Teign Housing (202412074)

Background

1. The resident’s has been a tenant of the landlord since 2004. The property is a two-bedroom flat which is in a block on the second floor. The landlord has mental and physical vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about:
   1. The windows.
   2. The walls
3. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that:
   1. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the windows.
   2. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the walls.
   3. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord’s communication fell short following the first survey of the windows. It acknowledged its shortfall within its stage 2 complaint response and put matters right.
6. The landlord took appropriate steps to complete the recommended works to resolve the issues with the walls.
7. The landlord complied with its complaint policy. It sought to put matters right and did what it said it would do.

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 tenancy agreement sets out that the landlord is responsible for repairing the structure and outside of the property. This includes the roof, walls, window seals and frames. The landlord’s repair policy states it will attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours. It will aim to complete all other repairs on an appointment basis at a time and date to suit the resident.
9. The resident raised concerns about drafts, gaps in his windows and on 1 occasion not being unable to open a window. The various concerns were raised twice in 2019 and on 3 occasions in 2020. The landlord appropriately responded each time within its timescales. The records state the jobs were completed but not all the records provide details of what works were completed. The lack of detail would hinder the landlord’s ability to keep track of its own actions which is a shortcoming in its record keeping.
10. There are no further records showing reports concerning the windows until the resident raised his stage 1 complaint in February 2024. The resident’s concern was the noise coming through the windows. The landlord appropriately responded to this report by visiting the property to complete an inspection. The resident did not hear from the landlord following the survey, so he asked for his complaint to be responded to formally. The landlord apologised for its lack of communication following the survey in its stage 1 complaint response. It provided a learning outcome, in particular the need for a point of contact for the resident. This showed that it had listened to the resident and was trying to put matters right.
11. We have not seen the survey of the windows. The landlord’s records do show that the landlord was having weekly meetings about the various repair issues. It is unclear how the landlord communicated with the resident specifically about the windows between the stage 1 and 2 complaint response. The landlord did however set out the next steps within its stage 2 complaint response which was appropriate.
12. The landlord’s specialist contractor completed a further survey of the windows in June 2024. Scaffolding was required and the windows needed to be made and fitted by a specialist contractor. The windows were replaced on 6 August 2024.
13. In summary the landlord’s earlier records could have provided more detail. Its communication with the resident then fell short following the first survey. It acknowledged this within its complaint response and sought to learn from its mistake. Once it had concluded that a full window replacement was required it took the appropriate action, and it continued to keep the resident updated. The windows were fully replaced within 6 months of the resident’s initial complaint. We have not found any maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the windows.

14. The resident’s concerns were that the walls were not level, there was a large crack along the internal wall, and there were wet patches on some of the walls when it rained. There are no records showing that the resident had raised his concerns about the walls prior to him raising his stage 1 complaint.
15. The landlord appropriately completed an inspection in response. It set out its finding from that in its stage 1 complaint response. It also explained that a structural engineer was required to assess the structure of the property. Its response was appropriate in the circumstances and showed that the landlord was trying to find a solution.
16. A structural engineer attended the property on 25 April 2024. The landlord set out its findings within its stage 2 complaint response together with details of what works it would be completing which was appropriate. The resident queried the lack of information about the damp spots following the stage 2 complaint response. The landlord explained that it was its intention to inspect the roof. It explained that if the problem persisted after the works, it would send a surveyor out to visit again. This was also appropriate.
17. The landlord continued to have weekly meetings about the works. The records also show that the landlord continued to visit and provide the resident with updates. It did what it said it would do and completed works to the roof and the external part of the building.
18. The resident was unhappy that the landlord wanted to hack the plaster off of the internal walls and it is unclear what happened following this. The resident said that he is still experiencing issues with cracks and wet spots on the walls. We have therefore made a recommendation that the landlord contact the resident to discuss his concerns and set out its next steps to the resident, if it has not done so already.

19. The landlord’s complaint policy says the landlord can provide an informal resolution to dissatisfaction by agreeing a plan of action to address the resident’s concerns. It is an informal part of the complaint process where it can try to make things right now. In response to the resident’s initial request for a complaint the landlord offered this. It offered to visit the property and complete a survey, which it did. The resident remained dissatisfied and requested a formal stage 1 complaint which the landlord responded to within 9 working days. This was in accordance with the timescales set out in its policy.
20. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response within 24 days of its acknowledgement. This was slightly outside of its own policy timescale of 20 working days. The landlord was however in regular contact with the resident during this period to keep him updated. This was appropriate.
21. The landlord clearly set out its position within its complaint responses. It set out the next steps and did what it said it would do. It also identified a shortcoming and showed learning which was appropriate.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

22. The landlord’s record keeping must remain consistent and comprehensive. The landlord should recognise that even minor gaps can affect the clarity of case handling and evidence of service delivery.

Communication

23. The landlord communicated well with the resident, keeping him updated, visiting as needed, and responding to his enquiries.