Citizen Housing Group Limited (202341297)

Background

1. The resident, a joint tenant, was told about upcoming regeneration plans for the area at the start of his tenancy. His family are currently living in temporary accommodation because of this.
2. A pre-action disrepair claim was settled in August 2023, which included repairs to the communal roof and within the property to address damp and mould. These matters were not specifically raised as part of the complaint which is under investigation here. However, consideration has been given to the claim and settlement for context and where relevant to our findings. Our investigation is focused on the issues considered under the landlord’s complaint process which concluded in February 2024.

What the complaint is about

3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Concerns about repairs and single glazed windows.
   2. Associated formal complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. The landlord has offered reasonable redress for its handling of the resident’s concerns about repairs and single glazed windows.
5. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord acknowledged the delay in carrying out a prompt repair and explained its position on replacing the windows. It apologised for the upset and inconvenience caused by its failures, offered proportionate redress, and took steps to improve its service to prevent a repeat of its mistakes.
7. The landlord’s overall handling of the complaint was in line with its policy.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

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.

8. The resident said he incurred high bills going back to 2018. Evidence shows he first complained about the single glazed windows in December 2023.Our investigation is focused on the 12 months prior to the complaint being logged, as complaints should be referred to the landlord within a reasonable time of the resident first becoming aware of the issue.However, where relevant, the historic context of the current complaint is noted and reflected in our overall findings.
9. The resident told us his family’s health was impacted by the landlord’s failure to carry out prompt repairs. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for him to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. However, we have considered whether the landlord’s actions caused more general distress and inconvenience.
10. We do not ordinarily order the landlord to reimburse residents for damage to belongings. It is not within our remit to establish when or how the belongings were damaged. The cost of damaged belongings arising from the landlord’s actions are more appropriately claimed via its insurance. Therefore, this is not addressed further in this report. The resident should consider seeking independent advice if he remains unhappy.
11. The resident believes there was a link between the windows and damp in the property. It is not our role to establish the underlying cause of damp and mould or determine how to deal with it in individual properties. We rely on the expertise of surveyors and professionals who inspected the area. An inspection conducted as part of the disrepair claim found the windows were operational, serviceable, and there was no evidence of draughts or damp around the frames. Further, this complaint is not about damp and mould, so we have not addressed this in detail.
12. The landlord has accepted its service failures, in relation to the repairs raised in the complaint, within its complaint responses. Overall, our investigation found the same failings; there is nothing further we can usefully add to that. The landlord has sincerely apologised and offered £150 compensation and a £44.14 decorating voucher. This was a suitable response to the identified failures.
13. The landlord’s actions demonstrate that it took the complaint seriously, openly acknowledged areas for improvement, and took action to rectify the identified failings. This is in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. Therefore, the question before us is whether these failures amount to maladministration and, if so, whether proper redress was offered to put things right.
14. The resident has confirmed all repairs were completed and issues resolved, except that he wanted to be reimbursed for his energy bills. To conclude that the landlord should do this, we would first need to find it had failed to do something it was responsible for, which then caused the increased bills. However, at the time of signing the tenancy, the resident was aware the property had single glazed windows. The landlord was not required to replace this with double glazing unless it found a fault that could not be repaired. This is particularly the case where it had a regeneration planned to replace them and had informed the resident of this.
15. As a social housing provider, the landlord is accountable for its public expenditure. It would not be reasonable for it to replace, without good cause, windows within a property marked for regeneration. Our expectation during this period would be for it to respond to repair reports with an inspection to decide what/if repairs were needed; it did that. We appreciate the resident incurred higher energy bills than he may have expected but we have found no grounds for the landlord to reimburse him for these. It later replaced the windows with double glazing. While it has not told us the reason why it did this ahead of schedule, its decision shows it took the resident’s concerns seriously and its response was positive.
16. In identifying whether there has been maladministration, we consider both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. We will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
17. Our own remedies guidance indicates that an award of £150 compensation might be appropriate where there was failure which adversely affected the resident and redress is needed to put things right. The landlord has also offered a decoration voucher. Having considered the full circumstances of the case, including the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, we find that this sum was proportionate to the failings identified. Therefore, the landlord has offered reasonable redress for its handling of the resident’s concerns.
18. A recommendation is made for the landlord to pay the £150 compensation and the £44.14 voucher offered for its failures (if it has not already done so). The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid to the resident, as it recognised genuine elements of service failure by the landlord.

19. The landlord’s complaint policy applicable at the time set out a 2-stage complaint process. It set out timeframes; 5 working days to acknowledge the complaint, 10 working days for a full response at stage 1 (with an extension of an extra 10 working days if needed), and 20 working days at stage 2 (with an extension of an extra 20 working days if needed). At both stages, if an extension was needed the resident would be advised and given a revised timeframe.
20. At stage 1, the landlord acknowledged the complaint the same day and issued its response 9 working days later. At stage 2, it acknowledged the complaint within 5 working days and issued its response 21 working days later. This was broadly in line with its complaint policy and the advised response times. We have therefore found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

21. The landlord provided us with records that did not include all the relevant details or information, requiring us to request these. The resident referred to a court order within his correspondence to it and us, but it did not make clear in its submissions that the matter was settled outside of court. In this instance this did not cause a significant delay to our investigation. However, the landlord is reminded of the importance of providing relevant records, information, and clarifications. This helps us to investigate the complaint quickly, accurately, and efficiently; thereby avoiding the need to make additional requests or enquiries which may cause delays.

Communication

22. The landlord communicated promptly with the resident during the complaint process. Its responses openly acknowledged delays and offered appropriate apologies. This shows its effort to foster a positive relationship with its resident.