Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Thames Valley Housing Association Limited (202126838)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202126838

Thames Valley Housing Association Limited

24 August 2022


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 response to the resident’s concerns about repairs following a leak.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant at the property of the landlord since 28 May 2005. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a first floor flat.
  2. The resident experienced a leak on 27 June 2019 which she reported to the landlord. The landlord subsequently carried out repairs to address the leak.
  3. Two years later on 21 October 2021, the resident raised a complaint. She reported that the repair works had not been fully completed. She also requested compensation for the damage caused by the leak at the time, as well as for her time and trouble in arranging for the leak to be remedied, which included her losing time from work.
  4. The landlord provided its stage one response on 23 November 2021. It noted that following her reports, its surveyor inspected the property on 4 November 2021 and confirmed that works to fix the extractor fan, redecorate two ceilings, repair the toilet cistern, and repair cracked bathroom tiles would be undertaken on 10 December 2021. It advised that given the initial leak occurred over six months ago, it was unable to carry out a detailed investigation of these events, but acknowledged that some of the repairs had remained outstanding from this time. It apologised for this delay and offered £100 compensation for her time and trouble.
  5. The resident subsequently escalated her complaint on the same date as she was dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered.
  6. The landlord provided its stage two response on 21 December 2021. It noted that its attempted repair of the extractor fan had been delayed due to the requirement for a carpenter to attend. It additionally noted its contractors had been unable to gain access to the property on 10 December 2021 to complete the remaining works. It advised that the works had been rearranged for 31 December 2021. It offered an additional £50 compensation for the further delays and reiterated that it could not investigate her historical complaint about the handling of the leak repair.
  7. The landlord informed this service on 9 June 2022 that the repairs were not completed until May 2022 due to a combination of no access and an administrative error. In light of this failure, it proposed to offer an additional £150 compensation to the resident.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident informed the Ombudsman that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of remedial works following a leak in her property in June 2019 and with the level of compensation offered.
  2. The tenancy agreement between the landlord and the resident confirms that it is responsible for repairs to the structure of the property and the installations in the property for the provision of water. This includes the walls, ceilings and pipework. It was therefore appropriate that it undertook works to remedy the leak beginning in June 2019.
  3. Records indicate that following its initial works in 2019, the landlord carried out an inspection of the property on 18 January 2020 which identified further works were required. It did not contact the resident to arrange for the further works to be completed until September 2020. While it was the landlord’s responsibility to arrange these works, the Ombudsman considers there is some onus on a resident to raise concerns where there has been an extended period of inactivity. It is not evident that the resident raised concerns until her formal complaint in October 2021.
  4. The landlord’s complaints policy notes that for it to consider a complaint, the complaint must be made within six months of an incident. The Ombudsman considers this approach to be appropriate and in line with best practice as it can be difficult to carry out an effective investigation of complaints older than six months due to the availability of evidence.
  5. Given that the initial repair issues and subsequent period of delay was greater than six months prior, it was reasonable for the landlord to have advised in its formal responses that it would be unable to carry out a detailed investigation into the events when the leak was initially reported. Despite this, it was appropriate that having identified that some works from this period were left outstanding, it apologised and offered £100 compensation to reflect this. While the resident wanted additional compensation to reflect her time and trouble at the time of the original repairs, as these events were outside of the scope of the landlord’s investigation, it was reasonable that they were not considered as part of its offer of compensation.
  6. Following the resident’s complaint in October 2021 that the repairs remained outstanding, the landlord arranged for its surveyor to attend the property on 4 November 2021 which resulted in a schedule of works being produced. This was a reasonable amount of time following the resident’s most recent report, and in line with the landlord’s repairs policy. The landlord informed the resident of these works in its stage one complaint response and informed her that all works would be completed by 10 December 2021. This was in excess of the 28-calendar day timeframe stated in its repairs guide; however, given that there were multiple repairs identified during the inspection this delay was not excessive.
  7. In its stage two complaint response, the landlord appropriately acknowledged and apologised that its initial attempt to repair the extractor fan had been delayed due to it sending the wrong tradesperson. It also appropriately offered an additional £50 in recognition of this further delay. The additional delays were due to a lack of access, for which the landlord would not be considered responsible for, and the landlord appropriately arranged for further dates for the works to commence.
  8. In summary, the landlord response was reasonable in that it appropriately outlined it position on why it would not investigate a historic complaint, carried out a reasonable investigation of the issues that remained outstanding, and took reasonable steps to arrange for its works. It also offered appropriate compensation to reflect the delays, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, amounts to the reasonable redress of the complaint up until the stage two response.
  9. The Ombudsman notes that following the stage two response, there were further delays to the works. It is not evident if the resident raised further complaints about the further delays and the circumstances of those delays, and the subsequent compensation offered by the resident have not been the focus of this investigation. Should the resident wish to raise a complaint about the delays to these works following the landlord’s earlier stage two response, she should do so with the landlord in the first instance.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its service failure in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns about repairs following a leak.

Recommendations

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord to:
    1. reiterate its offer of £150 compensation that it offered in its stage two response, if it has not already done so.
    2. reiterate its additional offer of a further £150 compensation in relation to the delays to the works beyond its stage two response, or if requested by the resident, accept a new complaint in relation to these delays.