Your Housing Group Limited (202342002)

Background

The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response to long-standing reports of repair issues in his home. He told the landlord he had mental health issues which were being impacted by its response to the repairs.                                         

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. the resident’s reports of repair issues in the property
   2. the associated complaint

Our decision (determination)

3. We found the landlord responsible for:
   1. maladministration in its handling of the resident’s reports of repair issues in the property
   2. maladministration in its complaint handling

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repair issues in the property

4. The landlord was slow to resolve repair issues raised by the resident. It offered reasonable compensation in recognition of this delay. However, there were further delays following the complaint process. It was unclear about if he could claim for damages through its insurance. It failed to consider the impact of the issue on his vulnerabilities.

The complaint handling

5. The landlord missed deadlines in its acknowledgment and responses to the complaint. It failed to provide explanations for the delays in the process. Its communication was inconsistent.

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.

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.

6. The resident had raised reports of repair problems with his floor and front door since 2022. We looked at these reports for context, but our investigation focuses on February 2024 onwards, when he raised his formal complaint. We have not considered the landlord’s handling of historical events due to the lapse of this time.
7. The landlord spoke to the resident following his initial complaint to gather more information about the outstanding repair issues. It recorded ongoing problems with the door, plasterboard, skirting board, and flooring. It was positive that it took steps to speak directly to the resident when he made his complaint, interacting with him to shape its service delivery as its Repairs Policy says it will. It used this information to raise works to resolve the issues, in line with its policy aim to provide an efficient and prompt service.
8. The landlord’s stage 1 response acknowledged that the repair issues had been outstanding for a long period and set out a timeline of the steps it had taken to try and resolve them. It apologised for the amount of time it had taken for it to resolve the issues, which was appropriate. It recognised that the delay was a failure of its service standards which warranted an apology, as set out in its Compensation Policy.
9. In his stage 2 escalation, the resident said the landlord had failed to put things right despite promising to do so. He also said he had been inconvenienced when it missed its scheduled appointments. In its stage 2 response, the landlord detailed the appointments that had been missed or rescheduled, apologising where it was at fault. It set out targets for completion of various repairs which was appropriate and showed it aimed to keep the customer updated on timescales in line with its Repairs Policy.
10. However, following the stage 2 response there were further delays in the completion of works. Appointments to replace the skirting boards were delayed as its contractor had not ordered the relevant materials. This was an avoidable cause of delay. The landlord apologised and rescheduled the appointment which was positive. However, this was after the resident had been impacted by having to wait in for a contractor who could not complete the works as agreed. The landlord logged all repairs as resolved by 18 September 2024. Overall, it took significantly more time to resolve the issue than the 28 days its Responsible Repairs Policy allows. The resident said the work could not be considered complete as his flooring still had not been paid for.
11. The total compensation of £1,100 offered by the landlord during the complaint process was appropriate and reflected the level of inconvenience, time and trouble faced as a result of delays completing the work following his complaint in February 2024. While the landlord has shown it acknowledged the impact the delays had on the resident, additional compensation has been ordered which includes an amount for the delays that followed the complaints procedure.
12. However, there were other failings the landlord failed to acknowledge in its responses. In its stage 1 response, it acknowledged that the resident had said he was unable to make a claim for damage to the flooring through his contents insurance. This was because of the amount of time that had passed. It told him it would be able to submit a claim through its own Insurance Team and that it would be in touch with information of how to do so.
13. However, the landlord changed its position in its stage 2 response. It insisted that the resident would have to claim through his contents insurance and that it was not responsible for replacing the floor. Though this was in line with its Repair Policy which says residents must obtain contents insurance cover for fixed floor coverings, its approach was inconsistent and contributed to his distress.
14. The landlord’s Insurance Team Process says it is for the Insurance Team to decide whether there has been potential negligence before sending out claim forms. However, it had already told the resident he would be able to make a claim before changing its response. This contributed to his distress, giving an unclear picture of what his options were, having unreasonably raised his expectations to begin with. We have ordered it to provide him with the claim forms so he has the opportunity for his case to be properly considered.
15. The resident told the landlord he was disabled on 20 March 2024 which it acknowledged in internal emails. In its Vulnerability, Support for Customers and Reasonable Adjustments policy it says a resident’s vulnerabilities should be taken into account when delivering its services. There is no evidence that it considered ways it could adapt it service or offer support to the resident once it had recorded his vulnerability. This was not appropriate. He faced further distress as it did not show it was listening to his concerns by considering ways it could support him with the impact of the repairs on his mental health.

16. The landlord’s complaints policy is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”).
17. As can be seen from above:
    1. the landlord responded at stage 1 within 8 working days (9 March 2024 to 21 March 2024) which was in line with the 10 working days the Code allows
    2. the landlord responded at stage 2 within 49 working days (25 April 2024 to 5 July 2024) which was not in line with the 20 working days the Code allows
18. There was a delay between the resident raising his complaint and the landlord acknowledging it. Its Customer Feedback Policy says complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days, but its acknowledgment was not sent until 13 days later. It did not offer an explanation for this delay, which was not appropriate. Given he complained using its online form and its records logged his actual complaint date, it should have apologised for the unnecessary delay and provided an explanation.
19. The landlord also gave no explanation for the significant delay in providing its stage 2 response. Evidence shows that it was aware it was at risk of missing its response deadline but it didn’t update the resident of this. Its Customer Feedback Policy says it will advise residents in writing if it is expecting to miss a response deadline and will not run over by more than 10 additional working days.
20. The resident emailed the landlord asking for an update on the complaint on 6 June 2024 but received no response. This did not show an intention to resolve the complaint efficiently or build trust with the resident as its Customer Feedback Policy says it will.
21. The landlord’s investigation found failures in communication and it apologised for the inconvenience they caused. It was not appropriate that it didn’t reflect on its further failings of communication in its complaint handling and the additional distress it caused the resident who had to chase it for a response. Compensation has been ordered to reflect the impact of its poor complaint handling.

Learning

22. The landlord reflected well on the repair issue and acknowledged where it had failed to provide a quality service. It missed opportunities to improve the resident’s experience by considering the consistency of its messaging and his vulnerabilities. It could explore how the process may have differed if it had taken steps to offer him more support in these areas.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

23. The landlord identified the resident’s vulnerabilities in its internal emails but there was no evidence that it did anything with this information. It could consider whether its process around recording vulnerabilities is robust enough.

Communication

24. The landlord reflected appropriately on its communication failures during the repair work and compensated for them. It could consider reviewing its complaints handling process to establish a regular schedule of communication with complainants so they are informed if timeframes may be missed.