GreenSquareAccord Limited (202329267)

Background

1. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s delay in repairing damage to her driveway. She said communication had been poor and wanted the repairs completed.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. the resident’s reports of repair issues with her driveway
   2. the associated complaint

Our decision (determination)

3. We found the landlord responsible for:
   1. reasonable redress in its handling of the resident’s reports of repair issues with her driveway
   2. reasonable redress in its complaint handling

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repair issues with her driveway

4. The landlord unnecessarily delayed in its handling of the driveway repairs. It communicated poorly throughout the process. It acknowledged it failings and offered an appropriate level of compensation as a result. It offered to investigate new concerns after the complaints procedure had finished.

The landlord’s complaint handling

5. The landlord missed its complaint handling timeframes at the start of the process but improved its service as it progressed. It compensated appropriately for its failings.

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.

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 have not looked at

6. The resident raised an issue regarding freedom of information requests at stage 2 of her complaint. This had not been mentioned in the original complaint. The landlord investigated and responded to the issue. However, the resident did not ask us to investigate this aspect of the complaint. This investigation has focussed on and assessed the circumstances of the outstanding issues.

What we have looked at

7. The landlord logged the resident’s reports of issues with her driveway on 17 May 2023 but gave no acknowledgment. It is unclear what action it took when it received this report, if any. When she raised her formal complaint on 30 June 2023, the resident said her reports about the driveway had not been answered.
8. It was unreasonable that the resident had made reports of repair issues but the landlord took no action. It did not show that it had sufficient oversight of the report as it had to be prompted by a formal complaint before it acknowledged the issue. Even with the complaint, it still took the landlord until 13 July 2023 before it acknowledged both the report and subsequent complaint, 40 days after the initial report. This put the resident to unnecessary time and trouble as she had to pursue it for an update on her report.
9. In the landlord’s stage 1 response on 26 September 2023, it said following its inspection on 11 September 2023 it had asked its tree surveyor to visit and inspect the potential impact of tree roots on the driveway. It said this would take place no later than 10 October 2023. It was appropriate that it acknowledged the delays the resident had already faced and was trying to offer reassurance that her report was being addressed.
10. However, evidence shows that while a tree surveyor visited the property as the landlord had promised, there were substantial delays in any follow up actions being organised. The landlord called the resident on 12 January 2024 to explain that it had scheduled an appointment for its Tree Manager to assess the driveway on 5 February 2024. This was to see if repairs could be completed without removing the trees. She expressed frustration that it had taken so long to organise this but it gave no clear explanation for the delay. It missed an opportunity to explain the delays and offer reassurance that it was taking the issue seriously.
11. The landlord noted internally that it told the resident on 7 February 2024 that it had scheduled the start of the repair works for 13 February 2024. She escalated her complaint on 12 February 2024. She was frustrated that she had been given little notice of works, explaining that the tree removal work took place with a days notice and driveway repairs were given a week’s notice. She said this was highly disruptive as she worked nights and had requested as much notice as possible. While it was appropriate that the landlord wanted to complete the works as soon as possible, it could have discussed the feasibility of the dates it was suggesting to see if it could avoid her being unnecessarily impacted.
12. In its Responsive Repairs Policy, the landlord says it will respond to reports of routine works within 28 days and planned works within 84 days. It logged the repair works as completed on 21 February 2024, 196 days after the resident’s initial report of repair issues. This showed ongoing poor oversight of the repair issue as it substantially missed its policy timelines. In its stage 2 response on 7 March 2024, it apologised for the frustration caused by the significant delays. It acknowledged it had failed to contact her to explain the cause of delay or provide her with timescales for the works. It showed it was trying to take learning from the process.
13. Throughout the complaint, the resident repeatedly referred to the poor communication she had received from the landlord. In her escalation on 12 February 2024, she specified that 30 to 40 of her calls had gone unanswered by the landlord and she reported she had been told by its staff that there was no point in calling as no-one was responding. During the complaints process, the landlord also logged ongoing issues with its communication. For example, an internal email on 16 January 2024 said she was chasing ‘quite often’ and that further delays in its communication would result in higher levels of compensation being awarded.
14. In its Complaints Procedure, the landlord says it can be beneficial or necessary to maintain regular contact with the complainant to discuss the complaint in more detail and keep them updated. It notes this can help offer further reassurance the complaint is being dealt with. It failed to demonstrate that it had a plan for communicating with the resident or understood the importance of keeping her regularly updated on the progress of the repair.
15. The landlord acknowledged communication failings in its complaint responses and apologised for the distress, time and trouble it caused. However, its only commitment was to give feed back to its staff on the poor service the resident received. This did not go far enough, particularly given it identified its poor communication as one of the main reasons its repairs were delayed. She faced ongoing time and trouble chasing it for responses over the course of 9 months and significant distress as she believed her calls would not be responded to.
16. The landlord told the resident in its stage 3 response on 10 April 2024 that it would investigate her reports of inappropriate comments from its staff if she provided it with information about the call and when it took place. We have recommended that it follows through with an investigation into the poor communication and reported comments by its staff during the complaints process if it has not already done so.
17. In its stage 2 response on 7 March 2024, the landlord summarised its total offer of compensation across the whole complaint process. It offered the resident a total of £400 for issues related to the repair of the driveway made up as follows:
    1. £100 for delays in its response to her reports of driveway repairs
    2. £100 for poor communication
    3. £200 for distress and inconvenience the resident faced
18. The compensation offered did not adequately reflect the level of inconvenience the resident experienced during the complaint process. She faced ongoing time, trouble, distress and inconvenience from repeated poor communication and substantial delays in the repairs process for an extended period.
19. The resident raised questions with the landlord around the amount of compensation in her stage 3 escalation on 23 March 2024. It agreed in its response on 10 April 2024 that it had not offered enough and increased its offer of compensation by £250 to reflect the impact of its poor communication on her. We consider this to be an appropriate amount of compensation overall and have considered this in line with its Compensation Policy and our Remedies Guidance.
20. The resident also raised concerns about the quality of the repair work that had been completed in her stage 3 escalation. The landlord acknowledged this and committed to raising a new complaint about the quality of the work once she provided further information. This was appropriate and showed it acknowledged the frustration she had experienced up to that point and wanted to resolve the issue. It was reasonable to consider this as a new complaint as the concern was about quality of workmanship.

21. The landlord’s complaints policy from the complaint period was compliant with the 2022 version of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”) in effect at the time.
22. As can be seen from above:
    1. the landlord acknowledged the complaint within 9 working days (30 June 2023 to 13 July 2023) which was not in line with the 5 days the Code allows
    2. the landlord responded at stage 1 within 53 working days (13 July 2023 to 26 September 2023) which was not in line with the 10 days the Code allows
    3. the landlord acknowledged the escalation within 3 working days (12 February 2024 to 15 February 2024) which was in line with the 5 days the Code allows
    4. the landlord responded at stage 2 within 15 working days (15 February 2024 to 7 March 2024) which was in line with the 20 days the Code allows
    5. the landlord acknowledged the stage 3 escalation within 5 working days (23 March 2024 to 2 April 2024) which was in line with the 5 days the Code allows
    6. the landlord responded at stage 3 within 6 working days (2 April 2024 to 10 April 2024) which was in line with the 20 days the Code allows
23. The landlord failed to keep to its complaint handling timelines at the start of the process.. In its stage 1 response, it acknowledged it had missed its response deadlines. It explained capacity issues were the cause of the delays and said it was recruiting more staff to help deal with complaints moving forward. It was appropriate that it acknowledged its failing and identified a way to improve its service as a result.
24. The landlord kept to the timelines in its policy for the remainder of its complaints process. This was positive and showed that it was taking learning from the process. Its responses were comprehensive and made clear what it had investigated and how it was responding to failings it had identified. It can reflect positively on its improved handling as the complaint progressed.
25. The landlord offered compensation of £150 for poor complaint handling during stage 1 of the process. This amount was appropriate and has been considered in line with its Compensation Policy and our Remedies Guidance. It was reasonable that it identified failings in its complaint handling and took steps to remedy them, improving its service.

Learning

26. The landlord identified failings and took steps to try and learn from them. It could consider whether the systems it had in place to conduct the various surveys that were required could be improved to allow it to keep to its policy timeframes.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

27. There were issues of poor oversight throughout the process. The landlord could reflect on how it applied its procedures for recording reports of repair issues and whether more consistent or effective use of its records would have improved its response time.

Communication

28. The landlord acknowledged its communication was poor throughout. It could consider whether setting out a communication plan early in the process might have improved the resident’s experience and its ability to progress the issue.