ForHousing Limited (202433325)

Background

1. The resident reported repair concerns about her front door in July 2024. She was unhappy with the timescale she was given for the repair, how her concerns were dealt with during the call, and the landlord’s investigation into her complaint.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the:
   1. Front door repair.
   2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the:
   1. Front door repair.
   2. Associated complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Front door

4. The landlord allocated the correct priority for the timing of the repair, based on the information provided by the resident and that was in keeping with its repairs policy. While the landlord did not complete the repair within its routine timescale, it was not due to an error on its part.

Complaint

5. Both responses were sent within the required timescales. While the standard of both responses fell short slightly short, we saw no evidence the resident was negatively affected.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

6. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will respond according to the level of risk posed and cites examples of the types of issues that fall under each category. It says emergency repairs are where there is a possible danger to the resident or property, such as a gas or major water leak. And urgent repairs are the type that, if not completed quickly, may be a health and safety risk, such as an unsecured external door. The landlord aims to complete these within 24 hours and 3 working days respectively. Routine repairs, where the risks are deemed minimal, are completed within 30 working days.
7. The record of the resident’s initial report of the problem is unclear about what issue she was experiencing with her front door. It describes it vaguely as being damaged. However, the notes show the landlord established that she was still able to lock and use her front door. All other later repair notes are consistent with this. The resident was also able to use her backdoor for access. This would not then be classed as an emergency or urgent repair under the landlord’s policy. While we recognise the resident was caused inconvenience, there was no apparent health and safety risk known at the time that would warrant an urgent repair under the landlord’s policy. This was unlike the occasion the resident reported that the backdoor lock or handle was broken on 13 September 2024, which records show was repaired on the same day because the resident was unable to freely use both doors.
8. According to the stage 2 response, the door was repaired on 24 September 2024, 42 working days after the resident’s report. We agree with the landlord’s response that the resident’s decision to cancel the appointment of 6 September 2024 added more time. Had she not cancelled it the landlord could have completed the repair in its routine timescale, albeit just. As such, we cannot hold it responsible for it not meeting its timescale and for the further inconvenience she was caused.
9. Considering the above, we find no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the front door repair.

10. The landlord’s complaints policy and our Complaint Handling Code required it to issue its stage 1 response to the complaint within 10 working days and stage 2 response within 20 working days. Both timeframes are calculated from the date of its acknowledgement of receipt, which must be sent within 5 working days.
11. The landlord did not comply with its process at stage 1. It failed to acknowledge the complaint raised on 25 July 2024 and it took 14 working days to respond on 15 August 2024. There was then a slight delay in acknowledging the resident’s escalation of 5 September 2024 of 1 working day. It did meet the stage 2 service standard by responding within 22 working days overall on 8 October 2024.
12. Both responses failed to adequately address the resident’s complaint that she had been told she could not complain. The stage 1 response did not address this aspect at all, which was inappropriate. While the stage 2 response did investigate and respond to this, it did not consider that the resident had complained about the call occurring in July. It missed an opportunity to fully investigate the resident’s concerns. The landlord did though reasonably explain that there was no cap on the number of complaints the resident could make. She did also successfully make a complaint, so she was not adversely affected.
13. The landlord offered a solution in the final response by arranging the repair to be completed quickly after speaking with the resident. This prevented any further delays.
14. In view of the above, we have identified no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

15. We found it difficult to fully understand from the landlord’s records what repairs it had completed and when. For example, the repair logs state the appointment raised at stage 2, on 18 September 2024, was cancelled. But it is undisputed that it was completed on 24 September 2024. As explained earlier, the exact nature of the problem the resident was having with the door was unclear. The landlord may wish to review its record keeping because it should have clear and accurate records to demonstrate it has met its repair obligations.

Communication

16. There were some examples of good communication during the complaints process because the stage 2 officer spoke to the resident. They then followed it up with an email confirming what they had spoken about and what actions they were taking, including re-raising the repair.
17. However, the lack of demonstrable engagement at stage 1 means the landlord missed an opportunity to reach a better outcome. It should consider if offering to speak to residents should be a part of its formal complaints process.