SHAL Housing Limited (202321204)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202321204

SHAL Housing Limited

8 May 2025 (amended at review)

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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a rewire at the resident’s property, including:

The standard of work carried by contractors, and completion of the rewiring.

Damage to the loft boards.

A temporary loss of heating and hot water.

2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s:

Handling of the associated complaint.

Background

3. The resident holds an assured tenancy. He moved to the property by way of mutual exchange on 4 July 2016. The property is a 4-bedroom semi-detached house. The resident’s children stay with him on an occasional basis at the weekend. The resident has informed the landlord about his mental health and said that he suffers from anxiety, post traumatic stress disorder, and depression.
4. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 14 October 2022. He said he was unhappy about the standard of work carried out by the electrical contractor during the rewire of his house. This included cables left loose, boards not put back in the loft and damage to the loft boards. The landlord gave its stage 1 response on 9 December 2022. The resident did not escalate his complaint, so the landlord closed it.
5. The resident made another complaint on 30 May 2023. He stated he was unhappy with the same issues. He felt the work associated with the rewiring had not been completed to a good standard. He raised additional concerns about loose carpets and floorboards. He also pointed out that the light cord in the bathroom and one of the kitchen sockets, were not working. He was also concerned about the lack of a carbon dioxide alarm near his boiler.
6. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 20 July 2023. It stated it would arrange for the repair of the sockets, light switch, carpets, and floorboards. However, it explained the delay in repairing the boiler was due to difficulty obtaining a part. It said the contractor had confirmed the wires were not live. In relation to the loft, it said that tenants were not allowed to access the space due to health and safety risks. It would arrange to move the resident’s belongings from the loft, upgrade the insulation and fit a lock on the loft hatch. It acknowledged that some of the repairs were unsatisfactory and offered £200 compensation for this.
7. The resident responded on 27 July 2023. He said he was not offered alternative heating when the boiler was not working. While he accepted the wiring was now safe, he remained unhappy as some repairs were outstanding. The landlord treated this email as the request to escalate the complaint.
8. On 14 August 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It said that alternative heating was provided. It said it found the hanging wires were not connected or live and they were left in that condition as a temporary measure pending the installation of trunking. It also stated that the restriction of access to the loft space was in line with its policy. Having reviewed the tenancy agreement, it could not see that permission had been requested or granted for the loft to be used.
9. The resident referred his complaint to us. While the repairs have since been completed, the resident said he felt the general way in which the landlord had managed the repairs was not satisfactory. He was also unhappy with the decision regarding the use of loft space. The complaint became one we could investigate on 30 April 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

10. The resident reported to the landlord, and the Ombudsman, that the issues forming his complaint have impacted his mental health. The Ombudsman understands the situation has been stressful for the resident. However, it is beyond the remit of this Service to determine a direct link between these matters and the resident’s health as we are not medical experts. Therefore, the resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his health has been affected by any action, or lack thereof, by the landlord. The resident may also be able to make a claim via the landlord’s liability insurance. If this is something he wishes to do, he should make enquiries with the landlord accordingly. We have considered any distress and inconvenience the resident may have experienced because of the landlord’s handling of the issues.
11. In communication with us, the resident expressed concern about damp and mould issues within his property. As this did not form part of the resident’s formal complaint, this is not something we can investigate at this stage. This is because, in the interest of fairness, the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to this report. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to get this matter resolved. He may then approach the Ombudsman if he remains dissatisfied.
12. The resident reported to the landlord that he felt the handling of the repairs negatively impacted his work and contributed to him losing his job. While we are an alternative to the courts, we are unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have caused financial losses. Nor can we calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider this aspect of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited for consideration by a court.

The standard of work by contractors

13. The landlord raised a rewire of the property on 5 July 2022, after it was deemed necessary following a 5-year periodic electrical test. The rewire was scheduled to start on 10 October 2022 and was expected to take 5 days. It was completed on 27 January 2023.
14. The tenancy agreement sets out that the landlord is responsible for keeping installations for electricity in good repair and proper working order. This includes sockets and switches.
15. Section 11(1)(a) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 also states that the landlord is responsible for electrical wiring and sockets. The landlord has a legal obligation to complete repairs it is responsible for within a ‘reasonable’ timescale.
16. The landlord’s repair’s policy states planned improvements will be explained to the tenant.
17. The landlord stated that the rewire work stopped on 14 October 2022, following the complaint by the resident. The resident’s immediate concerns were the loose wires that he said were live and left hanging from his child’s bedroom. The landlord asked the resident for photos and contacted the contractor. It appears the contractor attended the property on 17 October 2022, although we have not been provided with any notes or reports from this visit. However, it is noted that the landlord confirmed to the resident that the property was safe, and advised that the contractor had demonstrated this during its attendance. While this was reasonable, the landlord has not provided any evidence to confirm this.
18. If the contractor was satisfied that there were no live, loose wires, the landlord was entitled to rely on that report. However, we have not been provided with any contemporaneous evidence confirming this. The landlord missed an opportunity to document specifically that the loose wires were safe. This was important given the concerns that had been raised by the resident. The Ombudsman’s 2023 “Knowledge and Information Management” Spotlight report highlights issues that can arise from record keeping failures such as this. It said, “the failings to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action.”.
19. Further concerns were raised by the resident and the landlord then arranged to visit the property on 16 November 2022, with the contractor to discuss all the issues. This visit was 33 days after the initial report. Arranging a visit was an appropriate course of action for the landlord to take to try to resolve the issues. Given that the landlord was acting on the assurance of its contractor that the wires were not live, the visit took place within a reasonable time. However, given that the rewiring works were only anticipated to take 5 days to complete, it is unclear why the landlord and/or its contractor could not attend sooner to try to progress matters.
20. The landlord accepted that some of the rewire work needed to be redone and on 22 November 2022, the resident was asked if the contractor could return the week commencing 12 December 2022. On 6 December 2022, the contractor confirmed that the resident had been in touch but the operative had been on leave so he would try to call him the next day. The resident’s comments that he tried to contact the contractor several times and was unable to get through are noted. However, there is no evidence to support this. Given that this concern had been raised to the landlord, it would have been reasonable for it to contact the contractor to establish what had happened. It is unclear why the landlord did not consider this further when investigating the resident’s complaint.
21. As the appointment date of 12 December was not confirmed, the outstanding rewire work was moved to January 2023. The frustration of this to the resident was clear, it came at a time where he was preparing to have his children stay with him for the Christmas period. However, as the December date had not been confirmed, it was reasonable of the landlord to rearrange the work accordingly.
22. The rewire work was completed on 27 January 2023. The landlord attended the property for a post-works inspection and concluded it was in an acceptable condition. The resident has stated that he highlighted the areas of concern during the inspection and he was assured that the landlord would put things right. This is not recorded on the landlord’s visit notes. There is a general property inspection report, however it does not comment on the standard of the contractor’s work. Nevertheless, it is unclear how or why the landlord concluded the property was in an acceptable condition during this attendance, when it subsequently agreed to rectify certain issues in its stage 1 response.
23. It is also noted that the landlord suggested that the resident raise this complaint directly with the contractor. While the work had been contracted out, the rewiring remained the landlord’s responsibility. As such, it remained responsible for ensuring that the work was completed satisfactorily. It was therefore unreasonable for the landlord to suggest that the resident should contact the contractor directly. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider taking this up with the contractor, and for ensuring that the works were completed to satisfaction.
24. The landlord contacted the resident on 30 March 2023, to ask him to list all the things he was not happy with. The evidence does not suggest that this was prompted by the resident and is therefore evidence of good customer service. It is noted that the resident was unwell with his mental health, and this affected him responding to the landlord in a timely manner. However, the landlord on receipt of his complaint, promptly contacted the contractor to arrange a meeting. This went ahead on 6 July 2023. There are no detailed notes of this meeting, so it is unclear what the objective of this meeting was, nor is it clear what was discussed and agreed. This is further evidence of poor record keeping from the landlord.
25. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response accepted that it would repair the double socket and the light switch. It also agreed to fix the floorboard and carpets. By the time the stage 2 response was issued, there had been another visit to the property by the contractor and the landlord. The date to complete the repairs was set at 18 August 2023 and 6 September 2023.
26. While, it was appropriate for the landlord to arrange visits, it is unclear why more progress was not made at the first visit on 6 July 2023 or why a further visit was required. Clear and accurate record keeping of visits and outcomes at visits, can greatly assist landlords to resolve issues. The outstanding issues were raised by the resident as a formal complaint on 30 May 2023, and it took the landlord approximately 3 months to arrange for the final repairs. It took almost 11 months from when the resident initial raised concerns to the proposed date of final repairs.
27. The landlord accepted that its handling of the electrical work to the switches, sockets, carpets and floorboards was not reasonable and offered the resident £200. It was appropriate that the landlord recognised the distress and inconvenience caused. However, the amount was not proportionate given the failings identified in this report. This takes into consideration that the rewire work was supposed to take 5 days, however this repair and the associated repairs that arose took almost a year to complete. The resident was caused inconvenience not only by the length of time it took but also by having to correspond with the landlord over that period for things to be put right.
28. It is ordered that the landlord should pay the resident a further £150 compensation. This amount is in addition to the amount offered by the landlord. This is to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and it is in accordance with our remedies guidance for failings which have caused an adverse impact.
29. In summary, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the standard of work and completion of the rewiring. Overall, the landlord was responsive to the resident’s concerns. However, there were delays in completing the rewiring works and the associated repairs, and there is no evidence to suggest that this delay was unavoidable.

Damage to the loft boards.

30. The resident said that during the rewire, the electrical contractor had to go into the loft to access cables. He said that he found the loft boards had been damaged and had not been put back properly. The resident advised that this was a problem because it would delay him putting his belongings back in the loft.
31. In response to the resident’s report, the landlord asked for photos and forwarded his concerns to the contractor. It appears the contractor responded to the landlord on 19 October 2022, however a copy of that email has not been provided to the Ombudsman. The landlord suggested that it attend the property with the contractor to discuss and resolve the issues. The landlord’s approach to ask for photos and arrange a visit was reasonable and proportionate.
32. The resident contacted the landlord on 9 November 2022, to say he was very upset as he had been into the loft and was “disgusted with the damage and condition” it had been left in. The landlord apologised and said that it would visit the property on 16 November 2022. This visit was 33 days after the initial report, which was a reasonable timescale. By arranging a visit, the landlord demonstrated that it was taking the resident’s concerns seriously.
33. The visit notes confirmed the loft was inspected, however there is no specific mention of the condition of the loft boards. The contractors completed the rewire work on 27 January 2023 and the landlord did a property inspection on 1 February 2023. Again, there are no specific notes about the loft boards, despite the resident stating he was unhappy with the condition of the property after the rewire was completed.
34. However, the broken boards had not been repaired. This is evident from the resident’s formal complaint. The landlord arranged a meeting with the contractor. This was appropriate and the evidence shows it was aware it had 10 days to respond to the resident’s complaint. In this case, it took 27 working days, from when the complaint was raised to the date of the visit on 6 July 2023. While this appears to be a lengthy delay, where several people are required to attend a meeting, it is accepted it may take some time to organise availability.
35. The notes of the meeting on 6 July 2023, have not been provided. It is unclear what was discussed and agreed. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to ensure that any discussion had been documented.
36. In its stage 1 response, the landlord informed the resident it does not allow residents to access the loft for health and safety reasons. It said it planned to upgrade the insulation and fit a lock hatch to prevent access. The inference here is that there was no intention to repair the boards because the landlord viewed it as an area of the property the resident was not permitted to enter or use. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is responsible for maintaining the integrity of the loft space. While it is noted that the landlord advised the resident he could not use the area, it is unclear why it did not take steps to ensure that the loft boards were repaired or secure. As its own operatives and contractors may need to access this area, the landlord should ensure that it is sufficiently safe and that the loft boards are in a good state of repair. A recommendation has been made in relation to this accordingly.
37. The landlord’s loft access restriction policy sets out that tenants are prohibited from entering or using loft spaces without prior written permission. It also states that it will maintain the integrity and safety of loft spaces during necessary repairs or inspections.
38. In relation to the resident’s concerns about using the loft space, the landlord reviewed the tenancy agreement and noted permission to use the loft had not been requested or granted. The landlord was entitled to take this position in the interest of health and safety, and this is supported by its loft access restriction policy.
39. However, this issue was raised by the resident in November 2022, where he had said he wanted to put his belongings back there. Therefore, the landlord was made aware that the resident had been accessing the loft space and using it for storage. It would have been appropriate at that stage to inform the resident of the landlord’s position on loft space use. It took the landlord 8 months to inform him of this and that was unreasonable.
40. In summary, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about damage to the loft boards. The resident had reported the boards to be broken and while the tenancy agreement did not confer a right to use the loft space, the landlord failed to communicate this and missed the opportunity to manage his expectations. Furthermore, the landlord should reasonably have taken steps to ensure the loft boards were in good repair given its overriding obligation to ensure the loft space was safe.

Temporary loss of heating and hot water

41. The resident reported that the boiler was not working on 27 January 2023. It was repaired on 8 February 2023.
42. Section 11 (1) (c) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 states that landlords must “keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling-house for space heating and heating water.” The landlord’s tenancy agreement, handbook and repairs policy both further enforce these requirements. The repairs policy sets out that emergency repairs will be responded to in 24 hours.
43. The compensation policy sets out that compensation payments will not be payable if the delay to a repair is due to availability of a non-standard part and the tenant has been informed.
44. Given the nature of this repair, it is one that fits the definition of an emergency repair.
45. The Ombudsman has not been provided with details of when the repair was attended or a copy of the inspection report. This information should reasonably have been recorded. Because it was not, it is further evidence of poor record keeping practices by the landlord. However, the landlord raised a repair order on 27 January 2023, which stated a new printed circuit board (PCB) was to be fitted. Given the date the order was raised, it appears likely that the property was inspected within 24 hours which was in accordance with the landlord’s policy.
46. The landlord has stated that the part was not immediately available and had to be ordered, which was the cause of the delay. The supporting evidence for the difficulty in sourcing the PCB has not been provided. However, it is accepted that some parts would not be readily available and would need to be ordered. This would be outside of the landlord’s control. While this was the case, it is acknowledged that this likely caused the resident distress as the boiler broke down in the winter months.
47. The landlord has said that it offered the resident temporary heaters during a telephone call that is no longer available on its system. While the landlord’s comments are noted, there is also no reference of this in its internal records. The resident in his email of 27 July 2023, disputed that he had been offered alternative heating. Given the lack of evidence, we cannot reconcile the difference here. However, the landlord should have ensured that its offer of alternative heating was clearly documented.
48. In summary, the landlord’s handling of the boiler repair was overall appropriate and there is no evidence of an undue delay. We have therefore found no maladministration in respect of this complaint. However, it is noted that the landlord failed to document whether an offer of alternative heating was made and what the resident’s response was. This failing has contributed further to our overall finding of maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

The associated complaint

49. The resident complained to the landlord on 30 May 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same day. The stage 1 complaint response was issued on 20 July 2023.
50. The landlord’s complaints policy sets out it will respond to stage 1 complaints in 10 working days. This can be extended for another 10 days for good reason. If there is an extension of more than 20 days, the landlord is to agree this with the resident. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
51. The landlord said its stage 1 response was delayed due to the availability of the contractor for a property visit. The evidence shows that the landlord updated the resident about the date of the visit on 20 June 2023. This was 13 days after the complaint was made. The landlord in its communication did not acknowledge that this was outside of the 10-day target nor did it agree an extension to respond to the complaint. There is a lack of evidence to show any discussions with the resident about a delayed complaint response.
52. On 10 July 2023, the resident chased the landlord for a response to his complaint. The landlord issued its response 35 days later. This is not in accordance with its own policy nor is it in line with the Code. The delay in arranging the visit contributed to this and may constitute a good reason for giving an extension. However, the landlord failed to ask the resident if he agreed to an extension to the response deadline. Its failure to do so, was a departure from its own policy and the Code.
53. The landlord failed to acknowledge the delay in responding, and associated inconvenience, when it issued its stage 1 response. It also failed to acknowledge this when it issued its stage 2 response. This was a missed opportunity to put things right and we have therefore found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

54. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of standard of work relating to the rewire.
55. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the damage to the loft boards.
56. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the temporary loss of hot water and heating.
57. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

58. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
59. Provide a written apology to the resident from a senior member of staff for the failings identified by this investigation, in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on making apologies.
60. Pay the resident £500 compensation caused by the identified failings which comprise of:
    1. £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the standard of work and completion of the rewire.
    2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failure to manage the resident’s expectations about the use of the loft space.
    3. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the complaint handling failures identified by this investigation.
61. This replaces the landlord’s offer of £200 made in its stage 2 response.
62. Within 56 days of the date of this determination the landlord must review the findings in this case in relation to record keeping. The review must include:
    1. Identifying the minimum standards that ought to have been recorded in its repair and communication logs, which of these standards it failed to adhere to, and why. This should include communication with, and inspections carried out by contractors.
    2. An assessment of whether there is a wider issue in relation to record keeping i.e. poor systems, or if the failings were owing to human error.
63. The landlord must provide a written report to the Ombudsman detailing its findings and any wider learning it has identified. To assist it in doing this, it may wish to consult recommendations 2, 3, 7 and 8, in our Spotlight report on ‘Knowledge and Information Management’.