Amplius Living (202335738)

Background

1. The resident lives in a flat in a sheltered housing scheme. She has a diagnosis of dementia and was 87 years old at the time of the complaint. Her daughter mainly corresponded with the landlord. However, for clarity we have recorded all contact as coming from the resident. She complained about a delay in the landlord repairing the bathroom ceiling following a leak from the flat above.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the replacement of a ceiling containing asbestos.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. the replacement of a ceiling containing asbestos.
   2. the complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Ceiling

5. The landlord took almost 4 months to repair the ceiling. During this period the resident also had no light in a windowless bathroom. It then took a further 4 months to repair the call alarm pull cord during which time it did not update the resident.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord did not show that it had fully investigated the issue at stage 1 of the complaint process and did not follow remedies offered through to completion. There was a delay in providing the stage 2 complaint response.

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.

7. The landlord’s repairs policy says that it will complete appointed routine repairs within a maximum of 28 calendar days. It says that it should give extra consideration where a customer is aged over 70 years and would be impacted by the repair timescale for certain repairs. One of the repairs suggested was lack of a bathroom light.
8. The resident reported that water was coming through her bathroom ceiling from the flat above on 24 September 2023. An operative attended within a reasonable timeframe. However, they did not find the source of the leak until the following afternoon. This meant that the ceiling was damaged and an operative had to disconnect the bathroom light.
9. Due to the resident’s vulnerabilities and the presence of asbestos in the ceiling the landlord should reasonably have prioritised the repair, however it did not do so. It also did not communicate with the resident about the level of risk caused by the disturbed ceiling and therefore this caused her concern and distress.
10. Despite the contractor emailing the landlord on 26 September 2023 to advise it that it should remove the damaged ceiling which required “urgent attention”, an appointment was not made until22 November 2023. The contractor rearranged this to 28 October 2023 after the resident took time and trouble to speak to them.
11. However, the contractor did not complete the work on this date. It is concerning that when a specialist contractor should have attended to remove the ceiling which contained asbestos the operative that actually attended was expecting to repair a leak. This is apparent because they noted that the “leak was fixed” and the “ceiling had dried out and needed fixing”. This communication failure cost the resident more time and trouble attending the appointment and distress and inconvenience because she continued to live with no bathroom light and a hole in the ceiling.
12. Another contractor attended on 7 December 2023 but again they did not remove the ceiling. This time this was because there was no electrician available to isolate the light fitting. However, the light had already been isolated at the time of the leak. This error cost the resident further time and trouble attending another appointment and logging a complaint.
13. The landlord has provided us with 2 different dates that it says that contractors removed the ceiling and provided a new light. However, it seems likely that they completed the work on 16 January 2024 because records show that this is when the cord to the call alarm was deactivated during the ceiling repair. Therefore, it took almost 4 months for the landlord to replace the ceiling during which time the resident had no light in a windowless bathroom. There is evidence that she called the landlord on numerous occasions during this time costing her time and trouble. This delay, which was not in line with the timescales within the landlord’s repairs policy, was especially concerning considering her vulnerabilities.
14. The landlord then took a further 4 months to repair the call alarm pull cord. The cause for this was out of its control and it took steps to mitigate the risk. However, it did not keep the resident adequately informed about the delay meaning that she took further time and trouble to chase it up.
15. The landlord offered the resident £375 compensation for this element of the complaint during the complaints process. It then offered additional compensation of £450 in November 2024. Although this could be said to have put things right for the resident, the landlord failed to resolve the substantive issue of her complaint until several months after it had issued its final response. It also did not fully acknowledge its failings or make the increased offer of compensation until this Service had accepted the case for investigation. The Ombudsman’s outcomes guidance is clear that a finding of reasonable redress cannot be determined under such circumstances. This is particularly the case where the landlord has not demonstrated specific learning points to ensure that similar failings do not occur in future.
16. Our remedies guidance sets out that payments of £600 to £1,000 are appropriate to put right failings that had a significant impact on the resident. We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay the resident £900 compensation for this element of the complaint.

17. The Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code in place at the time (the Code) says that landlords must conduct complaint investigations in an impartial manner, seeking sufficient, reliable information from both parties so that fair and appropriate findings and recommendations can be made.
18. The stage 1 complaint response did not show that the landlord investigated the cause of the delays and therefore learn from any errors made. It merely offered a new appointment for the job. This lack of detail did not show the resident that it had taken the situation seriously.
19. The Code also says that the landlord must follow remedies through to completion. However, in this case the appointment offered in the stage 1 complaint response did not result in the work being completed. This cost the resident further time and trouble escalating the complaint.
20. The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will provide a response within 20 working days. If this timescale is not possible due to exceptional circumstances, it will provide an explanation. This should not exceed a further 10 working days. If it needs an extension beyond 10 working days to respond to the complaint fully it should agree this with the resident.
21. In this case the landlord took a total of 42 days to provide a stage 2 complaint response. It did not advise the resident that the response would be late until 31 days after the complaint escalation and informed her about this rather than seeking agreement. This long delay and failure to follow its policy meant that the resident was waiting longer for a resolution which caused her distress and inconvenience. It also delayed her access to an investigation by this Service.
22. The landlord offered the resident £150 compensation to reflect the time and trouble caused by the delay in providing the stage 2 complaint response. However, this did not consider the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the other failings identified. We have therefore ordered it to pay the resident £200 compensation for this aspect of the complaint.
23. This is in line with our remedies guidance which says that £100 to £600 compensation is suitable where the landlord has made some effort to put things right but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

Learning

24. The landlord should ensure that all repairs’ staff are aware of its policy regarding prioritisation of certain repairs. Particularly those for over 70’s who are vulnerable.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

25. The landlord provided evidence to show that the bathroom ceiling was replaced both on the 15 December 2023 and the 16 January 2023. This caused confusion and shows that there is a potential issue with record keeping.

Communication

26. As demonstrated in the findings above, the landlord failed to communicate effectively about the cause of the delays.