Irwell Valley Housing Association Limited (202334405)

Background

1. The resident reported that there was damp on the kitchen ceiling on 24 February 2023. The landlord attended on 29 March 2023 and found that a new extractor fan was needed. The existing fan was installed in the kitchen window, which was cracked, so a new glazing unit was also required. An inspector attended on 3 April 2023. They said they would raise the repairs for the fan and glazing unit, as well as plastering repairs

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Repairs to the kitchen.
   2. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the kitchen.
4. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

5. There were several delays and failures in completing repairs to the kitchen. There were issues with appointments, and a failure to co-ordinate repairs effectively. The landlord acknowledged some of these failings in its complaint responses, apologised and offered compensation. However, it did not acknowledge or address all its failings. We identified additional delays which the landlord failed to acknowledge or put right.
6. There was a delay in responding to the complaint at stage 1, but the landlord contacted the resident to tell her it needed more time to complete its investigation, in keeping with its policy and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

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.

What we did not investigate

7. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time of the complaint said that it would not accept complaints about issues that occurred over six months before the complaint was raised. This was in line with our guidance in our Complaint Handling Code at that time. For this reason, we will not investigate events that occurred in 2021 when the boiler was replaced. Our investigation will focus on the repair issues the resident reported from February 2023 onwards, up until repairs were completed on 4 October 2023.
8. The resident told us that she went on to have issues with paint peeling off the kitchen ceiling in March 2024, and this has recently happened again. This issue is unresolved at the time of our investigation. The landlord’s records show a clear gap between the landlord completing the mould wash, stain block and decoration to the ceiling on 4 October 2023, and the resident reporting that the paint had started to peel on 20 March 2024. It would therefore not be reasonable for us to consider these reports of the paint peeling as part of our investigation, as the landlord has not yet had the opportunity to resolve these through its complaints procedure. We have included a recommendation that the landlord should contact the resident to see if she is still experiencing issues with the kitchen ceiling, and if so arrange an inspection.
9. The resident told the landlord that she wanted compensation for loss of earnings as an outcome of her complaint. Our remedies guidance says that we will not order compensation for time off work or loss of earnings. However we may consider ordering compensation in recognition of inconvenience caused, and our order to pay additional compensation reflects this. If the resident still wished to seek further compensation for loss of earnings, then she could seek reimbursement through an insurance or liability claim.

What we did investigate

10. The landlord accepted its responsibility for repairs to the kitchen in line with its responsibilities for the structure, exterior, fixtures and fittings for electricity in the tenancy agreement and its repairs policy. The tenancy agreement sets out that the resident is responsible for interior decoration. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that if damage to decorations has been caused because of repeated failure to complete a repair, the landlord will offer a decoration voucher.
11. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that it will complete routine non-emergency repairs in 28 days. This includes extractor fans and minor repairs to kitchen units and windows. The policy sets out that the landlord will complete non-urgent and major repairs within 60 days. This includes replacing outside windows, plastering and joinery work.
12. The resident reported damp on the kitchen ceiling on 24 February 2023. Landlord operatives attended on 29 March 2023 and found that a new extractor fan was needed. The fan was fitted into a kitchen window and the glazing was cracked, so a new glazing unit was also required. It then sent an inspector to the property on 3 April 2023 who said they would raise repairs for the extractor fan, glazing and plastering works.
13. The landlord ordered a new glazing unit on 26 May 2023. It made an appointment to fit the new glazing and extractor fan on the morning of 12 June 2023 but failed to attend this. When the resident contacted the landlord, it told the resident that that glazing unit was not ready. This caused frustration for the resident, who was self employed and had taken the day off work.
14. The repair was rebooked and completed on 12 July 2023. The resident reported in her escalation that the landlord initially failed to attend on 12 July 2023, but did attend later that day after she chased it up. The resident has said she felt the landlord only attended due to her chasing it up, however we have not been able to determine this from the evidence available.
15. The landlord took 33 days to attend after the resident’s first report of damp on the kitchen ceiling, this was outside of its 28 day timescale for routine repairs. The operatives who attended said that a new extractor fan and glazing unit were required, but it did not order the glazing unit until 58 days after attending. As a result, the glazing unit and extractor fan were not installed until 105 days after the landlord attended the property. This was significantly longer than the 60 day timescale set out in its policy for non-urgent repairs. Had the glazing unit been ordered sooner, the landlord may have been able to complete the repair within the timescale set out in its policy.
16. The landlord visited the resident on 12 July 2023 to discuss her complaint. It apologised in its stage 1 response for cancelling the appointment on 12 July 2023, and offered £25 compensation. It agreed a schedule of repairs, including an inspection of the flat roof above the resident’s kitchen. This inspection took place on 23 August 2023 and concluded that no repairs were required to the roof. It is positive that the landlord inspected the roof to make sure it was correctly diagnosing the cause of the damp. This showed it was trying to provide a lasting resolution to the issue.
17. The landlord also agreed in its stage 1 response to redecorate the kitchen after the plastering was completed, offering to paint the ceiling white and paint the walls in the colour of the resident’s choice. This was over and above its obligations set out in its repairs policy, which was only to supply a decorating voucher.
18. The landlord raised a repair for plastering on 4 April 2023, the day after the inspector attended. It booked an appointment for 22 August 2023, but this was cancelled by the resident as it was not convenient. This was rebooked and completed on 19 September 2023. The additional delay due to the resident being unavailable was outside of the landlord’s control. However, the proposed appointment of 22 August 2023 was 141 days after the inspector first told the resident it would arrange the plastering work. This was significantly longer than the 60 day timescale set out in its policy for non-urgent repairs.
19. The landlord gave an update on repairs in its stage 2 response, including repairs to plastering, mould wash and stain block, and decorating. It acknowledged that as well as not attending the appointment on 12 June 2023, it had failed to notify the resident of this in advance. It apologised and offered a further £20 compensation for this. The landlord also said it could not reimburse the resident for loss of earnings without proof but offered a goodwill gesture of £100. This meant its total compensation offer was £145, including the £20 offered at stage 1.
20. It was positive that the landlord recognised and put right its failings around the 12 June 2023 appointment. However, the landlord failed to recognise its other failures in its handling of repairs to the kitchen. It failed to recognise the delay in ordering the glazing, which was a significant factor in the delay in completing the repair to the extractor fan and glazing. It also failed to recognise the delay in offering an appointment for the plastering repair.
21. The landlord attended the resident’s property on 11 September 2023 to complete the decorating. The plastering had not yet been completed, due to the resident rearranging the appointment for this, so it could not proceed with the decorating. As the decorating work was linked to the plastering being completed it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have ensured it rescheduled this for after the rearranged plastering. Its failure to do this indicates a lack of oversight and co-ordination of the repairs.
22. The resident told the operative who attended that they would need to come back once the landlord had completed the plastering. She raised concerns with the landlord afterwards about the operative’s behaviour. She said that the operative had tried to gain access to her property to see for himself that the plastering had not been done, which the resident felt was unnecessary and overly intrusive.
23. The landlord dealt with this report well. A director apologised to the resident and said it would send a different operative back to complete the decorating once the plastering was completed. This was an appropriate resolution to address the resident’s concerns. However, the same operative was sent back to the resident’s property to complete the decorating on 26 September 2023. The resident contacted the landlord again to raise her concerns. Positively, the landlord’s director contacted the resident directly on 3 October 2023 and apologised. It sent a different operative who completed the decorating on 4 October 2023, including applying a mould wash and stain block.
24. Although the resident’s complaint had already completed the landlord’s complaints procedure, it offered a further £100 compensation for its handling of the decorating appointments on 11 September and 26 September 2023. It paid this to the resident in addition to the £145 compensation offered in its final response. It is positive that after the complaints procedure was finished, the landlord still took responsibility for further failings and sought to put them right.
25. In summary, there were several delays and failures in completing repairs to the kitchen. The landlord acknowledged some of these, apologised and offered compensation. Its compensation offer of £145 at stage 2 was in line with its compensation policy for failings with a minor to moderate impact on the resident. However, the landlord did not acknowledge or address all of its failings in the complaint. Due to this we make a finding of service failure.
26. Our remedies guidance suggests payments of between £50 to £100 where we identify minor failures by the landlord in the service it provided and it did not appropriately acknowledge these and fully put them right. We identified significant delays in ordering the glazing unit, as well as completing the plastering repair. We have therefore ordered the landlord to apologise and pay a further £100 compensation to the resident to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of repairs to the kitchen. This is in addition to the £145 it already offered at stage 2, and the £100 it offered on 3 October 2023 for its handling of the 2 decorating appointments.

27. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time of this complaint said that it would:
    1. Acknowledge stage 1 and 2 complaints within 5 working days.
    2. Respond at stage 1 within 10 working days of the acknowledgement and at stage 2 within 20 working days of the acknowledgement.
    3. Request an extension to provide responses where needed. This would not exceed a further 10 working days at either stage.

The policy was in line with the Code at that time.

28. There were some delays in the landlord responding to the complaint. It acknowledged the initial complaint after 8 working days and issued its stage 1 response after a further 19 working days. The landlord told us it had struggled to contact the resident by telephone to discuss the complaint. In any event, it did contact the resident within 10 working days of its acknowledgement to tell her it needed more time to complete its investigation, in line with its policy and the Code. It responded at stage 2 within the timescales set out in its policy.
29. There is no evidence that the delays in responding to the stage 1 complaint negatively affected the resident. Therefore we make a finding of no maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of the complaint.