Together Housing Association Limited (202203761)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203761

Together Housing Association Limited

5 October 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:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs in the property.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to have a tenancy warning removed.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy which started on 17 July 2020. The resident is a tenant of the housing association.
The property is described as a one-bedroom bungalow.
The resident has told the Ombudsman that he has a number of medical conditions and the landlord also advised that the resident has restricted mobility.
The tenancy agreement obliges the landlord to keep in good repair the outside of the property, including the roof, windows and doors. It also obliges the resident to give access to the landlord and its workmen to carry out repairs as long as reasonable notice is given.
The landlord’s repairs priorities available online state that each repair request is assigned a priority and this will determine how quickly the repair is resolved. There are three repair categories. It will attend within 24 hours for category one repairs; priority two repairs are attended within 28 days and priority three within 63 days.
The landlord’s complaints policy advises that all complaints are assessed and at its informal stage (called “Getting it sorted”), it will resolve complaints within five days. Complaints considered during its formal stage will be resolved within 10 working days at its first stage and within 15 working days at its final stage.
The landlord’s combined compensation policy available online sets out the circumstances in which compensation is payable. It categories payments as minor, moderate and severe and the amounts payable within each category.

Summary of events

The landlord’s records show that on 3 August 2020 the resident made a report using its website that the fascia to the roof needed repair. Further repairs regarding the bathroom radiator, a leak to the kitchen sink and a kitchen cupboard were reported on 9 September 2020. Follow on repairs were recorded on 29 September 2020 to secure all loose kitchen cupboards and to secure the radiator to the bathroom wall.
On 30 October 2020, the landlord’s records show that an assessment was required for the mould in the bathroom. An inspection was arranged for 17 November 2020.
The landlord records show that:
1. It agreed to carry out mould treatment to the bathroom and kitchen on 2 December 2020.
2. It arranged an inspection for 26 January 2021 to check the cavity wall insulation and to check the heating in the property on 27 January 2021, following the resident’s reports that the property was cold.
3. It also recorded on 27 January 2021 that the fascia boards were rotting and arranged an appointment for 14 May 2021 for this.
The resident reported on 7 March 2021 that repairs to the roof were required and that the wood at the corner remained rotten, though he had reported this the previous year. The resident made a further report about the fascia on 24 March 2021.
The resident chased the repair to the fascia on 11 May 2021 which he described as cracked and rotten. In response, the landlord realised that the repair for the fascia had not been raised. Its records show that it tried to contact the resident by phone to arrange an appointment, however the call failed.
The resident reported via the website on 20 June 2021 that there were gaps in the fascia and the wood was rotten. An appointment was arranged for 10 August 2021. The resident rang the landlord to chase the repair to the fascia on 12 July 2021.
The landlord’s records show that on 10 August 2021, the repairs to the roof were moved to the financial year 2022/2023 and the resident was informed.
The landlord’s records show a gap in communication until 13 January 2022 when the resident raised a repair advising that the property was cold, especially in the bathroom in the evening. The resident advised that the window and door seals required replacement.
The resident made a further repair request on 24 January 2022, informing the landlord that the bathroom was cold, even when the heating was on. The resident advised that the heat was escaping through the extractor fan.
The following day, 25 January 2022, the landlord raised an inspection to check the windows on 16 February 2022. The resident advised that he was unavailable on the proposed date of the inspection as he had a hospital appointment arranged for that day. The landlord advised that the next available appointment was on 27 April 2022. The resident requested an earlier appointment date as there were two months until the rearranged appointment.
On 24 March 2022, the resident remained dissatisfied with the appointment date to check the windows. He contacted the landlord to advise that he would be contacting this Service to make a complaint or his Member of Parliament.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 31 March 2022. He complained that the outstanding repairs were making it difficult for him to keep the property warm. He said that the window seals to the bathroom were defective, the extractor fan did not have a back draft and the walls were not insulated. Also, he could not use the shower as the bathroom was cold, the door seals needed replacing and the repairs to the fascia remained outstanding.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 4 April 2022 at the ‘getting it sorted’ stage of its complaint process. It advised that it would respond within a couple of days. Later that day, the landlord informed the resident that it only had one repair registered for his property for a joiner to inspect the windows on 16 February 2022. As the resident had advised of his unavailability for the appointment, the next available appointment was at the end of April 2022. It could not undertake the repair any earlier as it had not been assessed as an emergency and it had limited capacity. It agreed to bring forward the appointment if it received a cancellation.
The landlord’s records show that on 27 April 2022, it attended the resident’s property to inspect the windows and no one was in. A card was left to inform the resident that it had attended. The landlord arranged a further appointment for 25 May 2022 with the resident to inspect the windows.
On 9 May 2022, the resident reported that the light fitting in the kitchen was faulty and cracked at each end where the strip light connects. A priority two repair was raised to assess whether the light fitting required renewal. It was noted that asbestos sampling was required and an appointment arranged for 20 May 2022.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 24 May 2022, requesting that it cancel the inspection arranged for 25 May 2022 to inspect the windows as he had made a complaint to this Service. The resident advised that he had given the landlord multiple opportunities to carry out the repair and he felt that the landlord had messed him around. In addition, the landlord had made appointments without contacting him in advance to check that the appointment time was suitable.
The landlord contacted the resident on 27 May 2022 to advise that this Service had been in contact regarding his complaint. The landlord informed the resident that it had not been given the opportunity to inspect the property following his repair requests and it needed to do so. It requested that the resident agree to an inspection being carried out to the property the following week.
In response, the resident advised that he had waited all winter for the landlord to inspect the property and the issue had been outstanding for the previous two years. The resident advised that appointment dates had been arranged without consulting him. Also, the property was cold due to the lack of cavity wall insultation, bathroom windows were draughty and there was damp in the bathroom cupboard and in the living room. The kitchen light had not worked and there was asbestos in the kitchen ceiling. He had experienced three chest infections since November 2021, the electric fire was not working and extractor fan in the bathroom did not have a back draft to stop the heat escaping. Finally, he said that the landlord should stop blaming the Covid-19 pandemic for its delayed response.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 7 June 2022 regarding the complaint. It confirmed that it had handled the informal complaint and when it could not make contact with the resident, it had arranged an inspection to discuss and clarify the issues. The resident had cancelled the appointment as he was seeking advice from this Service, therefore it had arranged an appointment for 14 June 2022 to inspect the property to find a resolution.
On 21 June 2022, the landlord inspected the resident’s property and arranged to carry out repairs on 3 October 2022. The repairs raised were for the roof, replace the seals on windows and doors and to fit a one direction cover to the extractor fan in the bathroom. It also raised repairs to repair the soffit and to resecure the hallway radiator.
On the same day, 21 June 2022, the landlord noted that there could be exposed asbestos in the bathroom so an asbestos report was commissioned. The asbestos contractor had attended, but there was a delay in the report being uploaded to the landlord’s systems. Therefore, the plastering work to the bathroom had to be cancelled.
The asbestos survey was carried out on 23 June 2022. The survey did not identify areas of high or medium risk. Low risk material was identified in the bathroom ceiling, bathroom cupboard and the kitchen.
The resident made a further report on 30 June 2022 that the repairs to the fascia had not been carried out.
The resident informed this Service on 1 July 2022 that the inspection had been carried out to his property but he had yet to receive the schedule of works. He requested compensation for the period that the repairs had not been carried out.
The landlord’s records show that on 2 July 2022, appointments were arranged for following works to the property:
1. Joint inspection on 11 July 2022 to drill holes to inspect the insulation.
2. Repair ceiling on 19 July 2022 in bathroom following asbestos report and work.
3. Replace seals in door and windows on 3 October 2022 and make draught proof.
The landlord contacted the resident on 4 July 2022 to rearrange the appointments as the resident had advised that he was waiting for a hospital appointment.
The resident contacted this Service on 19 July 2022 to advise that the landlord was not replacing the seals on the windows until October 2022 and that the property was draughty.
The same day, 19 July 2022, the landlord noted that its surveyor had attended the resident’s property on two separate occasions and there had been no access.
The resident requested a visit by the neighbourhood officer and the landlord emailed the resident on 3 August 2022 to request the reason for the home visit. The resident advised that Mondays were not convenient for him and that appointments should be made in the afternoon. The resident refused to give the reason for the request for the visit. In response, the landlord agreed to visit on 17 August 2022 at 1pm.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 5 August 2022. The letter explained:
1. The delay in carrying out the repair to the bathroom and kitchen ceiling was because it had to follow its asbestos procedure to prevent exposure.
2. The asbestos survey had found that there was no concern or risk to the resident’s health.
3. It would arrange an appointment to carry out the work to the bathroom and kitchen ceiling.
4. Compensation could only be calculated once the work to the property had been completed and it recognised that its complaint response was outstanding.
5. A visit had been arranged for 17 August 2022 regarding his request to move to another property.
On the same day (5 August 2022), the landlord arranged appointments to scrape the kitchen ceiling around the light fitting and to scrape the bathroom ceiling where condensation had bubbled in one corner of the room.
On 17 August 2022, the neighbourhood officer emailed her manager to advise that she had undertaken a scheme walk about before meeting with the resident. She arrived at his address after 1pm with her colleague as she had spoken with other residents. When she arrived at the property, the resident shouted and swore at her colleague. The resident advised that he had requested to see the neighbourhood officer only and the invitation had not extended to her colleague. The officer described the resident’s behaviour as aggressive. She had tried to calm down the situation by offering to attend later but the resident continued to swear and slammed the door in their faces.
The neighbourhood officer copied her colleague into the report and requested that he give his version of the visit. The neighbourhood officer completed an anti-social behaviour violent incident report.
The same day, 17 August 2022, the resident emailed the neighbourhood officer and apologised for his behaviour advising that he did not want her colleague present at the visit. He went on to say that the reason for requesting the visit was that, amongst other things, he wanted to discuss a transfer to another property.
The landlord’s records show that on 22 August 2022, it decided to issue a tenancy warning letter to the resident after review of the anti-social behaviour violent incident report. It also decided that visits to the property should be undertaken in pairs.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 24 August 2022 – it advised that once the repairs were complete, it would provide its complaint response, including its assessment of compensation. Furthermore, at the home visit on 17 August 2022, the resident’s behaviour had been assessed as abusive and aggressive to its officers. The behaviour was considered unacceptable and unnecessary. Therefore, it warranted a tenancy warning letter to be issued. It also advised that it had added the resident to its caution list.
On the same day (24 August 2022), the resident reported that he had no lights in his property. The electrician attended that evening to check all the lights in the property.
The following day, 25 August 2022, the resident advised that he could not open the letter sent by the landlord on his phone and the neighbourhood officer had not informed him that someone else would be attending with her. He had asked her colleague to leave and they had not done so. He said he did not want to be blamed for the incident and did not know why the neighbourhood officer needed a bodyguard to attend with her.
The resident reported that there was hole in the roof next to the lead flashing by the chimney on 26 August 2022. An appointment was arranged for 29 October 2022. Later that day (26 August 2022), the resident advised that he was not happy that the landlord had issued a tenancy warning letter. He had asked the neighbourhood officer’s colleague to move away from the property and if her colleague had done so, then he would have spoken to her. Also, if he were aware her colleague was going to attend, he would have cancelled the appointment. The resident advised that he was going to complain to the Chief Executive and his Member of Parliament.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 30 August 2022, regarding the incident at his address. It advised that he had verbally abused members of staff and he had been included on its caution list. It provided the appeal rights.
The landlord provided its stage one complaint response on 31 August 2022. At the beginning of the response, it explained why it had issued the tenancy warning letter to the resident. The key findings were:
1. It set out the schedule of works to be carried out to the resident’s property: repair roof, damp in the bathroom and living room, seals around windows and doors, loose and leaking radiators and installation of back draft to extractor fan. Also, it was to remedy asbestos in the ceiling.
2. It had agreed to inspect the property but the resident had cancelled the appointment for 14 June 2022. The appointment was rearranged to 21 June 2022.
3. The landlord had offered to arrange the repairs but the resident had wanted to agree these directly with its planners.
4. It recognised that the communication had broken down and apologised for this. It acknowledged that it could have tried harder when the complaint was made to resolve it.
5. Since the inspection on 21 June 2022, it had met its service standards to raise the necessary works.
6. It offered compensation of £180 for the impact and miscommunication for the first six months of the year. If it identified any further service failures, it would reassess the compensation award.
The neighbourhood officer emailed the resident to confirm the reason for the warning letter. She explained that it was due to the language used and his aggressive manner and set out the reason for her colleague’s attendance at the visit. Furthermore, the resident had not requested that she attend alone and he could have expressed that differently if he did not want her colleague present. She provided information related to schemes and housing options in Northern Ireland, explaining that she did not have experience in the housing opportunities that Northern Ireland offered.
The resident emailed the landlord on 20 September 2022 to advise that it was not fair to give him a warning for something that was not his fault. He was not given notice of the appointment and he did not want more than one member of staff to attend his property. He added that he wanted a warm home and he rejected the compensation offer.
On 29 September 2022, this Service wrote to the landlord requesting that it provide its final complaint response.
The landlord visited the resident’s property on 3 October 2022. The resident did not allow access, advising that appointments on a Monday morning were not convenient.
The following day, 4 October 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident. The letter informed the resident that following the Ombudsman’s contact, the complaint had been escalated to the final stage of the complaint procedure.
The landlord provided its final complaint response on 21 October 2022. It advised that the response would address his concerns about its staff and the tenancy warning letter. The key findings were:
1. The cavity wall inspection was due to take place on 11 July 2022. As the resident refused access, it was rescheduled to 3 October 2022. However, the date was not convenient as the resident did not want appointments on Monday mornings.
2. It had rescheduled repairs to resecure the radiator in the hallway, replace the seals on doors and windows, add the vent cover for the bathroom fan and to repair the soffits to the roof.
3. It reoffered the compensation award of £180 for the delayed communication.
4. The tenancy warning and addition to the caution list was set out in the letter dated 24 August 2022 with appeal rights.
5. The neighbourhood officer would continue to support the resident’s request to move and signposted him to the areas he had expressed an interest in.
6. It offered for a senior manager to visit to discuss the outstanding issues but this was declined by the resident.
After the complaint process was completed, the following occurred:
1. The resident informed the landlord on 5 January 2023 that the property condition was affecting his health as the property was cold and damp.
2. The final complaint response was resent to the resident on 13 January 2023.
3. The landlord introduced its damp, mould and condensation policy on 2 February 2023.
4. The minor works inspector advised on 28 June 2023 that he had inspected the resident’s property and found no mould. A report had been commissioned by a damp and mould company who had attended to inspect the internal cavity wall inspection. The resident had seen that the insulation was in place as the outer leaf of the gable was drilled into for this to occur.
5. On 27 June 2023, its contractor provided photos of the property that were taken on 29 July 2022. The contractor advised that he had made calls to the resident and agreed appointments. However, when he attended the property, there was no answer.
6. The landlord attended on 16 August 2023 to carry out work to the fascia and the soffit and the resident did not provide access for the work to be carried out.
7. The resident informed the landlord that he was not available on 12 September 2023 for the window seals to be repaired as he had a hospital appointment. The appointment arranged for 13 September 2023 was cancelled by the resident.
8. The landlord has not assessed that a further compensation award was payable.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated the complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

It is appreciated that the resident has been upset and frustrated by the landlord’s handling of the repairs that he reported to the landlord. The resident’s concerns are understood and it is not disputed that dealing with such situations is stressful.
The Ombudsman’s role includes an assessment of whether the landlord has followed its policies and procedures and acted appropriately. This report will consider the landlord’s response to the reports it received, including the formal complaint, and whether its responses were reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. In doing so, the Ombudsman will not only consider the landlord’s response to the substantive issue, but also the actions it took within its complaints process.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs in the property

The landlord’s repair policy sets out the timeframes in which it will respond to repair reports that it receives – urgent repairs within 28 days and routine repairs within 63 days.
The resident made several reports that the fascia required repair as the wood was rotten and gaps could be seen in it. This was first reported on 3 August 2020 and it has not been demonstrated that the landlord took any meaningful actions in response. The landlord responded to the second report in January 2021 by agreeing to attend the property on 14 May 2021. This was three months after the further report and meant that the landlord inappropriately exceeded its published timescale for handling routing repairs.
The landlord realised on 11 May 2021 it had not raised the repair and tried to make contact with the resident to arrange a convenient appointment. This was appropriate action to take to correct its error. However, it was unable to speak with the resident as the call did not connect. The planned appointment on 14 May 2021 did not take place and the resident raised further reports about the fascia on 20 June 2021 and 12 July 2021. It is noted that the resident had not reported that he was experiencing water penetration into his home from the damaged fascia. The landlord decided on 10 August 2021 that the work to repair the fascia would not now be carried out in the next financial year. While its records show that the resident was informed, its records does not explain its reasons for its decision nor any mitigations it would take in the meantime, such as a temporary repair. This was not reasonable.
The resident made further reports in June 2022 regarding the damaged fascia. The landlord inspected the resident’s property that month (June 2022) and confirmed that works were required to the fascia and the landlord’s final complaint response also said that the repairs to the roof remained unaddressed. This was not reasonable as the landlord has an obligation to keep the roof in repair and its repair policy says that routine repairs will be completed within 63 days. Consequently, the resident has experienced an unreasonable delay as the landlord has not carried out repairs to the roof that it confirmed to be necessary.
The landlord responded to the resident’s report of mould in the property on 30 October 2020. Its decision to arrange an inspection of the resident’s home for 17 November 2020 was appropriate to diagnose whether mould was present. Whilst its records show that an appointment was raised for 17 November 2020, it actually attended on 2 December 2020, establishing that mould was present in the kitchen and bathroom and mould treatment was required to remedy it. The landlord’s records do not say what actual action was required or what it did. Therefore, it is difficult to assess the severity of the mould in the kitchen and bathroom.
Furthermore, in its submission to this Service, the landlord’s surveyor advised that following his inspection, they found that there was no mould in the property. However, the date of his inspection is not recorded, which is not appropriate. Nevertheless, it is noted that the damp and mould company did not advise of mould in the property when the cavity wall inspection was carried out.
Responses to damp and mould reports from residents require good record keeping so the landlord has an accurate history of the property and the previous actions it has taken to keep the property in repair. The records provided for this report contradict the dates that appointments were raised and the actual dates that the operatives attended. This has likely impacted the accuracy of the landlord’s data and its reliability.
The resident informed the landlord that the property was cold in January 2021, especially in the bathroom. The landlord appropriately arranged to inspect the property to check the level of insulation and that the heating was correctly working. The landlord also arranged for a damp and mould company to attend to check the cavity wall insulation which confirmed that the property had the correct level of insulation.
Once it assessed that the insulation levels in the property were adequate, the landlord could have referred the resident to its team which handles financial inclusion to assess whether there were any other actions that the resident could take to increase the warmth in his property. This was a shortcoming on the part of the landlord.
The resident reported in January 2022 that the door and windows seals in the property were defective. The landlord appropriately agreed to carry out an inspection of the property. It informed that resident that the earliest appointment available was 16 February 2022. However, the resident advised that the date was not suitable as he had a hospital appointment. The landlord agreed to rearrange the appointment, the next available appointment being 27 April 2022.
The landlord’s records note that the target completion date was 6 March 2022 and its offer to attend the resident’s property on 27 April 2022 was therefore outside its published timescale for an urgent repair (63 days). The landlord in its complaint response explained that it could not arrange an earlier appointment for the resident due to the lack of resources and it agreed to bring the appointment forward if it had a cancellation. This was a reasonable approach.
The landlord attended the appointment regarding the door and window seals on 27 April 2022. As the resident was not available, it arranged another appointment for 25 May 2022. This was appropriate as the landlord had a responsibility to attend the resident’s property to diagnose and inspect the door and window seals in the property. The landlord offered further appointments relating to the seals to the doors and windows in June and October 2022 but the resident refused for these to progress – there was therefore no failure on the part of the landlord in this regard.
Following the resident’s response that he was experiencing problems with the kitchen light (May 2022), the landlord arranged to assess the resident’s property within nine working days. This was reasonable as it was within its published repair timescales and also because it had to determine whether the resident had asbestos in his property. It is noted that the resident cancelled the appointment as he had made his complaint to the Ombudsman about the outstanding repairs in the property.
The resident’s tenancy agreement obliges the resident to give access to the landlord to carry out repairs once he has received reasonable notice. In attempting to arrange alternative dates, the landlord has acted reasonably when appointments have been missed due to the resident’s unavailability or because the resident has cancelled the appointment.
The landlord inspected the resident’s property in June 2022 and the repair to the kitchen light was outstanding. The landlord’s records do not show when the repairs to the kitchen light were completed. However, its records show that an electrician attended in August 2022 to check the lights in the property. From evidence seen by this Service, there was no further report that the light in the kitchen was not working and the landlord therefore appears to have taken appropriate steps to complete this repair.
Although some repairs were appropriately progressed, there is no evidence that the landlord monitored the repairs required to the property to ensure that they were carried out. For instance, the resident had to chase the landlord over an extended period regarding the progress of the repairs to repair the fascia and the door and window seals.
The resident was often frustrated with the appointments organised by the landlord. As a result of his health condition, morning appointments were not suitable and he requested that the landlord contact him to arrange convenient times. This is referred to in the landlord’s repairs policy where it says that appointments will be arranged with the resident. With regard to appointments, landlords should give sufficient notice to residents and try to accommodate their preferences regarding the timing of appointments. From what can be seen, there were occasions when appointments were arranged without discussion with the resident, this led to delay as the pre-arranged appointments not being arranged for months after.
The landlord offered compensation of £180 for its poor communication to the resident. This was insufficient as its combined complaints policy says that awards of that amount will be awarded when matters have been outstanding for a short duration. From the available information, the first repair report regarding the fascia was made in August 2020 and the initial reference to door and window seals was in January 2022 yet the repairs remained outstanding at the time it issued its final complaint response in October 2022.
Landlords are responsible for addressing outstanding repair works and missed appointments. Although it acknowledged there were failings on its part, the compensation award was insufficient given the extent of the delays it contributed to and there is no evidence that the landlord has learned lessons from the outcome of this case.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to have a tenancy warning removed.

The resident requested that the neighbourhood officer visit his property on 3 August 2022. Though the resident did not give reasons for his request for the neighbourhood officer to visit, she agreed to carry out the visit on 17 August 2022. This was a reasonable timescale as it was arranged within 10 working days.
At the visit, an incident occurred with the resident shouting at the neighbourhood officer and her colleague who had attended the visit with her. The neighbourhood officer reported what had occurred and completed an anti-social behaviour incident form in line with its health and safety responsibilities.
The resident did not deny that an incident had occurred and apologised to the neighbourhood officer. He advised that he was upset as she had not informed him that another officer would be present and he did not want her colleague to attend the visit.
The landlord reviewed the anti-social behaviour incident report submitted by the neighbourhood officer. It decided to issue a tenancy warning letter to the resident as it determined that his behaviour had been unreasonable towards its staff members. It wrote to the resident to advise him of its decision and informed him of his appeal rights if he disagreed with its decision.
This was reasonable as the landlord gave the resident the opportunity to have its decision reviewed. Also, it had considered that the resident’s behaviour was not in accordance with the terms in his tenancy agreement which advises that tenants should not cause or commit any act of violence, harassment or intimidation against any member of its staff.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The landlord’s published complaint timescales advise that it will respond to complaints within 10 working days at its first stage and within 15 working days at its final stage.
The landlord handled the resident’s concerns at its informal ‘get it sorted’ stage in April 2022. It set out that it only had one repair raised to install the seals to the doors and the windows. However, it was unreasonable that it did not address the resident’s other concerns regarding his inability to keep the property warm, the lack of insulation or the extractor fan.
The resident complained further on 27 May 2022 and the landlord acknowledged the complaint on 7 June 2022. On 5 August 2022, the landlord informed the resident that it would provide its complaint response once it had completed the repairs to the property. The landlord did not provide its complaint response until 31 August 2022 – 66 working days later. This was not appropriate as it exceeded its published complaint handling timescales and the delays in the complaints process caused the resident additional distress and frustration.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Repairs (March 2019) sets out that landlords should respond within appropriate timescales and acknowledge that there are outstanding repairs when handling a complaint of this type. In this particular case, the landlord did not do this and its approach was not reasonable.
The landlord assessed that compensation of £180 was payable for the communication difficulties experienced by the resident. The landlord did not provide a breakdown of how it assessed the compensation award. As a consequence, it is not known what proportion of the compensation was for its delay in providing its complaint responses. This is not reasonable as the resident experienced a delay of several months before he received the landlord’s complaint response at its first stage. This meant that the resident had to approach this Service to get his complaint progressed.
The landlord in its final complaint response agreed to assess whether a further compensation award was payable once the repairs were completed in his property. From the available information, a reassessment of the compensation award has not taken place. This is unreasonable as the landlord has not undertaken the actions that it committed to in its final complaint response.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to have a tenancy warning removed.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord unreasonably delayed in completing the repairs to remedy damage to the fascia and to address the door and window seals. This was despite the resident chasing the repairs with the landlord. The landlord offered to pay compensation but this did not offer sufficient redress given the circumstances of the case.
The landlord determined that the resident’s behaviour was not acceptable towards its member of staff on 17 August 2022 and it issued a tenancy warning letter to inform the resident and included him on its caution list. The landlord informed the resident that if he disagreed with its decision how he could appeal. These were reasonable actions in response to the incident of 17 August 2022.
The landlord did not address the resident’s concerns in full when it looked at the complaint at its informal stage. Furthermore, the resident experienced an unreasonable delay in receiving the landlord’s stage one complaint response.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord to write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
The landlord to pay the resident compensation of £450 broken down as follows:
1. £350 for the inconvenience caused by the failings in its handling of repairs (inclusive of the £180 it offered through the complaints process);
2. £100 for the unacceptable delay in providing its complaint response.
The landlord to contact the resident to arrange a mutually convenient time to inspect the property and draw up a full list of the outstanding repairs, including timescales for the completion of works.
The landlord to arrange a mutually convenient appointment to carry out any outstanding repairs to the fascia and door and window seals and to check that the plastering work to the ceiling is completed.
The landlord should evidence compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord should contact the resident to assess whether it can signpost him to any support to improve the heating levels in his property.
The landlord should review its handling of repairs at this property and identify lessons it can learn to avoid delays in its completion of external repairs in future.
The landlord should reply to this Service within four weeks of the date of this reports to confirm its intentions in regard to these recommendations.