Accent Housing Limited (202229189)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229189

Accent Housing Limited

27 September 2024


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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the back door and laminate flooring in the property.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy. The property is a 3-bedroom mid terrace house.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 26 January 2022. She reported that there was draught coming into the property from the back and front door. She contacted the landlord again on 6 June 2022. She reported that the landlord’s contractors had caused some damage to her laminate flooring when they attended to repair the back door.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 18 July 2022, 8 September 2022 and 22 December 2022. She complained about outstanding repairs to her back door and laminate flooring. The resident approached this Service for assistance and this Service contacted the landlord about these issues on her behalf on 7 March 2023.
  4.  The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 24 March 2023. It said:
    1. That the resident first reported having issues with the door not closing properly and a draught coming into the property on 26 January 2022. On 3 February 2022, it attended the property to assess the door and completed some repairs including adding a ‘polyurethane’ draught strip to the bottom of the back door.
    2. The resident reported that the draught strip attached to her laminate flooring had caused some damage to the flooring and she wanted the landlord to remove the strip and repair her laminate flooring.
    3. The issues with the door not closing and letting a draught into the property remained unresolved so it decided to replace the door. It said it would repair the laminate flooring when it replaced the door.
    4. It apologised for the delays in installing the new door and explained this was partly due to the door order having to be approved and ‘manufacture and supply’ delays.
    5. A new door was installed on 22 December 2022. It said it was satisfied with the glazing on the upper part of the door and would not be putting glazing at the lower part of the door. It said it had not agreed nor was it obliged to replace the door with a like for like door.
    6. After the new door was installed, the resident complained that she was still experiencing issues with the door not closing properly and that the laminate flooring had not been fixed when the door was replaced.
    7. The landlord’s surveyor attended on 15 March 2023. He advised that when the new door was fitted it was not fitted true which was resulting in the door not being able to be flush when closed.
    8. The surveyor stated that the door would need to be readjusted and that the issue with the laminate flooring would be resolved when the door was readjusted. He booked a repair appointment for these issues to be resolved on 27 March 2023.
    9. The landlord apologised for its complaint handling and poor communication. It stated that since the complaint, it had created a specialised and dedicated team to handle its complaints processes. It hoped that this would improve its communication and complaints handling.
    10. It offered the resident a £50 goodwill gesture towards her increased electricity cost arising from issues with the door not closing properly and the draught getting into the property. It also offered £50 for distress and inconvenience.
  5. On 14 April 2023, the resident requested for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint procedure. She was unhappy with how the landlord handled her complaints and the level of compensation offered. She also stated that her flooring issue had not be resolved and although the door had been readjusted, she was still having issues with the door not closing properly and draught coming into the property
  6. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 15 May 2023 and issued a stage 2 response on 23 May 2023. It said:
    1. It replaced the resident’s back door in December 2022 after remedial works did not resolve the draughts coming from the back door. Even after the door replacement, the issues with draughts persisted and the door needed some further adjustments.
    2. Its staff attended the property on 16 May 2023 and adjusted the door to ensure there were no gaps for draughts to get into the property.
    3. Its staff confirmed that the resident’s laminate flooring had swollen due to water damage and this was also evidenced before the new back door was replaced.
    4. The strip that was struck down with silicone onto the resident’s flooring could be lifted when she replaced her door in the future.
    5. It acknowledged that the issue with the door had been ongoing and had caused the resident and her family inconvenience. It offered additional £80 as a gesture of goodwill.
  7. The resident contacted this Service as she remained unhappy with the way the landlord handled her complaint. She said there was still a draught coming into her property, her laminate flooring had not been repaired and she was unhappy with the level of compensation. The complaint became one that the Ombudsman could investigate on 25 January 2024.

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident stated that she has experienced issues with the door and a draught getting into her property since 2020. Under Paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. At the time the resident raised her formal complaint, for which the landlord issued its final response before 1 April 2024, the Scheme referred to the ‘reasonable period’ as being within 6 months. Therefore, whilst the historical incidents provide contextual background to the current complaint, this assessment focuses on events from 26 January 2022 to 23 May 2023 when the landlord issued its stage 2 response.
  2. The resident said her health and safety were negatively impacted by the landlord’s handling of the repairs. Whilst we do not doubt the resident’s comments, the Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim against the landlord if she considers that her health has been affected by its actions or inaction. This is a legal process, and the resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue this option. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
  3. In her complaint to this Service, the resident said she had taken some time off work to be available for repairs and had not received any compensation for this. The Ombudsman would not propose a remedy of compensation to reimburse a complainant for their time off work, loss of wages or loss of employment whilst repairs are carried out.  Whilst such works will inevitably cause some inconvenience to residents, their occupancy agreement will require them to give access for repairs to be carried out as needed, and it would not be fair or reasonable for the Ombudsman to order a landlord to compensate for loss of earnings for routine appointments. 

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states:
    1. It is responsible for maintaining the structure of the home, including doors.
    2. It would complete emergency repairs within 24 hours.
    3. It would complete routine repairs within 28 days.
    4. Customers would be kept informed every step of the way, from when a repair is reported, until the work is completed.
  2. The landlord implemented a new complaints policy in 2023 which comprises of 2 stages, this brings its complaints procedure in line with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code dated July 2020. However, at the time of its complaint response the landlord operated 3 stage complaints procedure as follows: early resolution, manager investigation and director investigation. The complaints policy stated:
    1. Complaints would be acknowledged within 24 hours at all stages of the complaints process.
    2. Complaint responses would be issued within 5 working days at all stages of the complaint process.
    3. Residents would be kept updated at every stage of the complaint process.
  3. This Service complaint handling code states that complaints should be responded to in 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. Any extensions should be agreed with the residents and residents should be kept informed on the progress of their complaints.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the back door and laminate flooring in the property.

  1. The resident made her initial repair request on 26 January 2022. The landlord attended within 8 days on 3 February 2022. This was reasonable and in line with its repairs policy. It stated that the front door was a metal skinned door and would get cold in the winter. It adjusted the back door and fitted a self-adhesive draught excluder around the back door. These were reasonable actions to resolve the reported issue of draught coming into the property.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord again on 17 March 2022. She informed it that the adhesive that was applied to stop the draught coming into the property had fallen off. She stated that the back door could not be closed properly and draught was still coming into the property. The landlord stated in its complaint response that it attended the resident’s property on 21 April 2022 to investigate this issue and attempt repairs however, the resident was on her way to work so it could not complete repairs.
  3. There is no record of the landlord informing the resident that it would attend on this date. The landlord’s policy states it will communicate with the resident regarding every step of the repair. The landlord not giving the resident prior notice of attendance was a failing and not in line with its policy.
  4. The landlord stated in its complaints response that its engineer attended on 19 May 2022. He was unable to rectify the issue with the door and measurements were taken for a new door. There is no record of this visit in the landlord’s repair logs. It is unclear what actions were agreed or communicated to the resident. The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise. This Service will be making a recommendation with regards to record keeping at the end of this report.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord on 6 June 2022. She reported that the laminate flooring had been shifted out of its tongue and groove and had created a gap. That a strip was fitted over the top of the disturbed laminate flooring and it was not possible for her to move the strip herself. She said the landlord should have fitted the strip correctly in the first instance. She requested for her laminate flooring to be repaired. She also informed the landlord that she was still experiencing issues with the door.
  6. The landlord attended to complete the repairs to the flooring on 18 July 2022. It noted that the flooring had ‘moved’. It said it could not complete any repairs to the flooring until the door was replaced. The landlord attended this repair within 42 days. This was a failing and not in line with its repair’s timeframe of 28 days.
  7. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 18 July 2022. By this time the issue with her door not closing properly and draught entering the property had been ongoing for over 5 months. This delay in completing the repair was not reasonable especially as the resident was not kept informed regarding when the door would be ordered or installed. The landlord’s failure to complete the repair in a reasonable time scale would have caused unnecessary distress and inconvenience and resulted in her making a formal complaint about the issue.
  8. The landlord explained that although measurements for a new door were taken on 19 May 2022, it was not until 6 June 2022 that it was able to place the order for the new door. This was because it had to follow its internal policies with regards to making orders above a certain cost threshold. Although it was appropriate of the landlord to follow its policy it would have been reasonable to have communicated this to the resident and explained the reason for the delay in the door being ordered.
  9. Throughout the complaint the resident had to chase the landlord for information regarding when the repairs to the door and laminate flooring would be completed. She had an unnecessary level of involvement with the repairs process which would have caused her distress and inconvenience. The landlord’s communication was poor and not in line with acceptable customer service standards. This lack of communication was not reasonable and would have led the resident to feel her complaints were not being taken seriously, thereby causing further distress and inconvenience.
  10. Furthermore, on multiple occasions the resident requested for the new door installed to have an opening window panel. However, the landlord did not respond to any of her requests concerning this.  This was unreasonable. The landlord should have confirmed to the resident what type of door she was getting and whether this would be like for like. This would have managed her expectations regarding the type of door that was going to be installed and the subsequent upset over not getting a like for like door would have likely been avoided. Although the landlord’s response regarding not being obliged to provide a ‘like for like’ door was appropriate, the landlord failed to follow its policy of keeping the resident informed throughout the repairs process.
  11. It is understandable that with complex repairs and repairs where parts must be ordered there might be some unavoidable delays outside the landlord’s control. In this case there were some delays in the manufacturing and supplying of the door. The new door was installed on 22 December 2022. This was 10 months and 26 days from when the resident made her initial repair request on 26 January 2022. Even if the reasons for the unavoidable delays are taken into consideration, this was still an unreasonably long delay and would have understandably caused the resident unnecessary distress and inconvenience.
  12. The resident contacted the landlord on 22 December 2022, the day the new door was installed. She reported that she was unhappy with the new door that was installed. She said that the door did not sit properly in the door frame and this impacted upon its function. She said she still had a draught coming into the property and that the laminate flooring was not repaired when the new door was installed.
  13. The landlord attended on 2 February 2023 to inspect the door. However, as there is no record of this visit in the landlord’s logs, this Service is unable to comment on the reasonableness of landlord’s actions during and after this visit.
  14. The landlord’s records showed that the resident contacted it on 3 February 2023 stating she was unhappy with the surveyor’s recommendation to adjust the door because this was how the original door was damaged. She said she felt unsafe in her home as she was unable to shut the back door and she wanted her complaint to be investigated.
  15. The landlord informed the resident on 24 February 2023 that it had decided to arrange another inspection by a second surveyor to ensure that the prior recommendation about adjusting the door was appropriate. This was reasonable as it showed the landlord took the resident’s concerns regarding the door being readjusted seriously.
  16. The resident did not receive any communication from the landlord regarding the surveyor visiting the property. The resident contacted the landlord on 14 March 2023 to report that a surveyor’s visit still had not been arranged and the situation with her door had worsened. She said she continued to lose heat from the door with draught getting into the property and her electricity costs had increased. This lack of communication was a failing and not in line with customer service standards and the landlord repairs policy.
  17. The second surveyor attended the property on 15 March 2023. There is no record of the details or outcome of this visit in the landlord’s repairs log. This is a further example of the landlord’s poor record keeping. The landlord’s repairs logs showed that a repair was raised on 16 March 2023 for the new door to be adjusted. A job was also raised for the flooring to be repaired. The landlord further confirmed in its stage 1 response that an appointment date of 27 March 2023 had been fixed for the repairs to the door and laminate flooring to be completed.
  18. The landlord attended the resident’s property on 27 March 2023 and completed repairs to the door. This repair was completed 31 days after the resident was informed that a second surveyor would attend the property. The landlord’s policy states it would attend to routine repairs within 28 days. The landlord failed to comply with its repairs policy timeframe.
  19. The resident made a further report of the door not closing properly on 2 April 2023. Although the landlord attended the same day and completed repairs it is of some concern that the issue with the door not closing properly was still ongoing after the landlord readjusted the door on 27 March 2023.
  20. The landlord’s records showed that it did not complete any repairs to the laminate flooring as it promised it would do in its stage 1 response. Instead, the landlord advised the resident in its stage 2 response that she could remove the strip that had been stuck down to the laminate flooring herself when she replaced her door in the future. This was a failing as it previously stated on two occasions that it would repair the laminate flooring when the door was readjusted
  21. Furthermore, it is unclear why the landlord suggested that the resident would change the door herself in the future. According to its repairs policy and its tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for repairs to the door and door frames and so it is unlikely that the resident would have changed the door herself in future.
  22. This Service dispute resolution principles states that where there has been a failing, we would consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ for the resident.
  23. In this case, in its complaint response the landlord accepted that there had been failings. It highlighted the issues with the delay in installing a new door and its poor communication. It said it had put in place a new system to improve communication with residents about their repairs. It offered total compensation of £180. The landlord’s actions in apologising, recognising that there had been a failing, and in proposing a solution to the failing was reasonable and in line with this Service dispute resolution principles.
  24. However, whilst the landlord made some attempts to put things right, it failed to complete repairs to the resident’s laminate flooring despite promising to do so. It also failed to adequately address the detriment to the resident in relation to its delays in completing the door repairs, poor record keeping and poor communication. Furthermore, the compensation of £180 for electric costs and distress and inconvenience was not proportionate to the failings identified in this report.
  25. As a result, this Service finds there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the back door and laminate flooring in the property. For this reason, an order for compensation in line with this Service remedies guidance has been made below.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. Throughout this case there were numerous examples of the landlord failing to respond to the resident’s complaint in line with its complaint policy or this Services complaint handling code. This was unreasonable and would have understandably caused unnecessary distress and inconvenience to the resident. Some examples are highlighted below:
    1. The resident made her initial complaint regarding having issues with the back door on 18 July 2022 and a second complaint about the same issue on 8 September 2022. According to the landlord’s complaints policy, it should have acknowledged the resident’s complaint within 24 hours and provided a complaint response within 5 working days. Neither of these complaints were acknowledged or responded to instead the complaint was closed.
    2. The landlord closed the resident’s complaint on 20 October 2022. This was 94 days after she made her initial complaint on 18 July 2022.This complaint was closed without any prior communication with the resident. The landlord did not inform the resident of any agreed actions or provide any explanation for closing the complaint.
    3. The resident contacted the landlord on 2 February 2023 and 3 February 2023. However, rather than providing her with an update on her complaint the landlord only updated her on the repairs. This it did on 24 February 2023, 22 days after she requested the update.
    4. When this Service contacted the landlord on behalf of the resident, it had been 36 days since the resident provided the landlord with information regarding her complaint on 30 January 2023.
    5. This Service contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf on 7 March 2023 and asked it to respond to the resident’s complaint within 5 or 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2 of the complaints process.
    6. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 24 March 2023, 3 days outside the 10-day timeframe this Service gave for providing a complaint response.
    7. The resident contacted the landlord on 14 April 2023. She was dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint response and requested for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process. The landlord did not acknowledge this complaint until 15 May 2023. This was 31 days after the resident’s escalation requests.
    8.  The landlord issued its final response on 23 May 2023. 39 days after the resident made her escalation requests.
  2. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 response that its complaint handling had been poor and it had not followed its policy in terms of how it handled the resident’s complaint. It said it had put processes in place to ensure it improved its complaint handling.
  3. However, it is of some concern that despite it stating in its stage 1 response that it would improve its complaint handling it did not respond in accordance with its complaints policy at stage 2.
  4. Furthermore, it did not acknowledge or apologise for this failure in its stage 2 response. It did not demonstrate any learning from its mistakes at stage 1 and it did not offer any compensation to the residents for its complaint handling failures.
  5. As a result, this Service finds there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. An order for compensation in line with this Service remedies guidance has been made below.

Determination

  1. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the door and laminate flooring.
  2. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Inspect the resident’s door and laminate flooring and confirm to the resident and this service:
      1. Whether there are any ongoing issues with draughts entering the resident’s property.
      2. Any work that is required to the laminate flooring that remains outstanding.
      3. What action it intends to take to remedy any issues found with the door and laminate flooring and provide timescales within which that action will be taken.
    3. Pay the resident total compensation of £780. This is made up of:
      1. £180 previously offered by the landlord in relation to electric costs and distress and inconvenience if this has not already been paid.
      2. Additional £200 for distress and inconvenience.
      3. Additional £50 towards electricity costs.
      4. £100 for communication failures.
      5. £250 for complaint handling failures.
  2. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord reviews the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information when reviewing its record keeping procedures. This sets out the benefits of good record keeping and provides recommendations for landlords.