confirms that the complaint was given the same reference number as the original complaint dated 3 July 2020 and that an acknowledgement letter was sent to the resident advising that she would be contacted the following week.
An internal email dated 5 November 2021, stated that the officer who had been dealing with the issues and the complaint was not available and that the landlord did not have the details of the conversation with the resident.
The resident contacted this Service on 8 November 2021, she stated that she had not had a response to the complaint on 22 October 2021 and that although the windows had been replaced, it did not resolve the issue of draughts in the property. She stated that the only warm room in the house was the living room and that she was seeking compensation for the additional cost of keeping her home warm.
The landlord’s internal records dated 16 November 2021, state that it had telephoned the resident to get a better understanding of the outstanding issues. It also stated that an emergency job had been raised for repairs to the front and back doors as well as a routine roof inspection. It confirmed that the resident was mainly concerned with the draught from the upstairs of the property. It was agreed that the landlord would investigate this the following day.
This Service wrote to the landlord on 24 November 2021 and explained that the resident was complaining about:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of draught in the property which is causing the house to be cold.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation relating to stress, inconvenience and money spent on trying to keep her property warm.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint

And that as a resolution, she wanted the landlord to repair the central heating, insulation and cladding; compensate her for the stress, inconvenience and for the additional cost of keeping her home warm and for the landlord to investigate the resident’s concerns as a formal complaint and provide a written response within a timely manner.

The landlord replied to this Service on 7 December 2021 and stated that it was working with the resident to resolve the issues causing the draught and has instructed the following works:
1. Renew ceiling and skim coat cupboard over stairs.
2. Renew wall and skim coat.
3. Renew window board in child’s bedroom, PVCU under window and seal to floor.
4. Supply and lay flooring in boiler cupboard.
5. Renew skirting in boiler cupboard.
6. Renew shoe gulley cover at bottom of downpipe.
7. Inspect roof to check no defects.
8. Inspect guttering to check no defects.
9. Replace front and back doors.
The landlord stated that the works would commence in January 2022 and would be inspected on completion to ensure the resident is satisfied. In addition it confirmed that the central heating was working but that there was a small leak and a visit was booked for 15 December 2021.
The resident contacted the landlord on 14 March 2022 and again on 28 March 2022 for an update on a response to her complaint.
On 28 March 2022, the landlord logged a new stage one complaint under a new reference number. Its internal records state that in response to the resident claiming she had logged the most recent complaint several months ago, it advised her that a formal complaint had not been logged, but that it would log the complaint that day. The notes set out the resident’s concerns regarding the draughts in the property and that she had been advised that the landlord had requested quotes for the required work. She was seeking a response to her complaint and a plan of action to resolve the issues she had reported.
A response was sent to the resident the same day explaining that she would receive a response from the appropriate team.
On 13 April 2022, following contact from the resident the previous day, the landlord records show a series of email exchanges in which the landlord seeks to establish who is responsible for responding to the complaint and dealing with the reported issues.
The resident contacted this Service again on 25 April 2021 explaining that the issues with the cladding had still not been resolved. She explained that she had been told that the landlord was obtaining quotes for the cladding, but that she had not had a response to her complaint.
The resident contacted the landlord several more times and on 1 July 2022, the landlord contacted the resident to explain that the delay in responding to the complaint was due to it having been passed between two different teams in the organisation, and that someone would contact her to arrange an inspection.
On 22 July 2022, the landlord notified the resident that it had requested three separate quotes for the cladding works. The landlord contacted the resident again on 27 July 2022 to explain that it had been contacted by this Service and that she had exhausted the complaints process on 16 June 2021 and that the complaint that had been logged on 28 March 2022 had been logged in error and therefore it had been closed as it was a duplicate.
On 12 August 2022, the landlord notified the resident that the quotes for the work were being considered that day.
The landlord wrote to this Service on 22 August 2022 and advised that the cladding was being removed and replaced along with insulation and a waterproof membrane. It confirmed that the actual insulation and membrane behind the cladding were not sufficient and posed a risk of weather damage to the property and that it could also mean that the property could not be adequately heated. It confirmed that an inspection report had been completed and photos provided by the resident appeared to show limited insulation. It confirmed that works should be completed within 90 days of instruction and that this should be ahead of the winter season to avoid further weathering.
On 6 March 2023, the resident advised this Service that the cladding and insulation works had been carried out from 4 October 2022 and had been completed. She advised that she had not received an apology from the landlord regarding the delay nor had she been offered compensation. She explained that throughout the process there had not been a consistent officer dealing with the matters.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of reports that the property is cold and draughty and its handling of repairs to rectify the problem.

The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible of maintaining the structure and exterior of the property, including outside walls and windows. The landlord’s repairs policy states that residents can report responsive repairs 24 hours a day seven days a week and that it aims to complete those repairs within 28 calendar days. In addition it notes that in most cases an operative will be able to fix any problems that have been identified. But that in some circumstances it may be more appropriate for a more in-depth investigation of the issue to take place in order to fully scope out the work and identify the remedial action. The policy states that if an inspection is required, the landlord will aim to complete this and the subsequent repair within 28 calendar days. The policy also states that from time to time, mainly as a result of responsive repairs activity, the landlord will identify major works to individual homes, such as building components that haven’t reached the end of their theoretical lifespan, but have failed on a one-off basis. For example, windows. It states that it will raise an individual works order and set a date of 90 calendar days for the works to be completed.
The resident raised concerns regarding the windows and the property being draughty at least as far back as 3 July 2020. The landlord initially contacted the resident within three days to acknowledge her concerns and advise that it would be in contact to seek to resolve the issues raised. However, it took until 17 August 2020, for the landlord to contact the resident again, at which point it stated that it had instructed a contractor to quote for the supply and install of the eaves tray and to deal with the issue regarding the aerial. In respect of the windows, it advised the resident that the budget to replace them had been spent and that she would need to wait for the money to be available. Given that the resident had complained about the windows being draughty and that it planned to replace them before the resident exchanged into the property, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have arranged an inspection within 28 calendar days as stated in its policy.
According to evidence provided, it took until 22 October 2020, for the landlord to inspect the property. This was a total of 111 calendar days from the date the resident reported the repair on 3 July 2020 and 83 days after the 28 day target proposed by the landlord in its policy. On inspection, the landlord noted that lots of work was required in certain areas and that ‘both sides of the property needs the cladding sorting and insulating.’ The landlord failed to meet its own policy position and service level agreement and as a result left the resident in a state of limbo, not knowing if or when the landlord would inspect the property as it had suggested it would on 6 July 2020. This Service has not seen any evidence from the landlord in relation to reasons for the delay. From the information provided it appears that the delay was due to a change in personnel at the organisation.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (the HHSRS) offers landlords a risk based tool to enable them to consider potential hazards. This is useful as landlords have a responsibility to keep properties free from category one hazards, which includes excess cold. Guidance for the HHSRS sets out that a healthy indoor temperature is approximately 21°C and that temperatures below 16°C, may pose serious health risks, particularly for elderly or more vulnerable residents. With this in mind, and noting the resident’s concerns about cold, the landlord was responsible for checking the thermal efficiency of the property and to determine whether the temperature in the property was adequate or not under the relevant regulations, especially given that the resident had a daughter under the age of five years old. The landlord acknowledged, on 22 October 2020, that the cladding and insulation in the property needed to be sorted, yet it failed to take action within a reasonable timescale. The delay was not acceptable and resulted in the resident having to endure a poorly insulated home for a further two years.
On 30 October 2020, the landlord advised that all the repairs that had been discussed during its visit would be actioned, apart from repairs to the cladding. The resident sought confirmation of exactly what repairs would be done. This Service has not seen evidence of a response to the resident’s question. But given that one of the resident’s concerns was the efficiency of the windows, it seems appropriate to conclude that window repair/replacement was included within the list of repairs and that they should have been replaced within 90 calendar days. However, it took 161 calendar days for the windows to be replaced. The landlord failed to meet its own policy position and service level agreement, and as a result, the resident spent the winter living with draughty windows.
On 9 December 2020, the landlord formally confirmed to the resident that all the windows would be replaced. It took 121 calendar days from this date for the windows to be eventually replaced. On the same day the landlord confirmed that it would survey the cladding, which it did within the following few days. It carried out an external inspection and confirmed that the cladding was safe, however it did not mention its thermal efficiency. Nevertheless, the landlord stated that it would inspect the cladding again once the windows had been replaced.
Whilst, under normal circumstances it would have been reasonable for the landlord to wait for the new windows to be installed before re-inspecting the cladding. Given that on 22 October 2020, an inspection had already noted that both sides of the property needed the cladding sorting and insulating, and given that the resident had raised concerns regarding the temperature in her daughter’s bedroom, this Service considers that the landlord delayed unnecessarily in its responsibility to properly survey and replace the cladding, and that it would have been appropriate for the landlord to instruct a full survey of the cladding at least from 22 October 2020.
The windows were replaced on 9 April 2021 and the property was inspected again on 11 May 2021, at which point the landlord agreed that it would replace damaged floorboards in the larger front bedroom; reaffix external cladding and seal around cracks in walls inside the cupboard in the smaller front bedroom. However, this Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord commented on, or surveyed the thermal efficiency of the cladding to ensure that the property met the appropriate requirements.
On 22 October 2021, the resident stated that she had been advised by the landlord that it would instruct a company to inspect the cladding and insulation. However, the officer who had been dealing with the repairs and the related complaint was unavailable and the landlord did not hold any record of the alleged conversation. Evidence seen by this Service suggests that there have been issues with record keeping. There were at least two incidents that took place in October 2020 and October 2021, where the landlord appeared to have a lack of knowledge of what the resident had previously been told, and what actions had already been taken. This appeared to coincide with a change in officers dealing with the repairs and the associated complaint.
The following month, the landlord noted that the resident was still concerned with the draughts in the property, it also confirmed to this Service that it was working with the resident to resolve the issues and it provided a list of repairs it was actioning. However, this Service notes that the landlord did not include an inspection of thermal efficiency of the cladding, on that list. Given that the resident had continuously raised concerns regarding the cladding on the property and that the landlord itself had expressed concerns about insulation the previous year, it was unreasonable for it not to complete a thermal inspection at that time.
It is not clear from the information provided, when the landlord agreed that it would replace the cladding, but there is evidence of an email to a contractor dated 19 July 2022, requesting a quote for the cladding to be replaced. On 22 August 2022, the landlord confirmed to this Service, that the actual insulation and membrane behind the cladding were not sufficient and posed a risk of weather damage to the property and that it could also mean that the property could not be adequately heated. It confirmed that an inspection report had been completed and photos provided by the resident appeared to show limited insulation.
The resident has confirmed that the cladding was replaced on 4 October 2022, which was almost two years after the landlord first acknowledged that there was an issue with the insulation.
This Service finds that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports that the property was cold and draughty and its handling of repairs to rectify the problem.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

The landlord’s own policy states that it will respond to stage one complaints within ten working days and stage two complaints within 20 working days, although it may take a further 30 working days to respond depending on the nature and complexity of the complaint.
The landlord first logged the resident’s complaint regarding its failure to respond to her call and its failure to resolve the repairs she had reported, on 3 July 2020. It acknowledged her complaint on 6 July 2020 and asked her to provide additional information, which she did on the same day.
There is no evidence of the landlord ever having responded to this stage one complaint. The resident made further contact regarding the same complaint on 16 October 2020, to which the landlord assigned the same complaint reference number. The landlord stated that it closed the stage one complaint during a telephone conversation with the resident sometime between 30 October and 2 November 2020. However, there is no record of the conversation that allegedly took place. Furthermore, the resident made further contact two weeks later asking about the formal complaint that had been put on hold. If the landlord had indeed dealt with the complaint at stage one, there does not appear to be any evidence of the response nor does it appear to have been made clear to the resident that a response had been provided and the complaint closed. The landlord failed to operate within its policy, which states that a stage one response will be provided within 10 working days. The landlord also failed in its service delivery and did not achieve its published customer commitment.
In a response to this Service in December 2020, the landlord confirmed that it had a complaint from the resident and provided the same refence number given to the resident in July 2020. The landlord did not tell this Service that the complaint had been closed at stage one. The landlord failed to provide a stage one complaint response and consequently failed to meet its own policy position. Had it been made clearer to the resident that a response at stage one had been provided, she could have escalated the complaint to stage two sooner and also brought the complaint to this Service sooner than she did.
The resident made at least one other reference to her complaint before the landlord sent a very brief stage two response on 16 June 2021. The response did not provide a full reply to the resident’s complaint. In particular, it did not address her concerns regarding the draughts in the property or the fact that the property was cold. Without a meaningful investigation or review, the response did not demonstrate the dispute resolution principles the Ombudsman would expect to see for putting things right and learning from outcomes. The response stated that resident could make contact if she felt that there was any work relating to the complaint that was still outstanding. She contacted the landlord the following week (and several times after) regarding the outstanding repairs and was told that someone would contact her about it.
The landlord departed significantly from its compliant policy when handling the resident’s complaint. The stage one complaint, if issued at all, appears to have been issued 85 working days after it was first logged on 3 July 2020. Likewise, the stage two complaint was responded to 129 days after having been contacted by this Service on 9 December 2020. The landlord failed to meet its own policy position and failed to meet the guidelines set out in the Complaint handling code
It is important to point out, whilst also acknowledging that it occurred following the completion of the landlord’s internal complaints process, that the resident sought to contact the landlord as suggested in its stage two response, to explain that, in her opinion, there were still elements of the complaint outstanding.
The landlord accepted another complaint from the resident in October 2021 and logged it with the same complaint reference number as the complaint made in July 2020. Whilst the landlord acknowledged this complaint, this Service has not seen any evidence of a response at stage one. Furthermore, another complaint was logged by the resident, citing the same issues in March 2022.
The landlord eventually contacted the resident on 27 July 2022 and explained that she had exhausted their complaints process on 16 June 2021 and that the most recent complaint had been closed as it was a duplicate.
It is clear throughout this report that the landlord has not followed its complaint procedure and has significantly failed to achieve the customer commitments set out in its complaints policy. This Service finds that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
1. Reports that the property was cold and draughty and its handling of repairs to rectify the problem.
2. The associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord acknowledged that there were issues with the cladding and insulation on 22 October 2020; however, it did not instruct a full survey or inspection of the cladding until sometime in 2022, opting instead for an external inspection towards the end of 2020. In addition, the landlord stated that it would inspect the cladding once the new windows had been installed. From evidence provided, it appears that this didn’t happen for at least one year after the installation of the windows. This Service therefore concludes that the landlord delayed unnecessarily in the handling of repairs.
The landlord’s complaint handling was inappropriate. The landlord departed significantly from the timescales detailed in its policy; and the only response seen by this Service was lacking in detail and was delayed. The landlord failed to take responsibility or apologise for its failings and it did not address all the resident’s concerns.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report .
2. Pay the resident a total of £800 comprising of:
  1. £400 for the failings identified in the handling of the reports that the property was cold and draughty and the handling of repairs to rectify the problem.
  2. £400 for the inconvenience caused by the poor complaint handling.
3. Pay the resident an additional £200 towards unreasonable costs incurred for additional heating in the resident’s home.
Review its complaints policy against the complaint handling code to ensure compliance.
Provide this Service with evidence of compliance with the above orders within four weeks of the date of this decision.

Recommendations

The landlord should carry out refresher training with its complaints handling staff to ensure that all issues raised in complaints are addressed fully and in compliance with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.