Wandsworth Council (202208885)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208885

Wandsworth Council

12 February 2024

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. The resident’s reports of repairs, in particular:
  1. Kitchen units.
  2. Cracks in the walls and ceilings.
  3. Floorboards.
  4. Garden.
2. The resident’s concerns about its temporary construction site.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, in a 3 bedroom end of terrace house, and her tenancy began in April 2004. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident. However, throughout her complaint the resident used an advocacy service that specialises in supporting people with mental health support needs.

Summary of events

On 7 July 2020, the landlord wrote a letter to all residents living on the resident’s street, and neighbouring, streets. The letter said that it was starting works to complete external decorations and internal decoration of all communal areas. This included an “overhaul” of the residents’ windows. The landlord explained that the contractor’s “compound” would be located on the grassed area outside the resident’s property, and works would start on the week beginning 20 July 2020.
On 28 August 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and raised a concern that the contactor was turning on the generator (adjacent to her property) before 8:00am. She also raised a concern about the “general noise” from the works. The landlord emailed the contractor the same day and asked it not to turn the generator on before 8:00am, and to try and “keep the noise down”.
Following a visit to inspect the resident’s garden, the landlord emailed her on 5 March 2021 and said that the ‘climber’ weed was not coming from her neighbour’s garden. But, it might be growing in between the fences, or from other nearby gardens. It said that without removing the fence panel, or visiting the other properties, it was not possible to establish where it was coming from.
Citizens Advice wrote to the landlord on 17 and 23 September 2021 to make a complaint on the resident’s behalf. The letters said:
1. There were outstanding repairs to her kitchen cupboards. She had reported the issues in April 2021, and was told by a contractor in May 2021, that it could not repair the 3 cupboards and they needed replacing.
2. The resident was then told that it would only replace 2 of the kitchen cupboards. The landlord had not completed any repairs to the kitchen cupboard.
3. The resident wanted all the kitchen cupboards replaced, as she did not want replaced units not to match the originals.
4. There was a “large crack” above the kitchen window, and another going from the top to the bottom of the bedroom wall. The resident had reported this in February 2021, but the landlord had taken no action.
5. There were “large gaps” between the floorboards on the upstairs landing, and they were “unstable”. Again, the resident had reported this in February 2021, but no action was taken.
6. The resident had reported issues with weeds growing in her garden in January 2021, and again in February 2021, and was given conflicting information about where they were coming from.
7. The presence of weeds growing in the garden had made the paving slabs “loose and unsteady” causing a “trip hazard”. The landlord had said it would raise a repair for the slabs once it had removed the weeds, but no action had been taken.
8. The resident was unhappy with the amount of noise disturbance she experienced due to the site compound that was set up outside her property, and contractors often started before 8:00am.
9. She had also reported that the contractors had left rubbish behind after works were finished in December 2020.
10. She had made “several calls” about the issue to the landlord, but it was not resolved.
11. The resident wanted an “assurance” that the landlord would not use the grass area as a site compound again.
The landlord responded to the letter on 15 October 2021, and said it was looking into the issues raised. It said that, if a written reply was “necessary”, it would issue it within 10 working days. The landlord sent Citizens Advice a letter on 18 October 2021, and said:
1. It was within its rights to use the land next to the resident’s property as a works site, as it owned it. It could not offer an assurance it would not use it again, as it was a suitable location when doing works on the properties on that street.
2. It did not have a responsibility to replace all the kitchen units, just to replace the broken ones. The resident had “aggressively” refused works to replace the broken units when its contractor called to book the appointment. She had told its contractor she wanted them all replaced. It provided the number for the contractor, if she wanted to book works to replace the broken units.
3. It was going to investigate the cracks reported, and its internal maintenance inspector would be in touch to book the visit.
4. It had investigated the resident’s concerns about weeds, and found the weeks were a Russian vine, and not Japanese knot weed. The roots of the weeds were on a neighbouring property that was privately owned, and it had written to the owners to express the resident’s concerns. It was not able to “enforce any action” at that time.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 28 October 2021 to make a complaint and said she had never received a call to book the kitchen unit replacement, and had not refused. The resident asked it to provide the date and time about the call it claimed to have made in its letter.
An advocate for the resident, wrote to the landlord on 26 November 2021, with a letter in support of the resident’s complaint. The letter restated the concerns set out in the letter from Citizens Advice from September 2021. The letter stated that the kitchen and garden works were still outstanding and the landlord had not contacted the resident to book them in.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint acknowledgement on 2 December 2021, and said it would issue its response within 20 working days. The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 29 December 2021 and said:
1. It was unable to offer its assurance that it would not use the same location for a site compound again. But, it would consider other options first before doing so.
2. It was “unclear” what disruption the works site had caused, and no other residents had complained. The resident did not raise a concern about rubbish being left on site at the time. Had she done so, it would have intervened and stopped it happening again.
3. It had spoken to its contractor who had apologised for any nuisance caused.
4. It accepted the resident’s kitchen units were over 20 years old, but that did not “automatically” mean they required renewal. It had reviewed the major works programme and the resident’s kitchen was “several years” away from being renewed.
5. If a unit cannot be repaired, it would replace it on a like for like basis, but that was not always possible if a kitchen unit line had been discontinued. It would replace the broken units, but would not replace all the units at that time.
6. It had investigated the resident’s concern that she had not refused the kitchen unit repair, as it had claimed in its letter. Its contractor had no record of the refusal and it could “only assume” it was given inaccurate information before. It had asked the contractor to arrange a repair for the kitchen unit.
7. It had raised a repair to replace the resident’s garden fence in October 2021, and this was due to be completed by November 2021. The works had not yet been completed, and it apologised for the inconvenience.
8. It had reviewed the correspondence sent about the garden and “none mentioned the issues with the paving slabs”. It would arrange an inspection of the slabs.
9. It had written to the owners of the properties where it believed the weeds were coming from. It would write to them again to ask them to act, to prevent the weeds causing further “nuisance”. It would also inspect again to try and identify where the weeds were coming from.
10. It outlined that it had inspected cracks in the resident’s property in 2018, and twice in 2019. It had assessed the cracks as “superficial” and there was no evidence of “structural movement”.
11. It found its historical investigation of cracks was “comprehensive”. But, it had not carried out a further inspection, as it said it would, when the resident raised concerns about cracks and floorboards, in September 2021. It apologised, and said it would arrange an inspection of the cracks and floorboards.
12. As a “gesture of goodwill” it would cut back the weeds in the resident’s garden, while it did further investigations to identify where they were coming from.
13. It “partially” upheld the resident’s complaint, due to the delays in completing repairs, and the incorrect information given about the refused repairs appointment. It said it would remind its staff and contractors about the need to complete repairs within target timeframes.
The resident’s advocate wrote to the landlord on 20 January 2022, and asked it to escalate her complaint to stage 2, as she was unhappy with its response. The letter said the resident:
1. Disagreed with its assessment that she had not raised concerns about the building works. She had raised concerns about noise and rubbish on “numerous occasions”.
2. Wanted it to progress with the kitchen unit repair and did not want to be left with “mismatched” units. The contractor had not been in touch to book the repair.
3. Disagreed that she had not raised a concern about the slabs before as the Citizens Advice letter, as well as the advocate’s previous letter, had both mentioned the issue.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 27 January 2022 to acknowledge her stage 2 complaint, and said it would issue a response within 15 working days.
The landlord attended the resident’s property and replaced the broken kitchen units on 3 February 2022.
The landlord attended the resident’s property on 21 February 2022 to start works to clear the weeds, and re lay the slabs in the garden.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 22 February 2022 and said:
1. It had identified that repairs were not “satisfactorily progressed”.
2. It accepted it should have given more notice about the location of the site compound, but it could not offer assurances that it would not use the site again. It restated that it would consider alternative locations in the first instance.
3. It had investigated the resident’s concern that its claim was inaccurate that she spoke “aggressively” to its contractor. The operative in question no longer worked for its contractor, so it was unable to prove or refute the allegation. It apologised for any distress caused by its description of the conversation.
4. It was “disappointing” that the kitchen unit repair was not done when the resident raised her stage 2 complaint. But, it had installed 2 new kitchen units on 3 February 2022, and it planned to inspect the works. If there was a “significant mismatch” it would replace the remaining units.
5. It agreed that concerns about the paving slabs were raised in September 2021, but it was “unclear” why works were not raised at the time. It had started the works to clear the weeds in the garden and re lay the slabs. It hoped to complete the work by 7 March 2022.
6. It planned to inspect the cracks, and it would raise appropriate works following the inspection.
7. There were delays in completed inspections and for repairs to be completed, and upheld the resident’s complaint. It offered £150 for “any inconvenience caused”.
The resident contacted this Service, through her local councillor, on and asked us to investigate her complaint. The resident expressed a concern that the landlord had given a “plan of action” to complete repairs, but several issues remained outstanding.
The resident contacted this Service directly on 22 May 2023 and expressed a concern that the repairs were still outstanding.

Assessment and findings

Relevant obligations, policies, and procedures

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, and keep in repair and proper working order the installations for the supply of water and sanitation.
The landlord’s tenancy conditions document states that residents are responsible for maintaining gardens. The landlord is responsible for repairing and maintaining fixtures and fittings it owns, such as kitchens and bathrooms.
Landlords are required to consider the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not specify any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential health hazards. Uneven floors are cited as potential hazards within the HHSRS.
At the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord operated a 2 stage complaints procedure. Its procedure stated that it would issue a written response to stage 1 complaint within 20 working days. At stage 2, which it called the ‘review’ stage, its procedure stated send a response within 15 working days.

Repairs to kitchen units

The landlord’s response letter, from October 2021, sought to manage the resident’s expectations about the kitchen units, and that it was only responsible for repairing/replacing broken units. The Ombudsman appreciates that this was disappointing for the resident. However, the landlord’s position, which it clearly set out in its response, was reasonable in the circumstances.
However, the tone of its response letter, in relation to the kitchen units, was inappropriate. The landlord set out its view that the resident had refused the repair, which in itself was not unreasonable. Its comment that the resident had “aggressively” refused the appointment was unnecessary. It does not appear that the landlord sought to take any punitive action for the resident’s behaviour, to therefore comment on her alleged behaviour was inappropriate and evidently caused her distress. It is noted the resident refuted the landlord’s claim.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response accepted a failing in the accuracy of the comments about the resident. As part of her complaint, the resident refuted that she was aggressive, or that she had refused the appointment. The landlord, appropriately, investigated and found that its contractor had no evidence of the incident. It is concerning that the landlord would make such a comment in a letter with no evidence to support the claim about the alleged behaviour. The resident was evidently distressed by its characterisation of her behaviour. That it did not apologise for the comments in its earlier letter were inappropriate and caused further detriment.
The landlord had no evidence to support the fact the resident had “aggressively” cancelled the kitchen unit repair. It is therefore reasonable to conclude it had no evidence to support the fact that the resident had cancelled the repair at all. Its failure to assess its own action in its handling of the kitchen unit repair, as part of its stage 1 response, was unreasonable. The resident maintained throughout that she wanted the repair to go ahead. That it was not more proactive in booking the repair as part of its stage 1 response, was inappropriate. Its comment that it had asked the contractor to book the repair is evidence the landlord was not proactive in addressing the repair.
It is evident that the resident wanted the landlord to replace all the kitchen units. In relation to this issue, the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was appropriate. The landlord gave a detailed explanation of its position, which was evidently disappointing for the resident. However, its approach was reasonable in the circumstances and sought to manage the resident’s expectations.
It is not disputed that the landlord was on notice about the repairs to the kitchen units from April 2021. It is apparent that between that time and the resident’s complaint of October 2021 the landlord was of the view that the resident had refused the repair. Given it was told this by its contractor, and it had no reason to doubt its contractors comments, the entirety of the delay was somewhat outside of the landlord’s control. However, after the resident refuted its claim and asked the repair to go ahead, in October 2021, the landlord did not attend to the repair for another 4 months, this was an unreasonable delay.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response acknowledged that there were delays in progressing with repairs to the kitchen units and described the actions of its contractor as “disappointing”. That the landlord did not offer a specific apology for this admitted failing, or any meaningful assessment of its handling of the kitchen unit repair, was inappropriate. It is noted that it said it had reminded staff to follow up on repairs. However, this did not show adequate learning or a genuine reflection of how it could avoid similar delays happening again.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response in relation to its previous comments that the resident had “aggressively” cancelled the kitchen repairs was inappropriate. At stage 1 it accepted that it had no evidence to support the claim. At stage 2 it said it could not say either way as the staff member had left the contractor. This was inappropriate, and is evidence that the landlord did not take responsibility for its previous comments, or admitted failings. This was unreasonable, and the impact of its apology was reduced by the fact it appeared to disregard its earlier comments there was no evidence the incident occurred.
This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord inspected the kitchen to see if there was a “significant mismatch” after the repair, as it said it would. This was a further failing in its handling of the matter and caused the resident a disappointment. Considering this, an order is made below.
It is unclear how much of the £150 it offered for the delays in progressing with repairs was for the kitchen unit repair. However, the lack of learning shown, and its failure to accept responsibility for the failings of its contractor mean the redress it offered did not fully put things right for the resident. Its inappropriate comments, that lacked evidence to back them up, about the resident being aggressive, are of particular concern. The distress this claim caused the resident is evident, and the landlord’s approach was unreasonable.

Cracks in the walls and ceilings

When the resident raised her concerns about cracks in September 2021, the landlord said it would inspect to assess the issue. This was appropriate in the circumstances, and in line with its repair responsibilities. However, there is no evidence to indicate that it attended to inspect the cracks at that time, which is a failing in its handling of the matter. The resident experienced an inconvenience of raising a concern about a repair, and the landlord not inspecting within a reasonable timeframe.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response set out historical investigations it had done into cracks at the property. This was a reasonable approach, as it sought to reassure the resident that it could be reasonably satisfied the property was not suffering with structural issues.
In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord admitted a failing that it had not progressed with an inspection of the cracks. As with other repairs, that it said it would be in touch to book the repair was inappropriate. Given its admitted failing, it would have been appropriate to be more proactive in booking the repair as part of its complaint response. To give a date the inspection would go ahead, as part of its complaint response, would have gone some way to putting things right for the resident. That the landlord admitted a failing, but failed to offer appropriate redress, was a further failing in its handling of the matter.
The position the landlord outlined in its stage 2 complaint response, in relation to the cracks, was also inappropriate. As part of its stage 1 complaint response, it said it would inspect and accepted there had already been a delay. By the time it issued its stage 2 complaint response, it was evident this had not happened. To simply state again that its operative would be in touch to book the inspection was unreasonable. This is evidence the landlord failed to learn from its previous mishandling of the issue, the result was a further delay for the resident.
The resident experienced a further delay and inconvenience in the intervening period. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response lacked any meaningful assessment of its own actions, an explanation of the delay, or an apology about the specific issue. This was inappropriate. As at stage 1, it would have been appropriate to set out when it planned to inspect, and not give another open ended response. The lack of proactive engagement on the part of the landlord in relation to this issue is concerning.
This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord attended to inspect the cracks, as it said it would. The landlord has provided some evidence of repair logs for this investigation, but it is silent on the inspection of the cracks, after the resident raised a concern in September 2021. The resident informed this Service, in May 2023, that the repairs agreed in its stage 2 complaint response remain outstanding. Given the lack of available evidence to the contrary, it is reasonable to conclude that the inspection of the cracks did not go ahead. As such, an appropriate order is set out below.
It is unclear how much of the £150 it offered for the delays in progressing with repairs was offered for this issue. However, the lack of learning shown, and its open ended approach to the inspection, mean its offer of compensation did not fully put things right for the resident. The resident experienced inconvenience, including time and trouble, of repeatedly raising the cracks as a repair issue, and the landlord not inspecting.

Floorboards

When the resident raised her concerns about the floorboards in September 2021, the landlord said it would inspect to assess the issue. This was appropriate in the circumstances, and in line with its repair responsibilities. However, there is no evidence to indicate that it attended to inspect the floorboards at that time, which is a failing in its handling of the matter. This of particular concern, given the resident had described the floorboards as a potential hazard. The resident experienced an inconvenience of raising a concern about a repair, and the landlord not inspecting within a reasonable timeframe.
In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord admitted a failing that it had not progressed with an inspection of the floorboards. As with other repairs, it said it would be in touch to book the repair. Its open ended approach to the inspection was inappropriate. A date the inspection would go ahead, as part of its complaint response, would have gone some way to putting things right for the resident. That the landlord admitted a failing, but failed to offer appropriate redress, was a further failing in its handling of the matter.
That the landlord’s stage 2 complaint was silent on the resident’s concern about the floorboards was also unreasonable. It is concerning that, given the potential hazard described, the landlord does not appear to have followed up on this repair. The lack of assessment of its actions in relation to this issue in its complaint response, was unreasonable. The lack of engagement on the issue can reasonably be concluded to have contributed to the delays in addressing the matter.
The repair records provided for this investigation contain no information about an inspection of the floorboards. It is therefore reasonable to conclude the inspection did not take place. As such, an appropriate order is set out below.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response admitted failings for its handling of repairs more generally. The stage 2 response was silent on the floorboard issue, which was a failing in its complaint handling, and the issue itself. The lack of engagement on the part of the landlord is concerning, considering the potential hazard described. The landlord adopted an open ended approach at stage 1, and offered no assessment of its actions, despite admitting a delay. There is no evidence to indicate the landlord followed up and inspected the floorboards. As such, a series of orders are made below.

Garden

The landlord’s comments, in its email of March 2021, were not thorough or supportive. That it did not explain what it could do to investigate further where the weed were coming from, was inappropriate. This was a shortcoming in its handling of the matter and caused the resident an inconvenience.
The landlord’s response letter, of October 2021, went some way to putting its earlier shortcoming right, by giving a detailed explanation of its position. It took a supportive approach by agreeing to write to the owners of the neighbouring properties to ask them to address the weeds. This was an appropriate first step.
The landlord’s letter of October 2021 was silent on the paving slab issue. This was inappropriate. The resident had raised a concern that the weeds had caused the slabs to become uneven and were a “trip hazard”. The lack of proactive engagement on this issue is concerning, considering the conditions described. This was evidently a health and safety issue, and the landlord failed to respond accordingly.
The landlord’s comments in relation to the slabs in its stage 1 complaint response were inappropriate. It claimed the resident had not raised the issue; this was inaccurate. The Citizens Advice letter of September 2021, and the letter sent by the resident’s advocate November 2021 both raised the issue of the slabs. To suggest that the resident had not put it on notice earlier about the issue, in its stage 1 response was inappropriate and evidence of poor information management by the landlord.
As with other repairs in this complaint, it would have been appropriate to be more proactive in booking the inspection/repair of the slabs, as part of its complaint response. The landlord, again, took an open ended approach to booking the repair, which caused further inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord did not start repairs in the garden until February 2022, 5 months after it was put on notice about the issue with the slabs. This was an unreasonable delay, particularly considering the potential hazard present.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, appropriately, acknowledged that the statement in its stage 1 complaint response (that the resident had not raised the slab issue before) was inaccurate. Its comment, that it was “unclear” why the repair was not raised at the time, was inappropriate. It is reasonable to expect the landlord to use its complaint response to assess its own actions, particularly when admitting failings, and explain how it will prevent similar issues happening again. The lack of a specific apology for this issue was also inappropriate.
The landlord accepted failings in its handling of repairs and offered the resident £150 in compensation to recognise this. It is unclear how much of that figure was offered for the delays in progressing with the garden repair. The landlord also cleared the weeds in the resident’s garden, which went some way to putting things right. Maintenance of weeds in the garden would usually fall to the resident. That it offered to do this as a goodwill gesture was reasonable in the circumstances. However, the lack of learning about the issue in its complaint responses, and the lengthy delay of 5 months to address the paving slab issue, was unreasonable. This means the redress it offered did not fully put things right for the resident. As such, a series of orders are made below.

The resident’s concerns about its temporary construction site.

It is evident that the landlord conducted extensive works to the properties on the resident’s, and neighbouring, roads in 2020. Due to the volume of works undertaken it is reasonable to expect the landlord to create a temporary work ‘compound’ where it could base its operations. The resident was unhappy with its chosen location for the compound, and the Ombudsman does not seek to dispute the impact that she claims this had on her.
The evidence available does indicate that the landlord explored other options for the compound in early 2020 (the communal garage area). But, it concluded that the grassed area, adjacent to the resident’s property, was the most appropriate location. While this was evidently disappointing for the resident, to decide to base its compound there was not, in itself, unreasonable.
When the resident raised a concern about noise disturbance from the works compound in August 2020, the landlord acted promptly. It emailed the contractor on the same day and asked it to reduce the noise, and reminded it of its responsibilities regarding the generator. This is evidence that the landlord took the resident’s concerns seriously, and sought to rectify the issue.
The tone of the landlord’s response letter, in October 2021, was inappropriate. It was reasonable for it to seek to manage the resident’s expectation about its entitlement to use the site, and that it may need to use it again in the future. However, it failed to show consideration of the individual circumstances of the resident, and the impact the situation had on her. Its response did not show appropriate empathy for the concerns of noise disturbance from the compound. It would also have been appropriate for the landlord to set out what it would do to minimise the impact on the resident in the future if it used the site again.
The lack of consideration of and empathy for the resident’s individual circumstances is particularly concerning, considering her evident vulnerabilities. The resident clearly had mental health support needs, at the time of raising her concerns. The lack of consideration of this in its response is evidence that the landlord failed to have due regard for whether the resident had a disability under the Equality Act and whether a reasonable adjustment was warranted. It is noted that the landlord was entitled to use the space as its compound, but the lack of empathy and consideration in its response of October 2021, was a failing in its handling of the matter.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response went some was to put right the failings in its response of October 2021. The landlord set out that it would consider other options before using the site again, which is evidence it had reflected on the impact the situation had on the resident. It apologised for any inconvenience caused by the issue, which was appropriate. Given it accepted the resident was inconvenienced by the issue, it would have been appropriate for it to offer an appropriate redress for this. That it did not do so was a shortcoming in its handling of the matter.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was inaccurate in its assessment of the concerns raised by the resident. It stated it was “unclear” what had caused the resident disruption, or that she had not reported rubbish being left on site. The evidence available indicates that the resident had raised these concerns, and the lack of thorough investigation of this in its stage 1 complaint was inappropriate. The resident experienced an inconvenience of the landlord failing to address specific concerns she had raised as part of a complaint, and being given an inaccurate response. The landlord’s approach lacked learning and a meaningful investigation of its own actions.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response acknowledged that it should have given the resident more notice about where it was placing the work compound. That it did not apologise for this, or offer appropriate redress was a further shortcoming in its handling of the matter.
The landlord’s decision to place the works compound where it did was not, in itself, unreasonable. The landlord’s response to the resident’s initial concerns was dismissive, lacked empathy, and failed to consider the resident’s circumstances and vulnerability. The landlord did seek to manage the resident’s expectations about the fact it may need to use the site again, which was appropriate. However, it failed to outline what it would do to try and reduce the impact on the resident if it did which was unreasonable. The landlord showed a lack of learning in relation to the issue in its complaint responses.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s approach to the complaint made, through Citizens Advice in September 2021, was confusing and created a hard to access complaints process. The landlord appeared to acknowledge it as a formal complaint, which was appropriate. However, its acknowledgment, of 15 October 2021, was well outside of the timeframes set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The Code states complaints must be acknowledged within 5 working days. This was a failing in its complaint handling and created a protracted complaints process for the resident.
The acknowledgement was also inappropriate as it did not set out its understanding of the complaint, simply stating it was looking into the concerns raised. This was a further failing in its complaint handling. The Code states a landlord must use its complaint acknowledgment to “set out their understanding of the complaint and the outcomes the resident is seeking”. The resident missed an opportunity to ensure the landlord had the correct understanding of the issues complained about.
That the landlord said in its acknowledgment that it would only issue a written response if it was “necessary”, was a further failing in its complaint handling. The Code states that all complaints must receive a written response. For the landlord to suggest it may not created an unfair complaints process for the resident. It is noted that the landlord did issue a written response, the reasonableness of which is assessed below.
The landlord’s response letter of 18 October 2021 was inappropriate. It appeared to be a formal response, but failed say it was so, or how the resident could take her complaint to the next stage. This was a failure to adhere to the complaint handling principles set out in the Code, and caused further inconvenience of an unfair and hard to access complaints process.
As set out earlier in this report, the tone of the landlord’s letter of 18 October 2021, was also inappropriate. The landlord’s statement that the resident “aggressively” cancelled an appointment was unreasonable, and the reasons for this are set out above. Further references is included here in terms of how such an approach relates to the landlord’s complaint handling culture.
The Ombudsman recently published a Spotlight Report on attitudes, respect, and rights. The report states that when a resident feels they are being treated “unfairly” and the landlord’s response is “hostile” this “reinforces their view and erodes their trust or faith in the landlord, causing a relationship breakdown”. The tone of the landlord’s letter can reasonably be perceived as such an approach. Considering this, a relevant training order is set out below.
The resident experienced a further inconvenience, of needing to raise another complaint herself, directly, on 28 October 2021. Had the landlord’s earlier approach been in line with its procedure, and the Code, it would have prevented an unnecessarily protracted and hard to access complaints procedure. It is of particular concern that the landlord did not formally acknowledge the resident’s complaint until her advocate sent a follow up letter, in November 2021. This is further evidence of an unfair and hard to access complaints process for the resident.
The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 2 December 2021, which was 42 days after the resident made her complaint. This was well outside of the timeframes set out in the Code. It is noted that the landlord sent the complaint response within the timeframe set out in its acknowledgment. However, this was a target of 20 working days, which was not in line with the Code. It also failed to consider the unreasonable delay in progressing with the complaint, which was a further failing in its complaint handling. As such, an appropriate training order is set out below.
The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response 8 days later than it said it would, in its stage 2 complaint acknowledgment. This was not a lengthy delay, but its failure to acknowledge or apologise for the delay was a further shortcoming in its complaint handling.
The landlord created an unfair, hard to access, and protracted complaints process for the resident. In relation to the substantive issues of the complaint, its responses lacked a meaningful assessment of its actions, and appropriate learning. The landlord did seek to offer redress for some admitted failings, but it did not offer appropriate redress for all its admitted failings. The tone of its letter of October 2021, is of particular concern.

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 repairs to the kitchen units.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to cracks in the walls and ceilings.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the floorboards.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the garden.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about its temporary construction site.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

There were delays in completing the repairs to the kitchen units. The earlier delay was somewhat outside of the landlord’s control. The later delay was unreasonable, and was within the landlord’s control. There was a lack of learning shown in its complaint responses, and a failure to accept responsibility for the deficiencies of its contractor. Its inappropriate comments, which lacked evidence to back them up, about the resident being aggressive, are of particular concern. The distress this claim caused the resident is evident, and the landlord’s approach was unreasonable, and failed to offer appropriate redress.
There were delays in inspecting the cracks, after the resident raised a concern. The landlord accepted there were delays in its stage 1 complaint response, but there was a lack of learning shown. This, and its open ended approach to the inspection, mean its offer of compensation did not fully put things right for the resident. The resident experienced inconvenience, including time and trouble, of repeatedly raising the cracks as a repair issue, and the landlord not acting.
There were delays in inspecting the floorboards after the resident raised a concern. The landlord’s stage 1 response accepted there was a delay, but did not show learning, or offer appropriate redress. The lack of engagement on the part of the landlord is concerning, considering the potential hazard described. There is no evidence to indicate the landlord followed up, and inspected the floorboards.
There was a 5 month delay in completing repairs to the slabs in the garden, which was unreasonable. The landlord evidenced poor information management as it was on notice about the issue from September 2021, but denied this in its initial complaint response. The landlord apologised for the delay, and cleared the weeds in the garden, which went some way to putting things right.
The landlord’s decision to place the works compound where it did was not, in itself, unreasonable. The landlord’s response to the resident’s initial concerns was dismissive, lacked empathy, and failed to consider the resident’s circumstances and vulnerability. The landlord did seek to manage the resident’s expectations about the fact it may need to use the site again, which was appropriate. However, it failed to outline what it would do to try and reduce the impact on the resident if it need to use the site again.
The landlord created an unfair, hard to access, and protracted complaints process for the resident. In relation to the substantive issues of the complaint, its responses lacked a meaningful assessment of its actions, and appropriate learning. The landlord did seek to offer redress for some admitted failings, but it did not offer appropriate redress for all its admitted failings. The tone of its letter of October 2021, is of particular concern. There were delays in progressing the complaint, which the landlord did not acknowledge or apologise for.

Orders

Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £1,250 in compensation, made up of:
  1. The £150 it offered for the delays in progressing repairs (if it has not already done so).
  2. £250 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the kitchen unit repair.
  3. £150 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its handling of repairs to cracks in the walls and ceilings.
  4. £200 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its handling of repairs to the floorboards.
  5. £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s concerns about its temporary construction site.
  6. £300 in recognition of the time, trouble and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling
3. Write to the resident to outline what reasonable adjustments it will make if it needs to use the area adjacent to her property again for a temporary works site. This is with a view to reducing the impact of such a situation on the resident.
Within 8 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. Conduct a review into its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs. The review should consider how the following factors contributed to the delays:
  1. Its poor communication.
  2. The lack of oversight of its contractors.
  3. Its lack of proactive engagement on the repairs.
  4. Its inappropriate comments, and the lack of evidence to support them.
  5. It should consider the recommendations made in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight reports on Knowledge and Information Management and Attitude, Respect and Rights to identify areas for service improvement
2. Instruct an appropriately qualified officer to meet with the resident, at her property, to discuss her concerns about ongoing repair issues, and must:
  1. Identify outstanding repairs.
  2. Include an inspection of the kitchen unit replacement, outline its position on whether there is a “significant mismatch”, and if it is prepared to replace more units.
  3. Include an inspection of the cracks in the walls and ceilings.
  4. Include an inspection of the floorboards.
  5. Agree an action plan with the resident of when it will complete each repair.
3. The outcome of the meeting, and action plan, must be shared with this Service.
4. Conduct training with its complaint handling staff with a particular focus on:
  1. The complaint handling failings identified in this report.
  2. Reasonable complaint response timeframes.
  3. The recommendations set out in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on attitudes, respect, and rights, and how it can use the report to influence its complaint handling practice.
  4. Considering the individual circumstances of a resident, including their vulnerabilities, when responding to a complaint.