Livv Housing Group (202410415)

Background

1. The property is a 2-bedroom house. The landlord has it recorded that the resident has mental health issues and needs to be told about visits in advance because of this. The landlord inspected the property in December 2023. It identified repairs to internal and external walls, external fencing and paving slabs, a kitchen cupboard, extractor fan and internal pipes. The following month the resident reported some of the internal stairs felt unsafe.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of:
   1. Repairs.
   2. The associated formal complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs.
4. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
5. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated formal complaint.

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord acknowledged there were delays and communication failures in its handling of repairs. It completed the repairs, apologised and offered compensation. However, the compensation was not quite enough considering the failures and the impact on the resident.
7. The landlord handled the resident’s complaint in line with its policy and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

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.

8. The landlord’s repairs policy confirms it is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property. This includes kitchen units, internal pipes, extractor fans, internal walls and plaster, stairs, external walls, boundary fences and pathways. Considering the nature of the repairs it was reasonable the landlord dealt with these as routine. Its repairs policy at the time said it would complete these within 28 days, or 56 if it needed to do several visits.
9. Of the 8 repairs, the landlord completed 1 within the 28 day target timescale and another 1 within the 56 day timescale. The other 6 repairs were completed in between 77 and 149 days. This was significantly over the committed timescale set out in its repairs policy at the time. All but 1 of the repairs were raised just before the Christmas and New Year period. It is reasonable this may have impacted the landlord’s ability to meet its target timescale. However, the extent of the delays was too long, even taking this into account.
10. The landlord’s management of the repair appointments was poor. It was reasonable that it needed to attend more than once for some of the repairs. However, its failure to properly prepare for the appointments meant it had to attend on more occasions than necessary.
11. For the plastering repairs the landlord attended on at least 4 occasions. This was inconvenient for the resident as she had to repeatedly give access. She said she paid unnecessary costs for her dog to be looked after while works were done over multiple visits. The landlord also arranged to attend on at least 2 occasions and did not at the last minute. This was frustrating for the resident and meant her time was wasted.
12. The landlord is aware the resident has mental health issues and that she needs to be told about visits in advance. Its repairs policy says for non-emergency jobs it will confirm the appointment details in advance. The landlord attended on 8 February 2024 to renew the extractor fan. There is no evidence it told the resident in advance about this visit.
13. This was unreasonable and not in line with the landlord’s repairs policy. This was particularly upsetting for the resident because of her personal circumstances. The landlord did not keep the resident adequately informed about the progress of the repairs. This resulted in her chasing for updates on multiple occasions. At times she was left not knowing what was happening. This was frustrating for her.
14. The landlord has acknowledged delays and communication failures in its handling of the repairs. The resident has confirmed the landlord has done the repairs, which means the substantive issue is resolved. Therefore, the question before us is whether the landlord has provided sufficient remedy to recognise the impact of its failings and put things right in line with our dispute resolution principles.
15. There were delays in the landlord completing the majority of the repairs of between 2 and 4 months. These delays impacted the resident’s use and enjoyment of the property and caused distress. The resident said the plastering works included an internal cupboard and she had to empty this out for an extended period. This meant the property was cluttered and she said this was a hazard that resulted in her tripping over. The 4 month delay in the plastering repairs meant the property was like this for longer than necessary. The resident also said the delay in the landlord completing the paving repairs limited her use of the garden.
16. The landlord offered £300 compensation for its handling of the repairs. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time said it would pay up to £700 where there had been multiple instances of service failure connected with a matter and/ or loss. There were delays and communication failures in the landlord’s handling of 6 repairs over several months. Considering this, and the impact on the resident, the compensation offered is not quite enough. Therefore, a finding of service failure is appropriate. We order the landlord to pay the resident £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of repairs, inclusive of the £300 already offered.
17. The landlord offered £150 towards decorating costs. Its repairs policy says internal decorating is the resident’s responsibility. Therefore, the landlord was not obligated to offer anything in respect of this. Its offer showed it was taking the matter seriously and wanted to put things right for the resident. We order it to pay the resident the £150 if not already done so.
18. The resident said she paid to have her dog looked after on 4 occasions when works were done, and paid £30 each time. Due to the landlord’s mismanagement of the appointments, the resident incurred unnecessary costs due to the increased number of visits. Therefore, it is reasonable that the landlord reimburses her for these. We order it to pay her £120 as reimbursement of the costs incurred.

19. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time said it would acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. It would triage stage 2 complaints within 5 working days and tell the resident if it had accepted this. It would respond within 20 working days of accepting the complaint.
20. The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on 8 February 2024, 3 working days after the resident made the complaint. It sent the response 10 working days later. Both were in line with the policy committed timescales.
21. The landlord accepted and acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 2 April 2024, 1 working day after the resident escalated the complaint. This was in line with the committed timescale set out in its policy. It sent the response 40 working days later, over the policy committed timescale.
22. In late April 2024 the landlord extended the stage 2 response deadline by 20 working days, to 30 May 2024. The Code says landlords can extend the deadline by up to 20 working days. It must tell the resident about this, including the expected timescale for the response. The landlord complied with this and subsequently met the extended deadline. Therefore, this was not a failure.
23. The stage 1 and 2 responses were detailed and addressed the resident’s concerns. The landlord handled the complaint in line with its policy and the Code.

Learning

24. The landlord should complete repairs over the minimum number of appointments to reduce inconvenience. It should book appointments for the correct length of time and assign these to the correct trade. It should give sufficient detail to its contractor about the works so they can, where possible, get materials in advance.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

25. The landlord inspected the resident’s property in December 2023 and March 2024. It took photos but did not prepare written reports with the outcome. This did not affect our investigation of this complaint, but could for other complaints. The landlord has told us it did not have a process in place to record inspections at that time. It has subsequently put a process in place to formally record these. This is positive and will ensure the landlord can account for its actions and decisions to residents and us, where required.

Communication

26. The landlord should tell residents in advance about non-emergency repair appointments. It should keep residents informed about the progress of their repairs to avoid them chasing for updates.