Trident Housing Association Limited (202108599)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202108599

Trident Housing Association Limited

5 September 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:
1. Handling of repairs to the resident’s property.
2. Decision not to reimburse the resident for expenses incurred carrying out works to the property.
3. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 3 bedroom semi detached house.
The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident, however the resident states she is asthmatic, diabetic and has mental health conditions.

Scope of the investigation

Records provided by the landlord evidence a long history of contention between it and the resident over repairs to the property. This includes a previous formal complaint made in February 2019, and the involvement of solicitors representing each party.
The landlord’s records indicate that it attended a court hearing on 2 December 2019 where a case was adjourned until after a ‘scheduled inspection’ of the resident’s property could take place. This suggests that the hearing was in relation to disrepair. Unfortunately, this Service has been provided with no further information in relation to these proceedings.
Between August 2020 and November 2020, the landlord and the resident’s solicitors arranged several appointments for it to inspect the property to assess any outstanding repair issues. The landlord’s records indicate that it was unable to gain access to the property to complete these appointments.
Paragraph 42f of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which concern matters that the complainant has, or had, the opportunity to raise as part of legal proceedings. The resident advised the landlord on 8 March 2021 that she was no longer being represented by her solicitors. As per paragraph 42f of the Scheme, this report will therefore consider events from 21 February 2021 (when the resident made her complaint) onwards.

Summary of events

The landlord’s complaint responses refer to the resident making her complaint on 21 February 2021. This Service has not been provided with a copy of the original complaint by either party. However, the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response outlined the areas of complaint as issues with the toilet and the front door to the property, and an allegation that the resident’s trainers had been stolen from the property.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 11 March 2021. It:
1. Said that it had attended on 13 July 2020 to inspect the toilet and found no issue.
2. Asked the resident to contact it with details of any issue with the front door and it would arrange to attend to this.
3. Advised the resident to contact police about the stolen trainers and obtain a crime reference number.
On 14 June 2021, the landlord sent a surveyor to the property for a scheduled appointment to inspect any repair issues. The landlord’s records state “occupier answered but would not allow access”.
The resident telephoned the landlord on 15 June 2021. She said she felt her complaint had not been answered, and described outstanding repair issues with floor boards, windows and doors, the bath leaking, radiators not working, walls needing replastering and missing insulation.
On 21 July 2021, the landlord’s surveyor failed to attend a scheduled appointment for an inspection of the property.
On 26 July 2021, the landlord logged a repair to secure floorboards in a bedroom in the property. This was attended to the following day.
The resident contacted the landlord on 2 August 2021 to advise that she had been experiencing a leak through the ceiling since the repair was carried out to the floorboards the previous week. The landlord attended on 3 August 2021 to repair the leak and arranged for a gas engineer to attend for follow on works.
On 3 September 2021, following contact from the resident, this Service wrote to the landlord asking it to contact her, discuss outstanding areas of complaint and issue a written response. This Service sent a further email repeating this request to the landlord on 27 September 2021.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 7 October 2021. It said that:
1. It had arranged with the resident for a surveyor to inspect the property for outstanding repairs on 1 October 2021, but nobody had been home to give access.
2. The surveyor attempted a second visit on 6 October 2021 but had again been unable to gain access.
3. The resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman had mentioned money she felt was owed to her by the landlord, which had not been part of her original complaint.
4. In order to fully resolve her complaint, it was asking her to provide details of any repairs she felt were outstanding from her original complaint, and any money she felt the landlord owed to her.
5. If it did not receive this information within 7 days, it would close her complaint.
On 13 October 2021, the resident responded to the landlord’s letter. She provided a list of repair issues which included damage to the kitchen floor covering and having no keys to the patio doors. The resident stated that she felt the landlord had “ripped her off” and owed her £10,000. She referred to works in the property that she had carried out herself and said she had receipts for the materials involved in this.
The landlord responded the same day requesting clarification on some of the repairs. It advised the resident that floor coverings were the responsibility of residents and that all keys to the property were provided during signing of the tenancy. It also requested copies of the receipts mentioned.
The landlord’s surveyor failed to attend a scheduled appointment to inspect the property on 21 October 2021. The surveyor attended a rearranged appointment on 29 October 2021, but was unable to gain access to the property. The inspection was eventually completed on 15 November 2021; the inspection report was signed by the resident in agreement with its contents.
On 6 December 2021, the landlord provided the resident with a list of repairs raised following the inspection. It advised that these were booked in to be completed on 15 December 2021 and 17 December 2021 – dates on which the resident had previously confirmed her availability with it.
The resident responded the same day. She mentioned additional repairs which she felt were required. The landlord stated that all repairs had been agreed during the inspection on 15 November 2021 and these had not been included. It did however agree to add a repair for the back gate, which had been damaged during a recent break in.
On 7 December 2021, this Service wrote to the landlord, following contact from the resident, asking it to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 14 December 2021, providing its final complaint response. It:
1. Said the resident had not provided any new evidence in relation to her complaint and so it would not be escalating it to stage 2 of its process.
2. Listed the repairs which had been agreed following the inspection and would be completed on 15 December 2021 and 17 December 2021.
3. Said that the receipts provided by the resident were for decorating materials and equipment, and that decoration was a resident responsibility and not something it would reimburse her for.
4. Noted that the resident had complained to this Service about her heating not working correctly. However, this had not been mentioned to the surveyor during the inspection, and she had not reported any issues with heating to the landlord in the last 2 years. It advised that it had arranged a gas engineer to attend and check the heating system on 15 December 2021.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says that it aims to resolve non-emergency repairs within 30 days of a diagnostic inspection. The policy contains a list of repairs for which residents are responsible, this includes “all internal decoration, including minor plaster faults and cracks” and replacing lost keys.
The tenancy agreement states that it is the responsibility of the resident to “decorate all internal parts of the premises as often as is necessary to keep them in good decorative order” and to “install and maintain…linoleum in kitchens, bathrooms and WCs”.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its complaints policy says that it will respond within 10 working days a stage 1 but can extend this if required, as long as the complainant is informed. The policy says that the landlord will only escalate a complaint to stage 2 where it has not been fully addressed in the first stage, or where there is further evidence provided by the complainant to consider.

Handling of repairs

The landlord’s records indicate that it attempted to inspect the property to assess any outstanding repair issues several times in the months preceding the resident’s complaint. However, it was unable to gain access to the property. The landlord’s repair logs do not record any service requests from the resident in relation to the front door or toilet in the 6 months prior to her complaint. There is therefore no evidence of any failings by the landlord in the period prior to the resident logging her complaint.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response said that it had attended to the resident’s downstairs toilet in July 2020 and found no issue. Whilst this Service has not had sight of the resident’s complaint, this was made in February 2021 and it would be reasonable to believe that an issue with the toilet could have occurred in the intervening months. It would have therefore been appropriate for the landlord to investigate this further as part of its complaint response.
The stage 1 response also asked the resident to contact the landlord to clarify details of what the issue with her front door was. This would also have been appropriate for the landlord to have investigated further, rather than putting the onus back onto the resident to make a further report when the matter was already subject to a formal complaint.
The landlord did raise a repair on 20 September 2021 to inspect the front door and the toilet, but it has provided no information about either the trigger for this or the outcome. The resident meanwhile informed this Service on 12 July 2021 that she had had to ask a friend to attend to both the front door and a leak from the toilet due to the landlord’s inaction. Whilst she has not provided evidence that this resulted in any financial expense, it will inevitably have caused distress and inconvenience to her.
Throughout the life of the complaint, there were several failed attempts to complete an inspection of the property. Whilst some of these were due to the resident not granting access, the landlord failed to attend scheduled inspections on 21 July 2021 and 21 October 2021. In both instances, the resident had to call the landlord to enquire as to why nobody had attended. In the case of the July inspection, the landlord then failed to follow up and rearrange the appointment until this Service intervened some months later. These represented missed opportunities on the part of the landlord to diagnose any faults and progress the repairs.
On 27 July 2021, the landlord attended to secure loose floorboards in the property. It returned on 3 August 2021 to repair a leak that appeared in the area below these floorboards. The resident told this Service that she reported the leak to the landlord’s out of hours helpline on 27 July 2021, but that it failed to attend until after she made a further report on 2 August 2021. However, there is no evidence that she advised the landlord of this, and gave it reasonable opportunity to investigate and respond to her claims. The landlord appropriately agreed to redecorate the ceiling, which was damaged by the leak, during the inspection of 15 November 2021.
The landlord’s position that it was not responsible for replacing the kitchen floor covering, or providing replacement keys to the patio door, was in accordance with its responsive repairs policy and the tenancy agreement. Although the resident contested that she was never provided with the keys, her tenancy agreement was signed in 2017, some 4 years prior to the complaint and therefore it would be reasonable to expect her to have brought this to the landlord’s attention far earlier. As the property has a second rear entry door, located in the kitchen, the resident was still able to access the garden and escape the property to the rear in an emergency.
The landlord has provided this Service with a copy of its surveyor’s inspection report of 15 November 2021, which was signed in agreement by the resident. It was reasonable for the landlord not to agree to further works, which the resident attempted to add to this a short time later. However, the landlord did appropriately agree to repair the back gate, which had been damaged in a break in that occurred after the inspection was completed.
The landlord reasonably consulted the resident as to her availability for the repairs to be completed, and booked these in on the earliest dates provided. Although these fell slightly outside of the 30 day target it sets for non-emergency repairs diagnosed following inspection, this was not unreasonable considering the volume of repairs (and associated resources) required.
As per its final complaint response, this Service has also not seen any evidence that the resident informed the landlord that the heating in the property was not working either at the surveyor’s inspection on 15 November 2021, or subsequent to this. Once made aware, the landlord appropriately arranged for an engineer to attend and inspect the heating system on the earliest available date provided by the resident.

Reimbursement of expenses

The landlord said it was first made aware of the resident’s claim that it owed her money in this Service’s letters during September 2021, and this Service has seen no evidence to contradict this.
In its letter of 7 October 2021, the landlord appropriately requested further details from the resident as to what she felt monies were owed for, and followed up by requesting copies of receipts which she had informed it that she possessed.
In its final complaint response, the landlord said that the receipts provided by the resident only related to decorating equipment and materials, and that the resident had failed to provide it with details of any repairs which she had carried out in the property that she felt the landlord should have been responsible for.
Both the tenancy agreement and the landlord’s responsive repairs policy are clear that internal decoration is the responsibility of the resident. Therefore, based on the information the resident had provided, it was reasonable for the landlord to decline to reimburse her.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response indicated that the resident made her formal complaint on 21 February 2021. Its stage 1 response was issued on 11 March 2021, slightly outside of the 10 working days its policy allows. The landlord has not provided any evidence that it contacted the resident to inform her of this delay as its policy says that it will.
The stage 1 complaint response did not clearly identify itself as such. The letter was headed only as “your complaint” and informed the resident of her “right to appeal” if she remained dissatisfied. This is despite the terms ‘stage 1’ and ‘stage 2’ being used in the landlord’s complaints policy, and the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code requiring landlords to advise the resident of the current complaint stage in each written response.
In communication with this Service, the resident often seemed confused over what stage of the process her complaint was at, and whether or not she had received a written response. The lack of clarity in the landlord’s correspondence was likely a contributing factor towards this.
The landlord’s call notes of 15 June 2021 refer to speaking to the resident “re her complaint” and that a third party had “advised to go to the Ombudsman as she does not feel she has received a reply to her complaint”. In light of such clear continued dissatisfaction, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to either escalate the resident’s complaint, or even log a new complaint as the repair issues mentioned in the call differed substantially to that covered in its stage 1 response.
This Service wrote to the landlord on 3 September 2021, asking it to respond to the resident in writing in accordance with the timescales in its policy – that being 20 working days at stage 2. On 7 October 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident requesting further details in order to respond to her complaint, and giving her a 7 day window to provide these or her complaint would be closed.
Despite the resident providing the requested information a few days later, the landlord still did not provide its final complaint response until requested to do so by this Service on 7 December 2021 – the third such request. This meant the resident had waited over 3 months for the landlord’s final response following this Service’s intervention.
Further, in this response, the landlord advised that it was not escalating the resident’s complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process as she “did not provide any new evidence”. In fact, the resident had provided a list of outstanding repairs, as well as the receipts for expenses that she felt she was owed. These matters were not part of the stage 1 complaint and response, and so it would have been appropriate to address these fully at stage 2 in line with its complaints policy.
Despite refusing to escalate the complaint, the landlord’s final response still addressed all of the issues raised. The detriment to the resident of it unreasonably refusing to escalate the complaint was therefore limited.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its decision not to reimburse the resident.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord failed to carry out a reasonable investigation into the repair issues reported at stage 1 of its complaints process, and instead placed responsibility on the resident to progress matters, leading to her arranging the repairs herself. The landlord’s surveyors also failed to attend 2 scheduled inspections of the property which delayed in it diagnosing and addressing further repair issues.
The landlord gave the resident reasonable opportunity to provide details and evidence of repairs she had undertaken and felt were its responsibility. The tenancy agreement is clear that decoration is the resident’s responsibility, and it was therefore reasonable for the landlord to decline to reimburse her when evidence provided related only to this.
The landlord failed to appropriately consider escalating the resident’s complaint, despite her continued dissatisfaction, until she approached this Service for assistance. The landlord then delayed unreasonably in providing its final complaint response and refused to escalate the resident’s complaint despite there being outstanding issues which had not been responded to at stage 1. The landlord’s letters also lacked clarity as to which stage of the complaint process it was responding at.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £400 compensation composed of:
  1. £200 for the maladministration in its handling of repairs to the property.
  2. £200 for the maladministration in its complaint handling.
2. Apologise to the resident in writing for the maladministration identified by this investigation.
3. Take steps to ensure that its complaint handlers clearly record which stage of its complaints process they are responding at within the subject line and/or body of its written communications.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with these orders to this Service.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord review its record keeping processes for its out of hours helpline to ensure that details of all calls are passed on to its repairs team for follow-up the next working day, even if it does not attend.
The landlord should advise this Service of its intention regarding this recommendation within 4 weeks of the date of this report.