The Industrial Dwellings Society (1885) Limited (202128513)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202128513

The Industrial Dwellings Society (1885) Limited

30 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of the resident’s bathroom replacement.
   2. Record keeping.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
3. On 3 February 2021, the resident requested for his bathroom to be replaced due to numerous repair issues, including leaks, and an inspection was subsequently completed on 12 April 2021. The works commenced in August 2021 and the landlord noted the repairs took 17 weeks to complete.
4. The resident raised a complaint as he was dissatisfied with the length of time taken to replace the bathroom in the property, as he had to use a bathroom at his mother’s house while the works were ongoing. He was also unhappy with the standard of work, and stated he had to repeatedly chased the landlord to resolve the issues.
5. In the landlord’s final response, it stated that there was no evidence of issues that should have led to such extensive delays in completing the works. It acknowledged its failings in the quality of work and monitoring the work to completion, which led to a significant amount of time in which the resident had been without a useable bathroom. It offered £1604 compensation, comprised of £864 for the loss of the bathroom, £400 for the distress, inconvenience and anxiety caused and £240 for the cost of alternative bathroom arrangements.
6. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, he said he was dissatisfied with the compensation offered by the landlord, as he did not think it reflected the time taken to complete the work to the bathroom. He requested £5500 compensation to resolve the complaint. He advised that while the works were ongoing there was no bathroom or toilet in use.

Assessment and findings

7. It is important to note that the records provided to this Service by the landlord were not comprehensive. However, in this case, as both the accounts given by the resident and the landlord broadly align, this Service has been able to make a determination of the substantive issue of the case. This investigation is therefore based on the available evidence.
8. In accordance with the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for repairs to installations including basins, sinks, toilets, flushing systems and waste pipes. As a result, when repair issues to the resident’s bathroom were identified, the landlord was responsible for completing the required works.
9. In the landlord’s complaint response, it stated that a bathroom replacement would usually take four to five days to complete, or up to eight days in extenuating circumstances. The landlord has not disputed that the bathroom replacement exceeded a reasonable timeframe, as it stated the work took over four months to complete. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman assesses whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
10. Although the exact timeframe of the works is unclear, there is a consensus between the resident and the landlord that the works commenced in August 2021. The landlord’s records show that on 20 September 2021 works were completed to the resident’s bathroom including replacing the bath, flooring and toilet. However, the works were inspected on 4 October 2021 and noted the toilet had not been properly installed, which was subsequently refit on 11 November 2021. On 25 November 2021 the flooring was removed and re-levelled, and in the landlord’s stage one response on 26 November 2021, it confirmed all repairs had been completed. Despite the limited evidence available regarding the repairs, it is clear that the landlord exceeded a reasonable timeframe to complete the works. In its final response, the landlord outlined that there was no evidence of issues that would have reasonably explained such delays.
11. In the landlord’s final response, it noted that the resident did not have use of the bath or the handheld shower during the repairs, as they caused leaks. The resident also reported that the toilet was left connected, but untested, which led to a leak during the first use. It is unclear whether the resident experienced a loss of use of the bathroom facilities for the full duration of the ongoing repair works. Regardless of the timeframe, there was a clear detriment to the resident as his family was without use of essential facilities, and had to use the bathroom at his mother’s property, which understandably would have caused significant inconvenience.
12. The resident also reported communication issues regarding the repairs, as he had to contact the contractor directly and said there was a lack of communication between the landlord and the contractor. The resident also advised that he had to chase the contractors to arrange follow-on works, as they were not routinely raised when identified. As the resident has a contractual relationship with the landlord, not the contractors, the landlord should ensure that it supports the resident upon receiving reports of issues with the repair service. Due to a lack of communication records provided by the landlord, this Service is unable to determine the full extent of the landlord’s communication failings and the impact on the resident. However, it is evident that the landlord’s communication led to additional time and trouble to the resident in pursuing the repairs.
13. The landlord acted reasonably as it acknowledged its failings in handling the bathroom replacement in its stage two complaint response and offered compensation. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will offer compensation equivalent to 25% of the resident’s rent if they experience a loss of use of the bathroom due to a repair issue that is the landlord’s responsibility. The landlord’s offer of compensation exceeded its obligations under its compensation policy, as it granted compensation equivalent to 40% of the resident’s rent for the duration the repairs were ongoing, which totalled £864. In addition, the landlord offered £20 compensation per week for the cost of alternative bathroom arrangements, which totalled £340 compensation. As it is unclear from the records whether the resident had a total loss of bathroom facilities intermittently or for the full duration the repairs were ongoing, it was appropriate that the landlord calculated the compensation for the full 17-week period the repairs were ongoing. This Service determines that this compensation was reasonable, despite not being able to confirm the duration of the repairs, as the resident advised the works took 12 weeks to complete, which the landlord’s compensation offer exceeded.
14. It was also appropriate that the landlord offered a further £400 compensation for the distress, inconvenience and anxiety caused to the resident, as it demonstrated it had considered the full impact outlined by the resident. The overall compensation of £1604 offered by the landlord was in line with this Service’s remedies guidance (published on our website), which states that awards of over £1000 should be awarded in cases where there was a severe long-term impact on the resident, due to serious failings by the landlord. The landlord has therefore demonstrated that it has reasonably redressed the complaint.
15. Although it was appropriate that the landlord awarded compensation, it has not demonstrated that it has taken steps of learning. The landlord should therefore undertake a case review of the available information and identify areas where its repairs service could be improved. It should also assess whether any additional staff training is required to improve its service delivery and prevent a recurrence of the issues in this case.

Record keeping

16. As referenced earlier in the report, the records provided by the landlord were not comprehensive. As part of this investigation the landlord was asked to provide documents, correspondence, and any other evidence relevant to the resident’s complaint. The landlord failed to provide a clear account of the repairs, the full communication records or the resident’s original complaint and escalation. The omissions indicate poor record keeping by the landlord in that it was not able to provide the relevant information when asked.
17. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. The Ombudsman’s investigations are based on evidence provided by the landlord and in the absence of clear evidence, we may not be able to determine whether the landlord has taken sufficient steps to fulfil its repair obligations. As the landlord failed to provide comprehensive records, although this Service has been able to reach a determination on the substantive issue, we could not assess the full extent of the impact on the resident, due to a lack of understanding regarding the landlord’s specific failings, but in any event, it is worth noting the compensation offered was more than reasonable..
18. The landlord has explained its head of repairs left the organisation, so it was unable to obtain correspondence that occurred between him and the resident. Although it was appropriate that the landlord identified the reason for the record handling issues, it has not demonstrated that it has taken any steps of learning or actions to improve its service. It is therefore ordered that the landlord reviews its record keeping processes and produces an action plan to ensure that it is able to access all records of communication, inspections and repair works, to avoid issues if individual staff members leave.

Determination

19. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its handling of the resident’s bathroom replacement satisfactorily.
20. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its record keeping practices.

Orders

21. The landlord should review its record keeping practices and implement an action plan to ensure it keeps accessible records of communication, inspections and repair works.
22. The landlord should provide proof that it has adhered to this orders within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

23. The landlord should pay the resident £1604 as offered in its complaint response, if it has not done so already.
24. The landlord should complete a case review of its handling of the resident’s bathroom replacement to identify areas it could improve its service.