Yorkshire Housing Limited (202201907)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202201907

Yorkshire Housing Limited

22 December 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 handling of the resident’s reports of a leak on the boiler and the installation of a new boiler.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of other repairs.
3. The landlord’s decision to put a warning flag on the resident’s account.
4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant and lives in the property with his wife. The resident told the landlord on 23 March 2022his wife was disabled, but this was not recorded on its databases.
The landlord’s repairs policy says it will provide residents with homes that are safe, warm, secure and in good repair. Emergency repairs are completed within 24 hours. Where this is not possible a further visit is arranged with the resident. Routine repairs are done within 28 calendar days. The repairs policy also says the landlord will:
1. Arrange access during normal working hours at a time convenient for the resident, where appropriate.
2. Give residents at least 24 hours written notice if it requires access to undertake repairs, where appropriate and necessary
3. Endeavour to meet the needs of vulnerable customers when providing services. This includes disabled residents.
The resident’s tenancy agreement says the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure and exterior of the property, including pathways. It is also responsible for repairing and keeping in working order any installations it provides. This includes central heating systems, water pipes and sinks. The resident is responsible for reporting repairs and allowing the landlord and its contractors access to complete repairs at reasonable hours.
The resident reported his boiler was leaking on 28 January 2022. An appointment was arranged for 11 February 2022. The boiler was repaired on the appointment date, but it was identified that a new boiler was required.
Following the installation of the new boiler on 16 March 2022, the resident reported a number of further repairs, including leaks and problems with the water pressure. He also said the pathway was uneven and raised concerns about the silicone that was used to seal the gas flue panel.
The resident complained on 27 March 2022. He said the landlord caused damage or created more repairs every time it carried out work in his home. He said the gas engineer had:
1. Caused several leaks after installing the new boiler and the cold-water tap would no longer turn off.
2. Used silicone to seal the panel for the gas flue. The resident asked for the name of the repairs manager and said he would be contacting the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).
3. Suggested the resident’s wife could carry buckets of hot water down the stairs. He said this was an unreasonable solution because she was disabled.
4. Said someone would contact him the following day.
The landlord shared its stage 1 complaint response on 12 April 2022. It apologised to the resident that the new boiler had not met his expectations. It said it had visited to assess the problems with the gas flue panel but was unable to gain access.
The resident contacted the landlord on 14 April 2022 to ask for an update on the outstanding repairs. He said the water pressure in the kitchen sink tap was low and no hot water was coming out of the tap. He also said the bathroom tap and the pipework under the kitchen sink were still leaking. The landlord confirmed an appointment was booked for 29 April 2022 to carry out the repairs. The housing records show the landlord fixed the leak under the kitchen sink on 29 April 2022. They also replaced the taps in the bathroom sink and repaired the mixer tap on the kitchen sink. Further reports of leaks were made after this date.
The resident contacted the landlord on 29 April 2022 and said it had ignored his complaint and it needed to escalate it to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints policy. He also said the landlord was taking too long to carry out repairs, causing more repairs and it had asked his disabled wife to carry buckets of hot water down the stairs. He told the landlord it had discriminated against her and had breached General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) by passing her contact details on to its contractor.
The landlord responded on 5 May 2022. It apologised for the delay in responding and said it had escalated his complaint to stage 2. The landlord contacted the resident again on 11 May 2022 and acknowledged that it had not addressed the issues he raised in his original complaint. It apologised for this and said it would open a new stage 1 complaint. It said this was because the resident had raised additional concerns and it had not investigated the issues he had previously raised. The landlord offered the resident £100 compensation in the form of shopping vouchers and said it would provide a response by 18 May 2022.
The landlord attended on11 May 2022 to fix a further leak under the kitchen sink. The resident contacted the landlord the same day and said the pipework was still leaking and asked for an afternoon appointment. He also said his wife had just come out of hospital and did not need the stress caused by the landlord. The housing records show the landlord attended on 16 May 2022 to fix the leak. The resident however told the landlord the same day that the pipework was still leaking.
The resident told the landlord on 18 May 2022 that he did not want hatches installed on the gas flue panel. He also said the sealant used around the panel did not match the décor and would damage the wall and ceiling when removed. The resident claimed the landlord had discriminated against his wife on the grounds of disability. The landlord responded the same day and said access hatches did not need to be fitted to the flue panel and it complied with gas regulations. It offered to replace the sealant with something that was paintable.
The landlord visited on 20 May 2022 to inspect the boiler flue panel. It said the boiler was ‘at risk’ and issued a warning notice. The resident contacted the landlord the same day and said it had unlawfully entered his home and assaulted his wife. He said he wanted this adding to his complaint. The landlord decided to treat this as a separate complaint.
The landlord contacted the resident on 23 May 2023 and said its contractor had been trying to contact him about the leak. The resident responded the following day and said no one had been in touch, but the contractor could call at any time after 4.30pm. He said this was because his wife was frightened to be alone in the house with the landlord’s staff following the assault. He also said he did not want to take any more time off work.
The landlord addressed the issues with the boiler in its stage 1 complaint on 1 June 2022. It acknowledged that it did not handle the resident’s complaint correctly and apologised for this. It also said:
1. It responded to his report of a leak on the boiler and replaced the boiler within the timescales set out in its repairs policy.
2. It was sorry for the comments made by the gas engineer.
3. The report of no heating on 23 March 2022 was due to low water pressure in the area.
4. Gas regulations do not require hatches to be fitted if the full length of the flue can be accessed. The flue panel in the resident’s home was compliant given only 2 screws needed to be removed.
5. The sealant would come away when the access was opened and could be resealed. Beige silicone was used to match existing décor.
6. It made an appointment with his wife to inspect the flue panel on 11 April 2022, but no one was at home at the time of this visit. Arrangements would be made to come back and inspect the panel and it was happy to reach a mutually agreeable solution with the resident.
7. It had no record of his partner’s disability and could find no evidence that it had treated her unfavourably. It asked the resident to provide details of her disability and any reasonable adjustments she needed to access the service.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint about unlawful entry and assault on 7 June 2022. It said it had carried out an investigation and confirmed the operatives asked for permission to enter the property. It could find no evidence they pushed past his wife. It said it was happy to take the matter up with the police and asked the resident to provide further information.
The resident asked for both complaints to be escalated on 2 and 7 June 2022. He said the landlord had not answered his questions. He wanted to know why the landlord did not answer his initial complaint and why it took six weeks to resolve the leaks caused by its contractors. He said he had previously made the landlord aware of his wife’s disability and it had failed to give 24 hours’ notice for the visit on 11 April 2022. The resident also asked why the landlord had put a warning flag on its records about him.
The resident asked an independent gas safety organisation to inspect his boiler in July 2022.
The landlord issued its final response on 18 July 2022. It said it was satisfied that it had responded appropriately and fairly to both stage 1 complaints. It also said:
1. The resident had previously told the landlord it could not fit inspection hatches.
2. It boxed in the flue, with 2 removable screws and silicone around it. This was fully compliant with legislation.
3. The gas engineers that visited following the stage 1 response, assessed the situation and decided that hatches should be fitted.
4. As the resident refused to let the landlord fit the inspection hatches, the boiler was placed at risk.
5. The resident did not want the landlord to return until the inspection had been completed by the independent gas engineer.
6. It wanted to attend to the flue as soon as possible.
The landlord was sent a copy of the independent gas engineer’s report on 29 July 2022. The report said:
1. No operational checks were undertaken as the boiler flue was concealed inside boxing and the customer refused to allow its removal due to concerns over damage to decorations.
2. No work had been carried out on the boiler since its installation.
3. The appliance had already classified as At Risk in accordance with the Gas Industry Unsafe Situations Procedure.
4. A ‘Danger Safety Warning Do Not Use’ label was already attached to the gas appliance and a ‘Danger Do Not Use Warning Notice’ issued.
5. There was limited provision for the flue to be inspected because it was located inside boxing. This was not in accordance with British Standard BS 5440. This requires flues which are enclosed to be installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s guidance and provision made for visual inspection.
6. The resident did not want the landlord to carry out the remedial work.
The independent gas engineer instructed the landlord to correct the defect by 7 August 2022.
The landlord contacted the resident on 1 August 2022 and asked him to confirm a suitable time so it could fit the inspection hatches. The resident responded the following day and agreed the gas engineer could visit on 6 August 2022, subject to the landlord confirming the silicone would be removed and no further damage would be caused. The landlord confirmed this and the inspection hatches were fitted on 6 August 2022. Other work to the boiler was completed in September 2022.
The resident’s complaint was accepted by this Service on 15 September 2022. He said his landlord had refused to tell him why it had ignored his original complaint or ensure the boiler flue complied with gas regulations. He also said he was left without heating or hot water. He believed the comments made by the gas engineer were discriminatory and his landlord unlawfully entered his home and assaulted his wife. The resident also claimed the landlord breached General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR), failed to deal with his Subject Access Requests (SARs) or tell him why there was a warning flag on his account.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, the resident’s complaint about his landlord breaching GDPR and failing to deal with his SAR requests are matters that fall outside the jurisdiction of this Service. The resident should raise such concerns with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).
The resident’s complaint that his wife was assaulted and subject to disability discrimination is outside the jurisdiction of this Service. Whilst this Service does not question the resident’s assessment of the events, we cannot make determinations on such matters. It would be more appropriate for the police and courts to deal with such issues. Nevertheless, we have looked at whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the allegations.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak on the boiler and the installation of a new boiler.

The resident reported a leak on the boiler on 29 January 2022. He confirmed the leak was containable and an appointment was arranged for 11 February 2022. It was appropriate for the landlord to do this and the date scheduled was in accordance with its repairs policy.
The landlord visited on 11 February 2022 and identified that a new boiler was required. A temporary repair was carried out and the resident was left with heating and hot water. A new boiler was ordered and arrangements made with the resident for it to be installed on 1 March 2022. This was appropriate.
The housing records show the new boiler was not installed on 1 March 2022 as planned. The landlord has no record of the reason for this and there is no evidence the resident was provided with an explanation for the delay. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have done this. It is important to note that accurate record keeping is essential and helps ensure the landlord meets its repair obligations. It also ensures accurate information is provided to residents.
A new boiler was installed on 16 March 2022. The landlord’s safety record says the horizontal flue ran through the kitchen. It also says ‘‘no hatches fitted as only required 2 screws to be removed to inspect the full length of the flue. Boxing around the flue and boiler refitted and sealed with beige silicone. Customer happy with work.’’ The gas boiler system commissioning checklist said the boiler was installed and commissioned in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. It also said the hot water system complied with the appropriate building regulations. A copy of the manufacturer’s literature and service record were left with the resident.
The resident contacted the landlord’s out of hours service on 17 March 2022 to report his central heating system was not working. He told the landlord that his partner was disabled and this information was recorded on the repair ticket. It was appropriate for the landlord to do this and treat the request as an emergency in line with its repairs policy. There is no evidence, however, this information was transferred to the repairs or housing management databases. Going forward, this meant the landlord did not assess whether it needed to make any reasonable adjustments to meet the needs of the resident’s wife. The landlord has an obligation to do this under the Equality Act, 2010.
The landlord’s contractor attended on the same evening and reported that the boiler was working. However, they noted the water pressure was insufficient to ‘kick start the flow to the bath tap’’ and a plumber was required. A repair was completed on 16 May 2022. This was 2 months after the problem was identified and outside the targets set for routine repairs in the repairs policy.
The housing records confirm the landlord visited on 11 April 2022 to inspect the boiler flue panel. The appointment was agreed with the resident’s wife. The landlord said it was unable to gain access at the agreed time as no one was at home. It said the members of staff waited for 30 minutes and tried to phone the resident. The landlord wrote to the resident the following day and told him to get in touch if he still wanted the repair completed. It was reasonable for the landlord to do this and demonstrated that it wanted to put things right for the resident.
The landlord told the resident on 18 May 2022 that hatches did not need to be fitted if the full length of the flue could be easily inspected. It confirmed that only 2 screws were needed to remove the flue panel and this complied with gas regulations. It also said the sealant would come away when the access panel was removed and could be replaced. It said beige silicone was used to match the existing décor and it could fit inspection hatches if he preferred. It was reasonable for the landlord to do this and demonstrated it wanted to put things right for the resident.
The landlord contacted the resident again on 19 May 2022 and confirmed the access points to inspect the flue were within gas regulation. It thanked the resident for confirming that he did not want inspection hatches fitting and offered to seal the panel with something that was paintable. This was reasonable.
The landlord visited the resident on 20 May 2022 to inspect the flue panel. It said it tried to phone the resident before visiting, but the call was not answered. The landlord did not give 24 hours’ notice as set out in its repairs policy. Upon inspecting the flue panel, the landlord found the ‘’boxing was completely sealed in and screws sealed over.’’ The boiler was classified as being at risk. It is of concern to note the landlord changed its opinion on this important gas safety issue.
The landlord later confirmed with the resident that he did not want the boiler isolating and it was his choice as to whether he used it once the warning notice had been issued. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have advised the resident at this point on the steps that needed to be taken to resolve the issue. It did not do this but instead said someone would contact him after the weekend.
The landlord said it would treat the resident’s complaint about unlawfully entering his home and assaulting his wife as a new complaint. It was reasonable for the landlord to do this as this was a new event. It responded on 7 June 2022. It said it had carried out an investigation into the allegations made by the resident. The housing records show it did this and confirms it took the allegations seriously. The landlord could find no evidence the operatives pushed passed his wife. It said it was happy to take the matter up with the police and asked the resident to provide further information. It was reasonable for the landlord to do this as the police would be best placed to investigate allegations of assault. There is no evidence the resident provided the required evidence.
The resident agreed the landlord could undertake the work to the flue panel on 11 July 2022 and asked for clarification on who would be responsible for any damage. The landlord confirmed the following day that no damage would be caused. The resident, however, postponed the appointment later that day. He said this was because no site survey had been undertaken to determine what damage would be caused. He also said he was waiting for the outcome of his complaint and he was due to meet with the independent gas engineer. He said he would contact the landlord to arrange a new appointment time once he received the outcome of the meeting.
The resident asked the landlord on 7 August 2022 to confirm whether the unsealed flue complied with part j of building regulations. The landlord responded on 12 August 2022 and said it had spoken to the independent gas engineer and the manufacturer. It confirmed that the appliance was not at risk if the exit hole was not sealed on the internal wall. It did however note the boiler was not fitted to the manufacturer’s instructions and it needed to return to fit a collar where the flue pipe exited the property. It is of concern to note the landlord’s opinion changed on this key gas safety issue.
The independent gas engineer confirmed on 30 August 2022 the boiler was incorrectly sealed and supported. He also said the flue must be sealed inside and outside with appropriate materials. It is again of concern to note the landlord did not address this key gas safety issue earlier. All the outstanding work was completed on 17 September 2022. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have done this earlier given the timescales set out in its repairs policy and the impact the delays had on the resident and his wife.
In summary, the landlord took too long to resolve the issues with the boiler flue casing and gave the resident conflicting information. This led to unnecessary delays, the boiler being placed at risk and the resident having to arrange for an independent inspection. The landlord did not acknowledge these failings in its final complaint response or offer the resident compensation for this aspect of his complaint.
The resident said the delays caused his wife alarm and distress. He also said the landlord placed his family’s lives at risk.
Considering the failings set out above, the Ombudsman has determined there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s report of a leak on the boiler and the installation of a new boiler.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance sets out our approach to resolving disputes. Awards of up to £1,000 are appropriate where there has been a significant impact on the resident. Maladministration can include a landlord’s failure to follow its own policies or procedures, unreasonable delays in dealing with a matter and dealing with a matter unfairly. In this instance, an amount of £400 is appropriate for the unreasonable delays in resolving the issues with the boiler. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay this compensation to the resident in recognition of the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its errors.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for other repairs.

Leaks

The housing records show the resident contacted the landlord on 17 March 2022 to report the bathroom tap was leaking and the water pressure from the kitchen mixer tap was low. He said he had no hot water in the kitchen. An appointment was made for 29 April 2022. This appointment was 15 days outside the target set in the repairs policy.
The resident contacted the landlord on 23 March 2022 to report a leak under the kitchen sink. He said the leak was caused by the landlord’s contractors and he was not prepared to contain it. The landlord said it would order the work, but it could not confirm when the job would be done due to supply and staffing issues. Although this was not in accordance with the landlord’s repairs policy, it was reasonable for the landlord to provide an explanation to the resident. The housing records confirm the leak was repaired on 7 April 2022.
The housing records show the landlord made a number of attempts to agree an appointment time with the resident to repair the further leak but said it could not arrange an appointment after 4.30pm. This was because the contractor would not have enough time to complete the repair. They offered him the last appointment of the day on 31 May 2022 or the first appointment of the day on another day of the week. It was reasonable of the landlord to do this and demonstrated its desire to resolve the problem.
The landlord said it still wanted to attend to the leak in its stage 2 complaint response. It said its contractor had tried to contact the resident but had been unsuccessful. Contact had been made on 11 July 2022 but the resident had said he was unable to talk. The landlord confirmed its contractor would visit as late as possible given the resident’s commitments. It was reasonable for the landlord to do this and demonstrated it wanted to put things right for the resident. It is unclear from the housing records when the leak was repaired.
In summary, the landlord took too long to resolve the issues regarding the leaks and left the resident without hot water downstairs for over a month. It also failed to maintain records and did not consider whether it needed to make reasonable adjustments to meet his wife’s needs.

Footpath

The housing records show the resident reported his footpath was uneven on 1 April 2022 and noted that the problem had happened before. There is no evidence an appointment was offered. This was reasonable and in accordance with the landlord’s repairs policy. This says residents will not always be offered an appointment for external works at the time of reporting. The resident asked for an update on 14 April 2022 and was told a surveyor would visit on 21 April 2022.
The landlord attended on 21 April 2022 and it was identified that 1 paving flag had sunk because of rats eating the base. It also identified other paving flags were uneven and needed relaying. No trip hazards were identified and it was decided the work was not an emergency. This was because there was another pathway to the front door. The repair to the path was completed on 11 May 2022. This was within the timescales set out in the repairs policy.
The landlord told the resident on 18 May 2022 a surveyor would post inspect the work to the path when they were next in the area. It said it would update the resident following the visit. There is no evidence the landlord did this. The resident contacted the landlord again on 25 April 2022 and said the path had dropped again and was causing a trip hazard. He sent the landlord photos of the raised flag on 30 April 2022. The landlord visited 30 May 2022, but it is unclear from the housing records what work was completed. The resident however said the paving was still raised and wobbly.
The landlord confirmed in its stage 1 complaint response that whilst the path was uneven and was caused by burrowing rats, it was not a trip hazard. Access to the property could be gained via an alternative path. It also said it had arranged for its contractor to assess the work and carry out any repairs. No timescales were given for this, although it did say it would post inspect the work week commencing 6 June 2022 and check for any further works. It also said it had arranged for a rodent survey of the area. Again, no timescales were given for this. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have done this as it would have helped manage the resident’s expectations.
The resident told the landlord on 2 June 2022 that it was not possible to avoid the path completely. He asked for evidence that the uneven path was caused by burrowing rats and questioned whether it had been repaired properly or was ‘’botched.’’ The landlord did not address this issue in its stage 2 complaint response. It said this was because it was waiting for further information. It also said it would follow up the matter separately and keep the resident updated. This was a missed opportunity to put things right for the resident and led to further delays.
The landlord provided the resident with an update on 24 July 2022 and told him the path would be inspected the following day. The inspection concluded the path had not been laid correctly and that rats were digging through the grit sand. It was recommended that the paving slabs were lifted, the subbase removed and a new base laid. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have identified this work earlier, particularly given it had undertaken an inspection.
The landlord’s failure to do this meant the repairs were delayed. The landlord updated the resident on 10 August 2022. It also said a rodent survey would be completed in the next few days, although no evidence was provided to this Service confirming the visit took place at the agreed time. The work was completed on 14 September 2022. This was 5 months after the report was made and led to the resident becoming frustrated.
In summary, the landlord took too long to complete the repairs requested by the resident. It also failed to maintain accurate records and did not consider whether it needed to make reasonable adjustments to meet the needs of the resident’s wife. The landlord did not acknowledge these failings in its final complaint response.
The resident said the delays caused his wife alarm and distress.
Considering the failings set out above, the Ombudsman has determined there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for repairs.
Based on the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the landlord should pay the resident £300 compensation for the unreasonable delays in completing the repairs. This amount proportionately reflects the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in trying to resolve the issues raised.

The landlord’s decision to put a warning flag on the resident’s account.

The resident said he was unaware there was a warning flag on his account until the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 1 June 2022. This said a warning flag was put in place as he was considered a ‘‘vexatious customer and staff were to take care on visits.’’ It confirmed the flag was first put on his account in 2014 and reviewed in 2017 and 2021. The landlord sent the resident a copy of its unreasonable customer behaviour policy introduced in April 2022. It also confirmed that it would review the position in relation to his tenancy and let him know the outcome by the end of June 2022.
Whilst it is reasonable for the landlord to have such a policy in place, there is no evidence the landlord undertook an assessment before putting a flag on the resident’s account. It did not tell him there was a flag on his account or advise him of his right of appeal until it issued its stage 1 complaint response. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to do this to ensure it acted fairly.
In summary, the landlord failed to advise the resident that it had placed a warning flag on its system or tell him he could appeal the decision. The landlord did not acknowledge these failings in its final complaint response.
Considering the failings set out above, the Ombudsman has determined there was maladministration by the landlord for failing to notify the resident it had placed a warning flag on his account.
Based on the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the landlord should pay £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in trying to resolve the issue raised. This amount proportionately reflects the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in trying to resolve the issues raised.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord shared its stage 1 complaint response on 12 April 2022. Whilst the response was sent within the timescales set out in its complaints policy, there is no evidence the landlord contacted the resident before completing its investigation. The Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code says that landlords should confirm their understanding of the complaint and the outcomes being sought with the resident. The landlord’s complaints policy also says it will ensure residents are given a fair opportunity to set out their position and comment on any findings before making a decision.
Whilst the landlord offered an apology to the resident for failing to answer his stage 1 complaint, it failed to address all the concerns he raised. This was not appropriate or in accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy or the Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code. This says landlords should address all points raised in a complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions it makes. The landlord’s complaint policy says it will investigate complaints thoroughly and provide a full response. The landlord’s failure to do this led to delays in completing repairs and caused the resident inconvenience.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate his complaint on 5 May 2022 and apologised for the delay in responding. It was appropriate for the landlord to do this given the acknowledgement was outside the timescales set out in its complaints policy. This says it will acknowledge complaints within 2 working days. The landlord offered to contact the resident to discuss his complaint, but this was declined. It was appropriate for the landlord to do this and demonstrated it wanted to put things right for him.
The landlord contacted the resident on 11 May 2022 and said it would address all the points in his complaint. It also acknowledged it had not answered his complaint and apologised for this. It said it would talk to the member of staff concerned and ensure it did not happen again. It was appropriate for the landlord to do this and demonstrated it had learnt from the complaint. The landlord offered the resident £100 compensation in the form of shopping vouchers in recognition of the failure in its process. This was reasonable.
The landlord told the resident it would open a new stage 1 complaint. This was because it had not fully investigated his complaint and given he had raised a number of new concerns. This was reasonable and in accordance with the landlords’ complaints policy. This says any additional or new evidence will not be considered as part of a stage 2 review. The landlord said it would provide a response by 18 May 2022.
The landlord advised the resident it had placed his complaint on hold on 18 May 2022. It said it did this because there were so many different aspects to his complaint. It also asked the resident to clarify several points. The landlord’s complaint policy says complaint deadlines can be extended by up to 10 working days if more time is needed. The decision to do this should be made with the resident. This did not happen and the resident was only informed on the day the complaint response was due. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have agreed the new deadline earlier with the resident. This would have ensured it managed his expectations and helped rebuild trust.
The resident responded on the same day and said he did not agree with his complaint being put on hold. He also said the landlord was discriminating against him and putting his family’s lives at risk. The landlord advised the resident on 19 May 2022 that he would receive a response by 1 June 2022. Given the previous delays in responding to the resident’s complaint, this was not reasonable.
The resident contacted the landlord on 20 May 2022 and said it had unlawfully entered his home and assaulted his wife. He said he wanted this adding to his complaint. The landlord decided to treat this as a new complaint. It was reasonable for the landlord to do this as this was a new event.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response regarding the boiler and other repairs on 1 June 2022. It acknowledged the resident’s original complaint was not handled correctly and apologised for this. It was appropriate for the landlord to do this. The resident asked for his complaint to be escalated the following day. He said the landlord had not answered his complaint.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response regarding unlawfully entering the resident’s home and the alleged assault on 7 June 2022. This was outside the timescales set out in its complaints policy.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate his complaint on 7 June 2022. It said it would respond within 20 working days. This was appropriate and in accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy. This says it will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The landlord offered to discuss the complaint with the resident on 9 June 2022. It was appropriate for the landlord to do this and demonstrated its desire to put things right for him.
The landlord contacted the resident on 17 June 2022 and said it needed more time to investigate his stage 2 complaint. It said it would be in touch when it was ready to restart the complaint. It did not agree the extension of time with the resident. The resident asked the landlord on 20 June 2022 to confirm when he would receive a response. The landlord responded the following day and said the new deadline was 18 July 2022. This was outside the target response time set out in the landlord’s complaints policy.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 18 July 2022.
In summary, the landlord did not follow its complaints policy. It did not discuss the initial complaint with the resident or address the points he raised. This led to delays in resolving his complaint and the resident becoming frustrated and him having to chase the landlord up on a number of occasions.
Considering the failings set out above, the Ombudsman has determined there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.
Based on the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the landlord should pay the resident £150 compensation for the unreasonable delays in concluding the complaint. This amount proportionately reflects the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in trying to resolve the issues raised.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in the way it handled the resident’s report of a leak on the boiler and installation of a new boiler.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in the way it handled the resident’s reports of other repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its decision to place a warning flag on the resident’s account.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Within four weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to offer an apology to the resident for the failings set out in this report.
Within four weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to contact the resident to discuss his wife’s disabilities and agree what details will be recorded on its databases. It must update its records accordingly.
Within six weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to carry out a management review of this case to identify learning and improve its working practices. This review must include:
1. A review of its gas safety working practices in relation to concealed boiler flues to ensure they are compliant with gas safety regulations.
2. A review of its record keeping practices, including how it records and uses information about resident’s disabilities. This must be done in the context of the Ombudsman’s knowledge and information spotlight review.
3. A review of the warning flag on the resident’s account and update him on the outcome.
Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay £950 to the resident. This is to be paid directly to the resident and made up as follows:
1. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident for the delays in resolving the issues with the boiler.
2. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident for the delays in carrying out other repairs.
3. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident for the warning flag that was put on his account.
4. £150 in recognition of the time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s failure in its complaints handling.