Poplar Housing And Regeneration Community Association Limited (202341674)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202341674

Poplar Housing And Regeneration Community Association Limited

15 July 2025

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. A loss of heating and hot water.
2. Lift repairs.
3. The resident’s concerns that his front door was not secure.
4. Repairs to the toilet.
5. Repairs to the bathroom.
6. Discretionary repairs.
This report also considers the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. He has lived in the property, a 1-bed fourth floor flat, since December 2022. He moved to the property via a mutual exchange.
The block of flats has a communal heating system. The resident’s rent includes charges for heating and hot water.
The landlord has advised it is aware that the resident has mental health concerns. The resident has also disclosed some physical health issues to the Ombudsman.
On 12 October 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident. The letter did not refer to itself as a formal complaint response. However, it said:
1. The resident had reported an issue with his toilet in July 2023. It had attended on the same day and found the toilet was blocked and the pan was leaking. It had since replaced the toilet and pan connector.
2. It carried out an inspection in August 2023 and raised the following repairs:
  1. Remove mould and carry out a full redecoration of the bathroom.
  2. Install a shelf, repair loose skirting and re-seal bath panel in the bathroom.
  3. Professionally clean the hallway carpet.
3. It had attended on 2 occasions to carry out the repairs but the resident had not provided access. It was keen to carry out these works as they would “enhance [his] home comforts”.
4. The police forced entry to the property in August 2023 during a welfare check. It had installed a temporary door and would find out when the permanent door would be installed.
5. The resident had reported being without heating and hot water for “several months” from December 2022. Its records showed an “intermittent issue” with the communal heating. It offered £100 compensation for the inconvenience.
The resident replied on 13 October 2023 and said:
1. He had been without heating or hot water for “several months” in cold weather.
2. He paid a service charge for lift maintenance but the lift was out of service every week.
3. His front door was still insecure.
The resident later contacted the Ombudsman and said his landlord was not responding to his concerns. On 14 May 2024 we asked the landlord to provide a formal response to the resident’s complaint.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 16 May 2024. It said:
1. Outstanding repairs:
  1. The resident had refused access to its contractors on at least 6 occasions to complete the repairs. It provided dates for these failed appointments.
  2. It had to change contractors several times due to “verbally aggressive calls” from the resident.
2. Lifts:
  1. Residents had reported the lift to be out of service 5 times in the last 6 months.
  2. Its contractor carried out monthly servicing to predict faults before they occurred.
  3. It acknowledged the impact of the lift failures and apologised for the inconvenience caused.
3. Front door:
  1. The police secured the door following the welfare check and the landlord fitted a temporary fire door the following day.
  2. An error by its contractor had caused a manufacturing delay. The new door was ready but the resident had declined several appointments to install it.
  3. He had reported that someone had accessed the property and had stolen items. It had advised that it would provide the police access to the building’s CCTV.
4. Carpets:
  1. The carpets were in place at the start of the tenancy and were his responsibility.
  2. It had however agreed to complete a professional clean after it completed other discretionary repairs.
5. Heating and hot water
  1. He had contacted its contractor to report loss of heating and hot water on 29 December 2022. The contractor offered him an appointment the following day. He had refused the appointment and terminated the call.
  2. He reported the issue again on 2 March 2023. The contractor attended and resolved the issue the same day.
  3. It had offered him £100 compensation for the impact of the heating issues. It calculated the figure using dates provided by other residents as he was not able to provide the dates he was impacted. He had refused the compensation.
6. It did not uphold the complaint because:
  1. While it agreed the door had taken longer than it should have to fit the permanent door, it had installed a secure, fire rated, temporary door. It would fit the new door on 30 May 2024.
  2. He had accepted the property in its “current form” when he completed the mutual exchange.
  3. It had offered to carry out discretionary works. He had however refused entry and been “abusive” to contractors.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint on 22 May 2024. He said the landlord had “lied” and its staff were acting “illegally” and trying to “harm” him. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on the same day.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 27 June 2024. It said:
1. Lift:
  1. The lift had been out of service several times but was returned to service within published timescales.
  2. It acknowledged the disruption was inconvenient and apologised for any upset caused.
  3. As it had followed its policies and procedures it did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.
2. Heating and hot water:
  1. Its contractor should have alerted it about the incomplete repair report so that it could make follow up calls.
  2. It upheld this aspect of the complaint and increased its compensation offer to £250.
3. Front door:
  1. While it had fitted a functional and secure temporary door, there were “unacceptable” delays in installing the front door. The delays were caused by its contractor.
  2. It upheld this aspect of the complaint and offered £250 compensation.
4. Other repairs
  1. It had offered to complete some discretionary repairs. These were carpet cleaning, decorations, and installing a bathroom shelf.
  2. He would need to discuss requests for some works with Occupational Health.
  3. It did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. It had made appropriate efforts to complete the works and the resident had not provided access.
On 26 July 2024 the landlord completed the following works:
1. Decoration to the bedroom and bathroom.
2. Resecured the bath panel, renewed a section of skirting, and installed a shelf in the bathroom.
3. Installed a new permanent front door.
The contractor attended to complete the carpet cleaning on 12 August 2024. This did not go ahead due to “debris” on the carpets.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and the compensation offered. He escalated his complaint to this Service. The matter became one we could consider in November 2024.

Legal and policy framework

The tenancy agreement obliges the landlord to keep the following items in good repair:
1. external doors
2. installations for space and water heating
3. toilets
4. common parts including lifts.
The landlord’s repair policy states it will respond to emergency repairs within 4 hours. This includes:
1. total loss of space or water heating (between November and March)
2. lift faults
3. an insecure property.
The repairs policy states repair appointments will take place between 8am and 6pm and that only “unavoidable” emergency repairs will take place outside these hours.
The repairs policy states that decorating the property is the resident’s responsibility.
The landlord’s complaint policy states it will acknowledge complaints within 2 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The complaint policy states it may restrict access to services if a resident’s behaviour is aggressive or unreasonable.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

This Service acknowledges that the resident has raised several issues during communications with the landlord and this Service which were not subject to the landlord’s complaint process. These issues include concerns about its handling of his reports about crime and antisocial behaviour, staff conduct, and other repair issues.
While this Service empathises with the resident’s situation, in the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord should be given the opportunity to investigate and respond to the resident’s concerns in the first instance.
Any repair issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be raised directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.

Loss of heating and hot water.

On 29 December 2022 at 9pm the resident reported that he had no heating or hot water. The contractor offered him an appointment for the following day but the resident declined. The records state that the resident hung up on the contractor before they could book an appointment.
The landlord’s policy states it will respond to emergency repairs including loss of heating and hot water within 4 hours but would only complete “unavoidable emergency” work after 6pm.
Offering a next day appointment was reasonable and in line with the landlord’s policy. It is unfortunate that the resident refused the appointment and ended the phone call. This Service acknowledges that this was outside the landlord’s control. We also note that the contractor did not make the landlord aware that the repair was outstanding.
The landlord has acknowledged that its contractor should have made it aware of the incomplete repair report and that it could then have made follow up calls. That it has acknowledged this failing and apologised to the resident is positive.
There is no evidence that the resident reported the issue again until 1 March 2023. It is also unclear whether the issue was constant or intermittent. The records show the landlord attended on the same day as this report, but the resident did not provide access. It returned the following day and reinstated the heating and hot water. The landlord’s response was therefore appropriate and the repair was completed within a reasonable time.
The landlord has offered the resident £250 for the impact of being without heating and hot water. It calculated the compensation based on the dates provided by other residents. We acknowledge that it has asked the resident on several occasions to provide the dates he did not have heating and hot water but he has not done so.
The Ombudsman considers it is reasonable to base the calculations on a loss of service for 9 weeks from 29 December 2022 to 2 March 2023.
The resident pays the landlord £19.80 a week for heating and hot water charges. He therefore paid the landlord £178.20 in charges for the period he did not have heating and hot water.
The landlord’s offer of £250 compensation was only around £70 more than the amount paid by the resident during this period. Due to this, the landlord should instead pay the resident £135 compensation, as well as the £178.20 for his charges during this time. This is to ensure it pays a proportionate amount for the distress and inconvenience caused and for the charges itself.
We therefore find service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of loss of heating and hot water.

Lift repairs.

The repair logs provided by the landlord in relation to the lift repairs are inadequate. They do not clearly differentiate between routine servicing appointments and call outs for loss of service. Nor do they show when it completed the repairs. We cannot therefore determine how often residents were impacted by loss of service or whether the landlord completed the repairs within the timeframes outlined in its policy.
The landlord has provided this Service with communications with its lift contractor. While they provide some insight into when some repairs were completed, they do not provide completion dates for all the repairs.
The Ombudsman’s Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) Spotlight report states that if information is not created correctly, it has less integrity and cannot be relied on. This can be either a complete absence of information, or inaccurate and partial information. As the records do not demonstrate that the landlord completed the reported lift repairs within its policy timeframes, we cannot find that it acted reasonably.
Inadequacies in the information provided by the landlord has hampered our ability to assess its handling of the issue of complaint. As a result the landlord has failed to demonstrate that repairs were completed in accordance with its repairs policy and there were no undue delays. We therefore find service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports that the lift was not working.
While we have found service failure due to the landlord’s record keeping in relation to the lift repairs, we have not seen evidence that the resident himself reported the lift repairs to the landlord. Nor has he described any detriment he experienced because of it being out of use. We recognise however that the resident may not have reported the lift issues as others had already done so. We also acknowledge that as he lived on the fourth floor, he would likely have been inconvenienced by the repair issues. We have therefore ordered that the landlord pay £50 compensation for the inconvenience caused.

The resident’s concerns his front door was not secure.

In August 2023 the police forced entry to the resident’s property to carry out a welfare check. The police advised the landlord that it had secured the property by boarding it up but that a new door was required. The landlord installed a temporary door the following day.
While the landlord’s policy states it will attend to insecure properties within 4 hours, the police had made the property secure by boarding it up. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord attended the following day and fitted a temporary door.
On 13 October 2023 the resident reported that he did not believe the temporary door installed by the landlord was “secure”. The landlord asked him for further information and said it would send an operative to ensure the door was secure. It is not clear from the evidence whether the resident replied or the landlord attended. We would reasonably have expected it to attend given the resident’s security concerns, even if he did not respond to its request for more details. This was a missed opportunity.
The resident informed the landlord in March 2024 that he believed unknown people had been entering his property to steal his belongings and the door was not secure. He said he had reported the issue to the police.
We acknowledge that the resident’s concerns that someone was entering his property and stealing from him was a police matter. We would however have reasonably expected the landlord to inspect the door to satisfy itself that it was indeed secure. We accept that the landlord asked the resident for his availability so it could inspect the door. When he did not respond however we would reasonably have expected it to make a more determined effort to follow this up. That it did not was a further missed opportunity.
On 4 April 2024 the contractor advised the new front door was ready to install. It asked the resident for his availability to book an appointment. The landlord and its contractor tried on at least 4 further occasions between April 2024 and June 2024 to confirm an appointment for the door installation. Records show that on several occasions the resident said he would not provide access. The difficulties in gaining access delayed installation of the door by approximately 16 weeks.
The landlord has acknowledged that issues with its contractor caused an “unacceptable delay” to replacing the door. The records show that it issued the works order to measure and fit the new front door to its contractor on 30 August 2023. Records also show that the contractor was unable to access the system the landlord had sent the works order on until November 2023. It therefore did not carry out the survey to measure the new door until 11 January 2024. These failings delayed the installation of the new door by 19 weeks.
The landlord fitted the new permanent front door on 26 July 2024.
The landlord has acknowledged its failings, apologised to the resident, and has offered him £250 compensation.
While there were failings on behalf of the landlord and contractor, we acknowledge difficulties agreeing access with the resident contributed to the delays. This Service considers that the landlord’s offer of compensation was proportionate to the detriment experienced by the resident. We have made a finding of reasonable redress for the landlord’s handling of reports that the resident’s front door was not secure.
The landlord should pay the resident the £250 offered in its stage 2 response as our finding of reasonable redress is made on the basis this is paid.

Repairs to the toilet.

In July 2023 the resident reported “issues” with his toilet. The landlord attended on the same day and found the toilet was blocked and the pan was leaking. It stated in October 2023 that it had since replaced the toilet and pan connector.
In reviewing the information provided by the landlord, it appears that the toilet repairs job was reported and raised on 24 July 2023. An appointment was made to assess and repair the issue on 26 July 2023 without access being granted. A follow up appointment was then raised for 1 August 2023. Works were subsequently completed by 9 August 2023. Under the circumstances, this timeframe was reasonable and in line with the landlord’s repairs policy.
In January 2024 the landlord explained to the resident that it had previously agreed to replace the toilet again. However, it said however that it had looked again at photographs from the inspection and had decided it did not need to renew the toilet as it met British standards and was “fully operational”.
It is understandable that the landlord’s change in position was disappointing to the resident. However, as the toilet met the required standards and was functioning properly, it was reasonable that the landlord declined to replace it for a second time.
The Ombudsman understands that the resident felt the new toilet did not meet his disability requirements. The landlord has on several occasions signposted him to contact his Occupational Therapist for an assessment. This was reasonable. It could however reasonably have signposted him to a support service who could assist him in accessing other services.
Overall, we find it reasonable to confirm that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the toilet repairs. This is because following the resident raising issues with his toilet on 24 July 2023, the landlord attended by 9 August 2023 to complete the necessary repairs to resolve the issues.

Repairs to the bathroom.

The records show that during its inspection of the property in August 2023 it identified the bathroom required the following repairs:
1. Remove mould.
2. Carry out a full redecoration.
3. Repair loose skirting.
4. Re-seal bath panel.
The landlord has stated within communications with the resident that it attempted several times to carry out the repairs to the bathroom. It said however that the resident failed to provide access to its contractors.
We note that we cannot corroborate these missed appointments due to inadequacies in the landlord’s repair records. The resident however has not disputed that he failed to provide access. He has also told the landlord in several email communications that he would not provide access.
The landlord carried out the bathroom works on 26 July 2024.
While there was a significant delay in completing the works we are satisfied that this was not entirely within the landlord’s control. However, as the records do not show that access issues frustrated its attempts to complete the repairs we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the bathroom.

Discretionary repairs.

The resident moved into the property via a mutual exchange. When a mutual exchange takes place, the resident accepts the property in the condition it is in. The property is not void at any period, and the landlord has no obligation to bring the property to a lettable standard before the incoming tenant moves in. The resident therefore accepted the decoration and carpets as left by the previous tenant.
The evidence shows that, following an inspection in August 2023, the landlord agreed to carry out works which included ‘discretionary work’. Simply put, these were works the landlord was not obliged to carry out but was willing to do as a gesture of goodwill. These works included:
1. Redecorating the bedroom.
2. Cleaning the hallway carpet.
3. Putting up a shelving unit in the bathroom.
The evidence shows that the resident refused access to the contractors to complete the discretionary repairs on several occasions. The landlord stated in its complaint responses that it wished to complete the works and asked the resident to provide access.
The redecoration works to the bedroom and bathroom were carried out in July 2024. The Ombudsman considers that the delays to these works were outside the landlord’s control as the resident did not provide access in accordance with the terms of his tenancy.
The carpet cleaning was due to be completed in August 2024 but could not be carried out due to “debris” on the floor. This was not within the landlord’s control. At this time the resident asked the landlord to replace the carpet in the property as it was “damaged” and he wanted laminate flooring like his neighbours. The landlord explained that residents were responsible for the flooring in the property and that it had only agreed to clean the carpet, not replace it, as discretionary works. The landlord was not obliged by the terms of the tenancy for any floor coverings, its response was therefore reasonable.

Handling of the resident’s complaint.

In October 2023 the landlord sent what appears to be a complaint response, though it is not described as such. It is unclear what prompted the correspondence. In addition, the letter does not make clear when the complaint was received or the details of the complaint. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states a complaint response must make clear:
1. the complaint stage
2. the details of the complaint that has been addressed
3. the decision on the complaint
4. the reasons for any decisions made
5. details of how to escalate the matter to stage two if the resident is not satisfied with the answer.
This letter does not fulfil the above requirements. It does however clearly show that the landlord was aware that the resident was dissatisfied with what he perceived to be several failures relating to repairs. The Code defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made. This Service considers that the landlord should reasonably have treated the resident’s concerns as a formal complaint at this time.
The landlord has acknowledged in communication with this Service that it initially handled the issues raised by the resident as service requests. It said that delays began to arise due to “unreasonable” behaviour, refused access, and “ad hoc” communication from the resident. The landlord however acknowledges that it should have raised a complaint earlier and apologised for the delays in its complaint responses.
That the landlord recognises these failings is positive. However, its complaints policy outlines the process it should follow if a complainant becomes unreasonable. If it felt the resident’s behaviour was unreasonable it should have followed this process.
The resident clearly expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s service on several occasions. The landlord did not raise a formal complaint until asked to do so by this Service in May 2024. A resident should have to contact this Service to obtain a response and resolution to their complaint.
The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint 2 days after it was contacted by this Service. This is within the timeframes outlined in its policy and the Code.
The landlord’s stage 1 response was detailed and outlined each of the issues raised by the resident and the actions it had taken in relation to each. It said it did not uphold the complaint and provided details about why.
The resident remained dissatisfied and asked the landlord to escalate the complaint. He added that the landlord’s staff were acting “illegally” and trying to “harm” him.
It took the landlord 25 working days to respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint. The Code and the landlord’s policy state that, where it requires additional time to respond, it must explain this to the resident and provide a clear timeframe for its response. While the delay was not excessive, that the landlord did not acknowledge or apologise for the delay was unreasonable.
The landlord’s stage 2 response reasonably addressed all the issues raised in the stage 1 complaint. The landlord did not however acknowledge that the resident had raised new concerns about staff conduct. It should reasonably have acknowledged these concerns and raised a new stage 1 complaint. That it did not do so was inappropriate.
The landlord provided a proportionate level of detail regarding the issues of complaint and clearly explained its decision on each and its reasons for the decisions.
Overall, the landlord:
1. Delayed unreasonably in raising a stage 1 complaint.
2. Did not consider applying the unreasonable behaviour process within its complaint policy.
3. Failed to raise a new stage 1 complaint about the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
We therefore find maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. We do however note that the landlord has acknowledged some of its failings prior to our investigation and that this is positive.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling loss of heating and hot water.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of lift repairs.
3. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns his front door was not secure.
4. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the toilet.
5. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the bathroom.
6. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of discretionary repairs.
7. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Pay the resident compensation of £713.20 which comprises:
  1. £178.20 in relation to the heating and hot water charges paid by the resident.
  2. £135 in relation to distress and inconvenience due to its handling of loss of heating and hot water.
  3. £50 in relation to distress and inconvenience due to its handling of lift repairs.
  4. £100 in relation to time and trouble, distress and inconvenience due to the landlord’s complaint handling.
  5. The amount ordered includes the £250 offered by the landlord in its stage 2 response for its handling of the resident’s concerns his front door was not secure.
  6. In accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance the compensation should be paid directly to the resident and should not be offset against any arrears.
Within 12 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must review its record keeping policies and processes. In doing so it may find it useful to consider the recommendations within the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management. It should provide this Service with a report outlining the findings of its review.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the landlord progress any new complaints the resident raises to it through its internal complaints process. The landlord must provide responses to the resident in accordance with its policy.