MHS Homes Ltd (202440779)

Background

1. The resident reported a roof leak to the landlord on 2 November 2023. The landlord inspected the resident’s property on the same day and noted that works were needed to fix the leak.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the way the landlord handled reports of a roof leak and the associated repairs.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found service failure in the way the landlord handled reports of a roof leak and the associated repairs.
5. We have found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
6. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

7. The landlord identified failings in the way it handled the repairs to the resident’s roof, including delays to the repair and in its communication. It looked to put this right in its complaint responses. However, it did not complete the related internal works to fix the damage caused by the leak within its timescales.
8. The landlord handled the resident’s complaint in line with its complaint 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.

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.

9. The resident complained to the landlord about the time it had taken to fix the leak and about poor communication. At the time of the complaint, the landlord’s responsive repairs policy did not set timescales for repairs. However, under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord should carry out a repair within a reasonable timeframe. Its current repairs policy says a planned or major repair should take 60 days. The repair took approximately 8 months to complete. This was not a reasonable timeframe.
10. In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged the repair had taken too long to complete. It apologised and offered the resident compensation. It committed to completing the repairs by a certain date. This was an appropriate response from the landlord.
11. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said it would complete the internal repairs once it had completed the external work. The landlord assessed what repairs were necessary on 22 August 2024. It then began the internal repairs on 3 October 2024 and completed them on 6 December 2024.
12. The landlord’s current repairs policy says a standard repair should take 20 working days. The internal works began 30 working days from the landlord’s inspection, which was 10 working days over the landlord’s policy. It then took a further 46 working days to complete the repairs. This means it took a total of 76 working days to complete the internal works. This timeframe was not reasonable and not consistent with the landlord’s policy.
13. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will provide a reliable and accessible service. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said it needed to “ensure a speedy response and communication of roof issues” for residents. In its stage 2 response, the landlord accepted that its communication had been poor. It acknowledged it had not replied to all of the resident’s communications or kept her updated. It offered the resident compensation and described what it had learned from her complaint. While the landlord’s communication was not reasonable, it recognised this and took appropriate steps address it.
14. The landlord should have communicated more effectively with the resident, including explaining the reason for the delays. If it had done this, it may have lessened the distress and inconvenience felt by the resident. There is no evidence the landlord explained all the reasons for the delay. For instance, the roof design made the repair more complex because of how the tiles were installed. There is no evidence the landlord ever explained this to the resident. There is also no evidence that it addressed the resident’s repeat query of why it did not investigate whether the temporary repair was working or not. The landlord was correct in identifying that it needs to improve its communication practices with residents.
15. The landlord did identify and acknowledge its failings in its complaint responses. It looked to put things right with the resident and awarded her £600 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for maladministration. If the landlord had completed the internal repairs within a reasonable timeframe, then we would have found reasonable redress for this matter. However, the delay to the internal works was not reasonable. Consequently, we find service failure in the landlord’s handling of this matter.
16. The amount of time taken to complete both the external and internal works caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. This was increased by the lack of communication from the landlord. After the stage 2, the resident was still chasing the landlord for updates. Considering this, and the delay in the internal repairs, it would be reasonable for the landlord to pay an additional £100 compensation to the resident. The landlord should also apologise for the extra delay in completing the internal works.
17. As an outcome, the resident has expressed a desire for the landlord’s communication practices to improve. In the landlord’s complaint responses, it says it will be looking at how it communicates with residents waiting on a repair to avoid them chasing up. The landlord should write to the resident with what the result of this review was. If the landlord has not yet undertaken the review, then it should do so. The landlord should consider utilising our centre for learning when doing so.

18. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge complaints in 5 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy says a resident should receive a formal response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. It gives the landlord the opportunity to extend the timeframe for response by 10 workings days.
19. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaints in an appropriate timeframe. It sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident within its timescales. The landlord communicated with the resident appropriately about extending the timeframe for its stage 2 complaint response. It sent its complaint response 32 working days from when the complaint was escalated. The landlord’s policy says an extended complaint should be responded to in 30 working days. The landlord did not follow its policy here.
20. The landlord extended the timeframe for its complaint response and then did not meet that deadline. It did not acknowledge this in its complaint response. This shows further poor communication from the landlord. Without acknowledging the delay, the landlord cannot demonstrate that it followed our dispute resolution principles. In this situation, the relevant principles are learning from outcomes and putting things right. Consequently, we find service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. Considering our remedies guidance, and the minor impact of the delay on the resident, we believe an appropriate level of compensation would be £25. The landlord should also apologise to the resident.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

21. The landlord’s records were detailed and showed good practice. Generally they captured the full repair journey, including notes explaining why repairs were cancelled or delayed. This level of detail supports transparency and is a positive from the landlord. However, the landlord did not have a record of when it repaired the roof. If a contractor carries out a repair, the landlord should ensure it records this appropriately.

Communication

22. We have noted in the above and the landlord has acknowledged that the level of communication was not appropriate. The landlord should ensure it engages with resident’s and has robust internal policies and procedures in place for dealing with enquiries and requests for updates. We have made orders accordingly.