Your Housing Group Limited (202403889)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202403889

Your Housing Group Limited

14 July 2025

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the repairs to the kitchen.
2. Handling of the repairs to the bathroom.
3. Response to the resident’s complaint.
4. Consideration of the resident’s vulnerabilities.
5. Record keeping.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since July 2022, when he moved into the property to live with his partner. The property is a one bedroom flat, and the landlord is a housing association.
The resident has borderline personal disorder, OCD, PTSP and depression. The resident informed this service that in June 2022, the landlord put reasonable adjustments in place after discussing his vulnerabilities with him. Throughout his complaints, the resident repeatedly informed the landlord of his needs and the impact of its actions on his mental health. In August 2024, he also sent a letter to the landlord from the NHS reiterating his conditions and the required reasonable adjustments.
Between July 2021 and November 2021, the landlord carried out repairs to the resident’s kitchen tiles and flooring. It also repaired the bathroom flooring in October 2021.
The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 2 September 2022. His complaint was about the standard of repairs carried out by the landlord in his property. He also explained that the issue adversely impacted his mental health.
The landlord repaired a kitchen electric socket in October 2022.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint on 20 October 2022, and said:
1. It inspected the property and agreed to repair the tiles. It said it would contact the resident to book the repair appointment.
2. The resident said that he was satisfied with the repairs it completed to the kitchen socket.
3. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. It offered £300 compensation to the resident to reflect the impact of its failings on him. It explained that the compensation was equivalent to £200 for inconvenience, time and trouble and £100 for the delay in resolving his complaint.
Between October 2022 and March 2023, there were high number of communications between the landlord, the resident and the contractors about the repairs to the kitchen. The landlord attended the property several times to address the issues raised. This included repairs to the worktop, the kitchen flooring, the tiles and replastering the wall where the tiles had been. The landlord rescheduled some of the repairs because of “no access” and others because it cancelled the jobs. Some appointments were recalls because the resident was unhappy with the standard of the repairs the landlord had done.
The landlord reviewed its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint on 22 March 2023, and said:
1. It inspected the property and said that the tiling had been boxed in and no longer in display. It explained that because of this, it would not renew this.
2. It reiterated that it would replace the kitchen flooring but explained that it could not schedule the repairs until it had received information from its contractors.
3. It apologised to the resident and offered an additional £100 compensation to him to reflect the inconvenience caused to him. It said that in total it offered £400 compensation to the resident during the stage 1 of his complaint process.
The landlord said it would complete the installation of the kitchen flooring on by 27 April 2023. In August 2023 the landlord contacted the resident to confirm it had completed the repairs to his satisfaction but was unable to speak to him.
In September 2023 the resident said he was unhappy with the repairs to the tiles. The landlord inspected the property and said that 9 kitchen tiles were missing and needed to be reinstated. It also said that it needed to take up the flooring and relay it. Between September 2023 and August 2024, the landlord raised repairs for the tiles, the kitchen flooring and the worktop. It then made several attempts to resolve the issues.
In October 2023 the resident reported that his bathroom flooring had “sunk”. In January 2024, and after inspecting the problem, the landlord agreed to replace it.
The resident escalated his complaint on 28 May 2024. He said he was unhappy with the standard of the repairs carried out in his kitchen. He explained that some of the kitchen tiles were missing, there were delays in repairing the worktop and the replacement of the kitchen flooring was outstanding. Additionally, he reported the replacement of the bathroom flooring was outstanding. The landlord acknowledged his complaint on 7 June 2024.
On 5 July 2024 the landlord informed the resident it needed more time to respond to his complaint and would issue its stage 2 response by 28 July 2024. It responded to the resident with its stage 2 complaint on 20 August 2024, and said:
1. The repairs to the kitchen tiles and the electrical socket:
  1. On 2 September 2022 it raised a job to repair the kitchen electrical socket and completed the repairs on 17 October 2022.
  2. It attended the property for a pre-booked repairs on 9 October 2022, but the resident was not home. On 17 October 2022 its operative noted that it needed to plaster where the tiles had been. It completed the plastering works by 20 December 2022.
  3. On 13 September 2023 its operatives reported that it needed to reinstate 9 tiles in the kitchen. It inspected the property on 10 January 2024, and noted the material needed for the repairs. It then scheduled the works for 28 February 2024. On 28 May 2024, it noted on its repairs log that it could not find tiles, which matched the resident’s tiles.
  4. It then inspected again the property on 8 July 2024 and agreed to replace the missing tiles on 19 September 2024.
2. The kitchen worktop repair:
  1. On 25 October 2022 the resident reported that he was unhappy with the repairs the landlord had completed to his kitchen worktop. It inspected the worktop on 6 December 2022 and agreed to replace it.
  2. It then inspected the property again on 8 July 2024 and agreed to replace the worktop on 19 September 2024.
3. The kitchen flooring:
  1. On 25 November 2022 the resident reported he was unhappy with the landlord’s repairs to his kitchen flooring. It inspected the issue on 6 December 2022 and agreed to install new flooring.
  2. It inspected the property again on 24 February 2023 and booked the repairs for 26 April 2023.
  3. It attended the property on 13 September 2023 and said it needed to take the flooring up and re-lay it. It said that when it attended the pre-booked repair appointment, the resident was not home.
  4. It inspected the property again on 8 July 2024 and agreed to replace the kitchen flooring by 23 August 2024.
4. The bathroom flooring:
  1. On 4 October 2023 the resident reported an issue with the bathroom flooring, which had sunk. On 22 January 2024 it inspected the issue and agreed to replace the bathroom flooring.
  2. It then inspected the property again on 8 July 2024 and agreed to replace the bathroom flooring by 23 August 2024.
5. Compensation:
  1. It offered an additional £600 compensation to the resident. It said this was equivalent to £200 for inconvenience, time and trouble caused to him, £300 to reflect the impact of its service failure and £100 for the delay in resolving his complaint.
  2. It said that in total it offered to pay £1000 compensation to the resident to reflect the impact of its failings in handling the repairs and the associated complaint. Some of the compensation offered was relating to repairs not investigated by this service.
6. It upheld the complaint apologised for its failings. It also apologised for the inconvenience and distressed caused to the resident by its poor communication and failings to notify the resident of some of the repairs appointments.
The landlord completed the repairs to the kitchen and bathroom floorings on 28 August 2024, the tiling on 19 September 2024, and the repairs to the worktop on 26 September 2024. After feedback from the resident, the landlord raised a recall repair for the bathroom flooring and completed the work on 17 October 2024.
The landlord reviewed its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint and issued its final response on 22 October 2024, and said:
1. Its contractor started the repairs to the kitchen and bathroom floorings on 23 August 2024. It acknowledged that he failed to return the following day to complete the works as agreed. They completed the repairs on 28 August 2024, but the resident said this was done to poor standard.
2. Following the resident’s feedback, it carried out a post inspection on 28 August 2024. It apologised for not pre-warning the resident about the inspection. It identified remedial repairs and requested its contractor to return and complete those.
3. It said that while it booked the repairs to the worktop on 11 September 2024, the resident said the contractor completed the repairs on 26 September 2024.
4. On 1 October 2024 its contractor attended to complete the repairs to the bathroom. However, this did not take place because the contractor had failed to notify the resident about the appointment. He then completed the repairs on 10 October 2024. After the resident reported that the sealant to the bathroom floor needed to be reapplied, the contractor returned and resealed the floor on 17 October 2024.
5. It reiterated the compensation it offered to the resident during the complaint process and offered an additional £140 compensation to him. It said this was equivalent to £100 for time and trouble and £40 towards the cost of a new toilet seat. It said that in total it offered £1140 compensation to the resident to reflect the impact of its handling of the repairs. Some of the compensation offered was relating to repairs not investigated by this service.

Events after the landlord’s internal complaint process

Between October 2024 and July 2025, the resident continued reporting issues with the repairs the landlord had completed. For example, he reported issues with the sealant around the sink, glue showing under the kitchen flooring, a leaking shower and poorly fitted kitchen sockets. The evidence shows that the landlord liaised with its operatives, contractors and the resident to resolve the repairs raised by him.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

We understand that the resident moved in the property in June 2022, to live with his partner. We also understand that the landlord carried out repairs to the property prior to the resident moving in. The resident raised a complaint about to the landlord about its handling of the repairs. While historical repairs offer context to the current complaint, this investigation will focus on events from June 2022. This is because there was no detriment to the resident prior to that date.
The resident reported that the landlord’s handling of the repairs significantly impacted on his mental health. We can consider the impact that the issues raised have had on him, and whether the landlord acted reasonably. However, we cannot conclusively assess the extent to which a landlord’s actions may have contributed to or exacerbated any physical and/or mental health issues. These are legal aspects better suited to an insurance claim or court.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s repairs policy says that it will complete routine repairs within 28 days of receiving a repair request. It reduced this timescale to 21 days when it reviewed its repairs policy in February 2023. It says it will aim to complete the repair right first time. When it cannot do this, it will aim to complete the repair in a few visits as possible and keep the resident informed throughout the process. When needed, it will carry out a pre inspection within 14 days of receiving a repair request. It may also do post inspection once it completed the works.
The landlord’s repairs policy says that it will agree repairs appointments with residents and informed them if it cannot make it. If the resident is not home for a pre-arranged repair, and it is not a health and safety issue, it will cancel the repairs. When it updated its policy in February 2023, it said that if there is no access, it will leave a card to advise the resident to book a new appointment. It will also attempt to gain access 3 times before writing to the resident explaining that it had closed the job and why.
The landlord’s vulnerability, support for customers and reasonable adjustments policy says it will collect information on resident’s vulnerabilities and/or protected characteristics at the start of and throughout the tenancy. It will then consider the information provided and agree with residents what reasonable adjustments it can make, if any, to provide them with a better quality service. It will then record the reasonable adjustments on its housing management system to enable its staff to tailor the service they deliver accordingly, where it is possible to do so.
The landlord’s customer feedback policy says that it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days and a stage 2 complaint within 20 working days. It also states that if it needs more time to respond, it will write to the resident about the delay. It also explains that if the resident raise news issues after it responded to the stage 1 complaint, and those are unrelated to the initial complaint, it will log a new complaint. The Complaint Handling Code (the Code) outlines the requirements for landlords to operate effective complaint handling. The landlord’s complaint policy is in keeping with the Code.

The repairs to the kitchen

Between September 2022 and October 2024, the resident reported several repairs to his kitchen. He reported repairs to an electrical socket, the kitchen flooring, the tiles and the worktop.
The resident acknowledged to this service that the landlord continued to try and resolve the issues, but it took a long time and significantly impacted on him. He described being housebound and how “seating there looking at the poor standard of workmanship” impacted on his OCD and caused him distress. He repeatedly informed the landlord of the impact of chasing and raising recall repairs on his mental health.
We recognise that it has been difficult for the landlord to complete the repairs to the resident’s satisfaction. The resident explained how he expects the landlord to complete repairs to good standard. While we agree with him, we also understand that the landlord has limited resources at its disposition and must use those to benefit all its residents. In this case, the landlord’s priority was that the kitchen was functional and fit for purpose. We understand that the resident repeatedly reported that the repairs completed by the landlord did not meet the standards he expected.
Our role is not to attempt to assess the standard of work, rather it is to assess whether the landlord followed its process and handled the repairs in accordance with its legal and regulatory obligations.
The landlord provided copies of its repair log and housing management records as evidence for this investigation. However, it was difficult to establish the journey of the repairs because its repair log did not record all the jobs it did, or when it completed the repairs. Instead, we had to rely on emails and records of communications to get an understanding of what happened. Even then, it was not always clear which repair the communications referred to because, for example, the landlord and the contractors used different reference number for the jobs. This made it difficult to determine whether the landlord completed the repairs within its published timeframe, whether the recall repairs were due to poor workmanship or were new repairs.
Nevertheless, the evidence shows that the landlord addressed the repairs raised by the resident and attended the property to carry out the repairs. When the resident reported he was not satisfied with the standard of the repairs, it took actions to remedy the issues. Its actions show that it was committed to resolve the issues to the resident’s satisfaction, which was reasonable.
We recognise that the landlord completed some of the repairs within its published timeframe. For example, the resident reported a repair to an electric socket in his kitchen, which the landlord repaired 16 days later. The resident then informed the landlord that he was unhappy with the repair to the electric socket because it had not “fitted it correctly and the socket was crooked”. The landlord returned 12 days later and rectified the problem. Those were reasonable actions by the landlord, it completed the repairs in keeping with its repairs policy.
The evidence shows that the landlord adequately handled some of the steps when addressing the repairs but also failed in its handling of others. For example:
1. Repairs to his worktop:
  1. On 25 October 2022, the resident reported he was unhappy with the repairs the landlord did to his worktop. The landlord inspected the problem 42 days later, this was unreasonable from the landlord and not in keeping with its repairs policy to inspect such issues within 14 days.
  2. We understand that the landlord explained in December 2022, that it needed information from another contractor before it could proceed with the worktop repair. It then booked the repair on 25 May 2024. However, it is unclear whether the repair appointment went ahead because of the landlord’s poor record keeping. This was unreasonable, the landlord should keep accurate records of all the repairs in its properties.
  3. The landlord carried out a second inspection on 8 July 2024 and agreed to repair the worktop on 19 September 2024. It noted that it had not been able to complete the repair on that day because it could not hire the required tools and instead, it completed the job on 26 September 2024. It is unclear whether it kept the resident adequately updated throughout the process, which is unreasonable. This is because it should keep accurate records of its communications with the resident about the repairs and its progress.
  4. It took 23 months for the landlord to repair the worktop, which was unreasonable and not in keeping with its repair policy timeframe to complete such repairs. The delay in resolving the matter caused inconvenience to the resident who had to raise the issues several times.
2. Repairs to the kitchen flooring:
  1. On 3 November 2022, the resident informed the landlord he was not happy with the repairs it did to his kitchen flooring. While in December 2022, it informed the resident it would replace his flooring, it did not complete the repairs until 27 April 2023.
  2. We understand that some of the delays were out of the landlord’s control. For example, in December 2022, it took several attempts from the landlord before it could book the inspection with the resident. We also understand that it was dependant on completing the repair to the cooker before it could repair to the flooring. We also recognise that it provided updates to the resident during that time. However, we did not see evidence, which explained the delay of 6 months in repairing the kitchen flooring. The delay in completing the repairs was unreasonable, and not in keeping with the landlord’s published timeframe for completing such repairs.
  3. Furthermore, in September 2023, the landlord said that it needed to relay the kitchen floor because it had not correctly prepared the floor when it previously installed it.
  4. It then made repairs appointments in September 2023 and October 2023, but the resident was not home. We recognise that between November 2023 and April 2024, it actively chased the contractor to reschedule the repairs. On 2 April 2024 it scheduled the preparation work, but then informed the resident in June 2024, that it could not install the flooring until it had levelled the floor. It did not explain why this had not been addressed prior to booking relaying the flooring. It completed the works on 28 August 2024.
  5. While we understand some of the delays were out of its control, it failed to promptly reschedule with its contractor and suitably co-ordinate the repairs. This was unreasonable and contributed to the 11 months delay in completing the recall repairs. The back and fore and rescheduling of the repairs caused inconvenience to the resident.
3. Repairs to the tiles:
  1. In September 2023 the resident informed the landlord he was unhappy with the repairs it did to the tiles. It inspected the problem 2 days later and raised a repair to replace the missing tiles.
  2. It then informed the resident that it would repair the tiles on 9 October 2023, but the resident was not home. It rescheduled the appointment on 10 January 2024 but could not complete the repairs as it needed further materials. Its lack of planning caused inconvenience to the resident and delayed the resolution of the repairs, which was unreasonable. It then booked a repair appointment on 28 February 2024, but it is unclear from the evidence provided whether it completed the repairs on that day.
  3. However, in May 2024, the landlord noted that it had not been able to find matching the tiles for the resident’s tiles, which suggests that it had not resolved the issue in February 2024. It inspected the property in July 2024 and agreed to replace the missing tiles. It completed the job on 19 September 2024.
  4. While we understand some of the delays were outside its control, a year to replace kitchen tiles was unreasonable. The landlord did not provide a reasonable explanation for the delays or shown that it had kept the resident adequately updated. Its actions were not in keeping with its repairs policy.
After considering the evidence of the case, we determine there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the repairs to the kitchen. We recognise that during the complaint process, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for its failings in its handling of the repairs. We acknowledge that the landlord actioned the resident’s repair. We also recognise that the landlord continued to try resolving the repairs to his satisfaction.
However, the evidence shows that while the landlord would promptly raise the repairs, there were delays in booking the repairs with the contractors, seeking materials and completing the repairs. Additionally, it did not show that it provided the resident with a work schedule. It would have been helpful for the landlord to do this, especially because of the resident’s vulnerabilities. Providing him with a written work schedule, the details of work, the standard to expect and the repair appointments would have provided the resident with clarity. This would have also helped the landlord in managing the resident’s expectations.
We understand that after exhausting the landlord’s complaint process, the resident continued to report his dissatisfaction with the repairs to his kitchen flooring and an electrical socket. However, we are unable to assess the landlord’s handling of the repairs after October 2024, because it has not had the opportunity to consider this itself. The evidence also shows that it is taking actions to address the repairs with the resident. Therefore, we have not made an order in relation to those repairs.
We recognise that during the complaint process, the landlord offered to pay £940 compensation to the resident to reflect the impact of its failings on him. The landlord did not provide a breakdown of its compensation offer, which would have been helpful. It said that its offer of compensation reflected the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of several repairs, some of which were not considered as part of this investigation. Therefore, we cannot determine whether the level of compensation amounts to “reasonable redress”.
In line with our remedies guidance, which are published on our website, we make an order for the landlord to pay the resident £300 in further compensation to reflect the impact of its failings on him. This also reflects the mitigating factors of the case, such as the delays which were outside of the landlord’s control, its attempts at resolving the issues, the resident’s vulnerabilities, the re-occurring impact of the recall repairs and the numerous repairs appointments on the resident. The compensation is inclusive of the landlord’s compensation offer and it should deduct any compensation it has already paid from this amount.

The repairs to the bathroom

On 4 October 2023 the resident reported to the landlord that his bathroom floor had “sunk”. It inspected the problem 3 and half months later. It did not show that it provided a reasonable explanation to the resident for the delay. This was unreasonable and not in keeping with its repairs policy.
While in January 2024, it informed the resident that it would replace his bathroom flooring, it did not show that it booked the repairs prior to 28 March 2024. It did not explain the delay of 2 months in scheduling the repairs. Additionally, we saw no evidence that it completed the repairs on that day, and in April 2024, the resident was chasing the landlord for a date to repair his bathroom flooring. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the landlord had not completed the repair in March 2024, as agreed. Those actions were unreasonable by the landlord and not in keeping with its policy.
The resident then raised the issue again in May 2024, when he raised a stage 2 complaint. The landlord inspected the property in July 2024, and repeated that it would replace the bathroom flooring. In its complaint responses to the resident’s complaint, it did not explain the delay of 2 months in inspecting the problem after the resident raised the issue again. This was unreasonable by the landlord and not in keeping with its repairs and customer feedback policies.
The landlord said it completed the repairs on 28 August 2024, this was 11 months after the resident reported the problem. Additionally, the landlord did not show that it adequately updated the resident on the progress of the repairs. This was unreasonable by the landlord, its lack of updates and timeframe for completing the repairs were not in keeping with its repairs policy.
We recognise that once the resident reported that he was dissatisfied with the repairs, the landlord promptly inspected the issue and raised a new job to remedy the problems. We also recognise that it was trying to complete the repairs to the resident’s satisfaction and preferences. For example, by using dark grout, which was the resident’s preference and not something it usually provided. Those were reasonable actions by the landlord, which showed that it was committed to complete the repairs to the resident’s satisfaction.
Overall, we determine there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the repairs to the bathroom. There were significant delays in inspecting the problems and completing the repairs.
The landlord acknowledged and apologised for its failings when it responded to the resident’s complaint. As previously mentioned, it offered to pay the resident £940 compensation to him to reflect the impact of its failings on him. However, did not provide a breakdown of the compensation, which was in relation to several repairs. Therefore, we cannot determine whether the level of compensation amounts to “reasonable redress”.
In line with our remedies guidance, which are published on our website, we order the landlord to pay the resident £100 in further compensation to reflect the impact of its failings on the resident. This also reflects the mitigating factors of the case, such as the resident’s vulnerabilities. The compensation is inclusive of the landlord’s compensation offer and it should deduct any compensation it has already paid from this amount.

Consideration of the resident’s vulnerabilities.

We have no legal power to decide whether a landlord has breached the Equality Act 2010 or the Human Rights Act 1198. However, we can decide whether a landlord has properly considered its duties and followed its own related policies and procedures.
In this case, the resident informed the landlord that it treated him differently and failed to consider his vulnerabilities and protected characteristics. He informed this service that the landlord discussed his vulnerabilities with him at the start of his tenancy, and again in August 2024. Following those discussions, it agreed to put reasonable adjustments in place. It said that it would pre-book an appointment before attending the property and cancel this in advance if it could not make it. This was reasonable. Its actions were in keeping with its reasonable adjustments policy and its statutory obligations.
We understand that between September 2022 and October 2024, there were instances whereby the landlord failed to implement the agreed reasonable adjustments. For example, in October 2024, its contractor failed to pre-book an appointment, and in August 2024, its surveyor attended unannounced. We recognise this was upsetting for the resident. However, those mistakes were few in numbers in comparison to the number of appointments which it correctly handled. Additionally, the landlord apologised to the resident for the mistakes it made and discussed the matter with the relevant teams to ensure this would not happen again. This was reasonable by the landlord.
Additionally, the landlord’s actions and internal communications showed that it took reasonable steps to ensure its staff and contractors were aware of the reasonable adjustments it had agreed with the resident. Its communications also showed that it understood the challenges the resident faced because of his mental health and was taking reasonable steps in meeting his needs and expectations.
In all circumstances of the case, we determine there was no service failure by the landlord in its consideration of the resident’s vulnerabilities. This is because it agreed reasonable adjustments with the residents. It also showed that it took reasonable steps to implement the agreed adjustments and acted when staff or contractors did not follow those. Additionally, it showed that it considered the impact of its actions on the resident’s wellbeing throughout its handling of the repairs.

Record keeping

The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management (May 2023) said that “Consistently, we find that poor knowledge and information management is a key contributing factor to why the landlord fails to provide an adequate service, particularly in the repairs service”.
In this case, the landlord provided copies of its repairs log for this investigation. However, there are gaps in its repairs logs. For example, it did not record all the jobs it did, when it completed the repairs or the actions taken by its contractors. Instead, this information was contained in emails trails between itself and its contractors. In this case, that has inevitably affected its ability to resolve the substantive repairs issues and provide evidence to this Service to assist our investigation. Its poor record keeping also made it difficult to determine whether it handled the repairs in keeping with its repairs policy and obligations.
We determine there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its record keeping.

The associated complaint

The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 2 September 2022. The landlord acknowledged his complaint 3 working days later, which was reasonable. This was also in keeping with its customers feedback policy and the Code.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint on 20 October 2022, which was 20 working days outside its published timeframe. It did not show that it contacted the resident about the delay in responding. This was unreasonable and not in keeping with its policy or the Code.
We understand that following its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint, the resident raised issues with the standard of repairs, as well as new repairs. We understand the landlord continued to try resolving the matters to the resident’s satisfaction. It also reviewed its stage 1 response in March 2023, in which it advised the resident that he could contact our service about his complaint.
However, it did not show that it discussed with the resident escalating his complaint to stage 2. It also did not show that it considered raising a new complaint about the additional repairs and dissatisfaction reported by the resident. It should have discussed those options with the resident. Its failings to do this was unreasonable and not in keeping with its policy nor the Code.
Additionally, by reviewing its stage 1 response, the landlord created an additional stage in its complaint process and prolonged the ICP. The evidence show that the resident stage 1 complaint remained open for 17 months. While we recognise the landlord was trying to do the right thing during that time, it should have closed the resident’s stage 1 complaint sooner. The landlord’s actions were not in keeping with its customer feedback policy nor the Code.
However, we saw no evidence that this delayed the resident accessing our service. This is because in March 2023, the landlord advised the resident about accessing our service and he did not contact us about his complaint prior to May 2024. Nevertheless, its actions were not in keeping with the Code.
On 28 May 2024, the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2. The landlord acknowledged his complaint within its published timeframe. On 5 July 2024, it informed the resident that it needed more time to respond to his complaint. This was reasonable and in keeping with its customer feedback policy and the Code.
The evidence shows that the landlord informed the resident it would provide its stage 2 response to his complaint by 28 July 2024. However, it responded to his complaint on 20 August 2024. This was 32 working days outside its published timeframe and 16 days after the new date it provided to respond. This was unreasonable from the landlord and not in keeping with its customer feedback policy or the Code.
After considering the evidence of the case, we determine there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. It failed to respond to the resident’s complaint in keeping with its customer feedback policy and the Code.
During the complaint process, the landlord acknowledged its delays in responding to the resident’s complaint and offered to pay £200 compensation. However, it is our opinion that its offer of compensation is too low and does not reflect the additional failings identified in this report. In keeping with our remedies guidance, which is published on our website, we order the landlord to pay an additional £75 compensation to the resident to reflect the impact on him.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the repairs to the kitchen.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the repairs to the bathroom.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its consideration of the resident’s vulnerabilities.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its record keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report, we order the landlord to:
1. To pay £1415 in compensation directly to the resident. The compensation is equivalent to:
  1. £940 compensation it offered to pay the resident during the complaint process, if it has not already paid it.
  2. £300 compensation to reflect the impact of its handling of the repairs to the kitchen.
  3. £100 to reflect the impact of its handling of the repairs to the bathroom.
  4. £75 to reflect the impact of its complaint handling on the resident.
Within 8 weeks of this report, we order the landlord to carry out a review of this case. This should include a review of its practices, especially how it records repairs and keeps oversight of repairs once reported to its appointed contractor. It is to share its findings and plans for any improvements with this service. As part of its review of the case, the landlord may also wish to consider our KIM spotlight report.

Recommendation

We recommend that the landlord review the agreed reasonable adjustments with the resident. It could consider providing a single named contact to the resident when managing his repairs. It could also consider providing the resident with a work schedule, containing the details of the repairs, standard and date of completion.