ForHousing Limited (202513152)

Background

1. The resident is unhappy with the landlord’s handling of repairs since she moved into the property in April 2024. She says that it has carried out several failed repairs and issues remain outstanding. She also says the landlord was not open about previous flooding at the property when she viewed it.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of:
   1. repairs
   2. the resident’s concerns about flooding at the property
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found:
   1. reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of repairs
   2. service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about flooding at the property
   3. maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling

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

Summary of reasons

Repairs

5. There were failings by the landlord in its handling of repairs. However, it recognised these during its internal complaints and offered reasonable redress to put things right.

Flooding concerns

6. We have seen no evidence the landlord misled the resident about previous flooding at the property. However, it failed to respond to her concerns about this at either stage of her complaint.

Complaint handling

7. The landlord failed to handle the complaint in line with its complaints 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.

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.

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 landlord has provided a copy of its void inspection, carried out on 24 April 2024. This showed that it had completed works, including to the patio doors, and that the property met its void standard.
9. The resident raised the following repairs issues:
   1. on 6 May 2024 she raised a problem with the patio doors, which the landlord completed on 17 May 2024
   2. on 14 May 2024 she reported a blocked basin, which the landlord resolved on 16 May 2024
   3. on 17 May 2024 she raised a problem with a loose window handle – the landlord attended the next day but could not gain access
   4. on 22 May 2024 she told the landlord the gas cooker pipe was too long – the landlord attended the same day and could not gain access
   5. on 22 May 2024 she reported the loose window handle again and this was repaired the same day
   6. on 7 June 2024 she reported that the kitchen sink waste was blocked – the landlord was unable to gain access that day and on 11 June 2024, and completed repairs on 12 June 2024
   7. on 12 June 2024 she reported a hole in a sink which the landlord repaired the same day
   8. on 24 June 2024 she reported issues with the drainage of the bathroom and kitchen sinks, which the landlord repaired the following day
   9. on 25 June 2024 she reported that the external door was damaged and not secure, which the landlord repaired the same day
   10. on 3 July 2024 the landlord raised a job to replace the bathroom floor, which it did on 22 August 2024
   11. on 5 July 2024 she told the landlord the basin the bathroom was cracked and it repaired this on 19 August 2024
   12. on 11 July 2024 the landlord raised a job to carry out work the patio and drains which it completed on 19 August 2024
   13. on 16 July 2024 the resident reported that a basin tap was loose – the landlord repaired this the same day and completed follow-up tiling work on 22 August 2024
   14. on 9 August 2024 she again reported the issue with the gas pipe to the cooker and the landlord repaired this on 19 August 2024
   15. on 9 September 2024 the landlord raised a job to replace drains in the garden, which it completed on 21 October 2024
10. We appreciate that the resident had to report an extensive list of repairs over a fairly short period of time and it must have caused her some inconvenience to deal with this. However, the landlord’s voids check does not show any outstanding issues so there is no evidence these issues should have been foreseeable for the landlord.
11. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours, urgent repairs within 3 working days and routine repairs within 30 working days. As can be seen from above, it carried out the reported repairs within these timescales, with the exception of where it was unable to gain access.
12. In its stage 1 response of 12 September 2024 the landlord recognised that it had not carried out repairs to a reasonable standard and had caused damage. It also said that there had been delays, despite its records not showing this. It offered compensation of £650, which was reasonable given its repairs records. It also asked the resident to provide information about her flooring, which its contractors had damaged, so it could replace this, which was fair. It said that it had made appointments to put things right.
13. The landlord raised a new job on 5 November 2024 to fix the gas pipe to the cooker, which it completed on 13 November 2024. It had failed to pick this up as outstanding at stage 1 and took too long to raise a new job for this but once raised it completed it within a reasonable timeframe.
14. On 12 November 2024 the landlord raised additional work orders for work to kitchen units, a windowsill and the bath panel. In its stage 2 response of 27 November 2024, it said it would be carrying out these works on 3 December 2024. It apologised that it had not rearranged the repair of the gas pipe following a missed appointment. It said that it had found an issue with the patio door that it had previously missed and would provide an appointment for that in due course.
15. The landlord offered the resident additional compensation of £500, bringing its total offer of compensation to £1,150. At this time, this amount was in line with its compensation policy and reasonable to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused.
16. The landlord installed a new bath panel on 3 December 2024 as promised in its stage 2. It attended to do work to the kitchen units the same day and completed these the following day. It completed further repairs to the patio door on 10 January 2025. It did not complete work to the windowsill until 27 January 2025. However, we have seen no evidence this delay had a significant impact on the resident or that she had to chase this up with the landlord.
17. Since the landlord sent its stage 2 response the resident has raised further issues with the rear patio door, as well as some new repairs issues. We appreciate the resident has had to raise this issue with the patio door several times. However, she did not raise further problems with the door until more than 5 months after the landlord’s stage 2 response, so we cannot say that it failed to address this during its complaints process. If the resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s handling of issues with the patio door since the repair in January 2025, and any new repairs, she can raise this with it directly to allow it to investigate these.
18. While there were some delays in the landlord fully completed repairs, mainly due to poor workmanship, the landlord has recognised and apologised for these during its internal complaints process. Its total compensation offer of £1,150 fairly recognised the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings.

19. The resident contacted the landlord on 9 July 2024 to say that the property had flooded that evening and ruined her flooring. She told it she was struggling to secure insurance due to a history of flooding in the area. In her complaint, made on 1 August 2024, she said she before moving in that the property the landlord had told her it had not flooded, despite the area experiencing flooding. She said a neighbour had since told her that both her and their properties had flood in the past.
20. During August and September 2024, the landlord carried out works to the drains in the garden. However, the repair records indicate this was related to sinks in the property backing up, rather than flooding. In its stage 1 response of 12 September 2024 the landlord does not mention the flooding or say that the drain works were anything to do with this. Its response did not address the resident’s concern about flooding, which was not appropriate.
21. The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint on 16 September 2024 as she felt it had not addressed all her issues. In its stage 2 response it noted that she was unhappy with unresolved issues, including repeated flooding. However, the landlord again did not address this issue, which was not appropriate.
22. As we were not present at the resident’s viewing of the property, we cannot verify what the resident may have asked about flooding, or what the landlord’s response was. So, we cannot determine that the landlord misled the resident during that meeting. However, the landlord had multiple opportunities to clarify with the resident whether there had been any previous flooding at the property, and if so, provide details of any incidents. This would have allowed her to declare this to potential insurers. It was not reasonable that the landlord failed to address this issue at both stages of the complaint.
23. We have made an order for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to confirm whether the property had any history of flooding. We have made this award with its compensation policy in mind.

24. As can be seen from above:
    1. the landlord sent its stage 1 response 30 working days after the resident raised the complaint (1 August to 12 September 2024) – outside its complaints policy timescale of 10 working days
    2. it sent its stage 2 response 52 working days after the resident requested escalation (16 September to 27 November 2024) – outside its policy timescale of 20 working days
25. The landlord failed to send either of its responses in line with its policy timescales. We have also seen no evidence that it acknowledged the initial complaint or the escalation, or that it provided any updates to the resident when it was unable to meet its policy timescales.
26. We have made an order for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures. We have made this award with its compensation policy in mind.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping) and communication

27. The landlord’s records do not show it communicated clearly with the resident about appointments it had booked, or that it tried to rebook appointments where it was unable to gain access. This meant it was unable to demonstrate that it had communicated clearly with the resident throughout repairs, likely leading to additional frustration for her. It should ensure it clearly communicates appointments to residents and keeps a record of its communications to enable it to keep track of repairs.