Chesterfield Borough Council (202434129)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom flat. She called the landlord to change an appointment arranged by the voids team. The appointment was changed to an afternoon timeslot; however, the electrician arrived shortly after 8am so the resident missed this. She called the landlord within half an hour to ask for the electrician to return. The landlord’s electrical manager informed its customer service advisor that the appointment would need to be rebooked with the resident. This and further delays led to the resident raising a formal complaint.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of:
   1. A repair to the bathroom extractor fan.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repair.
4. There was maladministration in the handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord failed to carry out the repair within the timescales set out in its repairs policy and there was an excessive delay. The rebooked appointment was also cancelled at short notice. The landlord did not provide a repair receipt when the appointment was initially changed as required by its policy.
6. Regarding its complaints handling, the landlord failed to follow its complaint policy as no evidence was provided to show the resident had been contacted about her escalation request, the issues raised were not fully addressed, and she was not informed of how the repair would be taken forward. The landlord did not identify any service failings at either stage of the complaint and has not fully complied with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

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.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

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

chestOur 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.

7. The evidence provided by the landlord shows that it became aware on 27 August 2024 that the bathroom extractor fan needed to be replaced. This was before the resident started her tenancy on 2 September 2024. The landlord has not provided any explanation why this work was not carried out when the property was empty.
8. In its stage 1 response the landlord explained that it was unable to listen to the call made by the resident on 26 September 2024 as it could not trace this. It acknowledged that the appointment had been changed so there must have been a conversation that prompted the change. It took responsibility for the error saying that the advisor had either made a mistake or had not been clear. It confirmed this had been fed back to the relevant member of staff. It also explained that because the electricians are very busy, this means they cannot return to properties that have been recorded as ‘no access’. It did not address the resident’s comment that the work should have been completed when the property was void. Although the landlord provided an apology, it did not identify any specific service failings. This was a missed opportunity to take ownership of its failings and learn from outcomes.
9. In its stage 2 response the landlord confirmed the resident asked for the appointment to be brought forward. However, this was not addressed further. This was a missed opportunity for it to explain its approach and what considerations it had made.
10. The Responsive Repairs Manager explained the replacement of the extractor fan was due that day (4 December 2024); however, the supervisor had to reschedule the appointment due to limited resources. The landlord apologised and confirmed it was working to improve its service. However, it did not explain when the issue would be resolved therefore the stage 2 response was issued without any resolution, or any acknowledgement of service failing. This was not acceptable and is a failing of the landlord’s own policies as well as the Code.
11. The tenant’s handbook provided by the landlord details different timescales for repairs depending on their urgency. It has timescales to attend within 24 hours for emergencies, within 3 or 7 working days for urgent repairs and 30 days for routine repairs. Extractor fans not working are provided as an example of a 7 working day timescale. When the resident called the landlord on 26 September 2024, she was not provided with an appointment within 7 working days as detailed in the repair policy. The rebooked repair appointment was also outside of the 7 working day timescale. This is a failing.
12. The tenant’s handbook also explains that appointments will be confirmed with a repair receipt, and a reminder text message or voicemail. The resident told us that she did not receive a repair receipt or text following the change to the appointment. Had these been issued, this may have alerted the resident to any issues concerning the appointment slot arranged for 1 November 2024. This is a further failing.
13. The landlord was unable to trace the call made by the resident, just weeks earlier. This is a concern relating to the landlord’s record keeping that it’s call recordings may not be stored correctly or accessible. Recommendations have been made for the landlord to address this.
14. When investigating complaints, we look at all the evidence to decide if the landlord followed our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. While the landlord acknowledged a communication error during the resident’s call with an advisor on 26 September 2024, it did not acknowledge any other failings relating to repair receipts or the delay to complete the repair. The stage 2 response did not provide a resolution to the issue; it did not address the resident’s request for the repair to be brought forward or provide any response to her comments that the work should have been completed before she moved into the property. The landlord did not identify any service failures and therefore did not provide any improvements. The evidence provided by the landlord suggests that the extractor fan repair was not completed until 13 March 2025 which is far outside its repair timescale for “urgent” repairs. We have therefore found maladministration. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay £150 in compensation for the excessive delays to complete the repair, and for the additional inconvenience caused.

15. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process which is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The Code says that landlords should acknowledge complaints and escalations within 5 working days. The landlord should provide a stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
16. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint of 1 November 2024 within 3 days. It provided a stage 1 response on 13 November 2024 within its complaint policy timescales and the Code.
17. The resident escalated her complaint on 13 November 2024. This was acknowledged the same day, and a stage 2 response was issued on 4 December 2024, these wereissued within the timescalesin its complaints policy and the Code.
18. In its complaint procedure, the landlord states ‘One of our Complaints Officers will contact you to understand why you feel your complaint has not been investigated fully at stage 1’. No evidence has been provided to show that this was followed. The landlord’s stage 2 response was very poor, as it did not review the previous handling of the complaint, provide a substantive response to the issues raised and it did not provide a resolution to the complaint. This does not appear to comply with the Code. We have found maladministration, so we have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay £100 for its failings in the handling of the complaint.
19. We have noted that both complaints were signed off by the customer service team. This makes it difficult to confirm whether the same person drafted both responses at stage 1 and 2. Although we do not stipulate that a named contact is provided to the resident at each stage of their complaint, this is in keeping with good practice. We have therefore recommended that the landlord considers how it can demonstrate it has complied with this section of the Code in future.

Learning

20. The landlord did not follow its own repair policy as appointments were not arranged in a reasonable timeframe and repair receipts were not issued.
21. The landlord’s handling of the complaint was poor. Issues raised by the resident were not addressed, service failings were not identified, there was no attempt to rectify the issues and there are concerns that the Code is not being fully complied with.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

22. The landlord’s record keeping needs to be improved. It is concerning that a call made within 2 months of the complaint could not be found. The landlord is reminded that it should have full, detailed records and be able to access call recordings when needed.