Arhag Housing Association Limited (202101604)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202101604

Arhag Housing Association Limited

31 January 2023

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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling and response to the resident’s reports of:
1. repairs required to the communal lift;
2. repairs required to the windows in the property;
3. water penetration through the ceiling during rainfall;
4. the landlord’s record keeping and the related complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord which is a housing association. The tenancy agreement commenced on 11 August 2003.
The property is described as a two-bedroom flat located on the second floor in a purpose built four storey block.
The landlord’s tenancy agreement obliges the landlord to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the property including gutters, external pipes, window sills, catches and window frames. In addition, it is obliged to take reasonable care to keep the lift in reasonable repair and fit for use.
The resident has told us that she suffers from back pain.
The complaint has been made on the resident’s behalf by her son. Any contact from the resident’s son will be referred to as being from the “the resident” in this report.

Scope of investigation

The resident has informed this Service that the reliability of the lift and the defects to the windows have been ongoing for several years and that this has been reported to the landlord. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be six months of the matters arising. There is no evidence that any formal complaints raised by the resident about the reliability of the lift or the defects to the window have previously either exhausted the landlord’s complaint process and/or that any such complaint was referred to the Ombudsman.
This investigation report will therefore consider events from February 2020 onwards on the basis of what the Ombudsman considers to be a reasonable period in light of the provisions of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme and considering the available evidence of repair reports and communication with the resident until the final complaint response in September 2021. Any reports relating to earlier this date are for context only.

Summary of events

In May 2019, following reports from the resident that the ceiling and walls above the stairs in the hallway was damp, it agreed to carry out roof repairs. On 24 June 2019 scaffolding was erected to the building. On 5 March 2020, work began to apply two coats to the gully at the roof of the flat roof to remedy the water penetration. The works were completed on 1 April 2020.
The landlord’s records show that it received reports from residents in the building on 12 March 2020, 25 March 2020, 12 May 2020, and 3 June 2020 that the lift was out of service. On each occasion the lift was put back in service within two days apart from 25 March 2020 when the repair was completed the same day.
The landlord arranged for its window contractor to carry out a survey of the windows in the resident’s property on16 June 2020 and provide a report of its finding. The landlord’s records does not say what prompted the inspection at the resident’s property. Following the inspection, it raised an order to draught proof four windows in the property, service two windows, replace handles to two windows and supply and fit three wedges to the windows. The works order does not specify which windows within the property the different category of repairs should be carried out to.
There were further five reports that the lift was out of service on 6 August 2020, 10 August 2020, 18 August 2020, 8 September 2020, 19 October 2020. There were no further reports regarding the lift until 9 February 2021, when the resident reported that the lift was not working. The lift was brought back into service on 10 March 2021.
Following communication from the resident, this Service communicated with the landlord on 21 April 2021 and 13 July 2021 requesting that it respond to the resident’s complaint about the lift and that the windows could not lock and were draughty. In the resident’s communication, he advised that there had been water ingress to the property on 18 June 2021, following a period of rain.
The landlord arranged to inspect the resident’s property on 15 July 2021.
The landlord responded to the complaint on 10 August 2021 apologising for the delay in its response. The key findings were:
1. Acknowledged that the lift had broken down on several occasions and that it had taken the decision to replace the lift. The procurement process had started and apologised for the length of time it had taken.
2. It had provided compensation to all affected residents which had been applied to the resident’s rent account.
3. Renewal of windows would start in the next financial year. Surveys of the windows had already been undertaken and it anticipated that the contract would start in the summer of 2022.
4. Identified that the works taken to resolve the water ingress in the property had not been successful. It was undertaking further works to identify the cause of the leak. It would survey the property once the work to remedy the leak had been completed.
The resident provided an update to this Service on 19 August 2021 regarding the impact of the outstanding repairs. The resident advised that they experienced back pain and this was exacerbated when the lift was not working as the property was located on the second floor. The landlord had advised that the repairs to the lift were scheduled to start in June 2021 but the repair to the lift had not commenced. Furthermore, the windows in the property did not lock and following the leak into the property, he was concerned that the ceiling may collapse. The resident did not indicate which room was affected by the water penetration.
The landlord gave permission for the roofing contractor to use a drone on 18 August 2021 to inspect the roof. The same day, the contractor informed the landlord that the gullies and cables going to the gully was blocked and needed to be cleared.
This Service wrote to the landlord on 25 August 2021 advising that if it did not respond to the resident’s complaint by 3 September 2021 we would issue a Complaint Handling Failure Order.
The landlord communicated with the resident on 3 September 2021 to advise that it had a limited budget to carry out windows repairs to all the properties that it was responsible for. However, it anticipated that the window replacement would start in the following summer.
The landlord provided its final complaint response on 3 September 2021. It apologised for the delay in providing its response. The key findings were:
1. Reiterated that it intended to renew the lift to the building and that it had offered compensation to residents.
2. Dealt with the defects to the windows in the property with the last repair carried out in June 2020. It confirmed that it had agreed to renew windows to the building after receiving similar reports from other residents and this should start in Summer 2022.
3. Recognised that the cause of the water penetration had not been identified. Once the work had been completed, the property would be surveyed.
Once the complaint process had been exhausted, the landlord provided the following information to this Service on 8 December 2021.
1. The lift was due to be replaced in 2024. However, as it had reached the end of its life, the replacement of the lift had been brought forward. The installation of the lift was due to start in June 2021, this had been delayed as structural works were identified and it had to involve the Building Control Department of the Council.
2. The project plan showed that the lift installation programme commenced on 26 October 2021. The handover from the contractor to the landlord was due to take place at the end of November 2021. However, it advised of a further weeks delay before this could take place and residents had been notified.
3. It had responded to the resident’s request for draught proofing of the windows in June 2020. It intended to make a bid for capital funding in the financial year 2022/2023, to replace the windows in the building.
4. Following an inspection of the roof on 22 November 2021, it was obtaining quotes to remedy the water penetration into the resident’s property. It advised of delays to identifying the work to the problem due to a lack of records as the surveyor was away from work and the contractor was no longer working for the organisation.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated the complaint to this Service. The resident advised that their main form of communication with the landlord is by phone. The resident informed this Service that the landlord had made an award of £100 compensation for the delays with the lift. In addition, they were still experiencing water penetration through the ceiling and the bedroom windows do not have working locks and that it had not been draught proofed.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s role includes an assessment of whether the landlord has followed its policies and procedures and acted appropriately to the reports it received and to the formal complaint. In doing so, this investigation will not only consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s repair reports but also the actions it took within the complaints process.

Repairs to the communal lift

The resident’s tenancy agreement obliges the landlord to take reasonable care to keep the lift in repair. The landlord has demonstrated that the lift was serviced on a regular basis, with the service being carried out generally every six months. This was important to ensure that a regular service was provided to residents who used the lift.
The evidence show that in the financial year 2020/2021, the lift was out of service on 12 occasions. On 6 occasions between March – June 2020 and 5 occasions between August – September 2020. The maximum time the lift was out of service was two days during these periods of time, indicating that the repairs to the lift were carried out in a reasonable timeframe.
There was a gap of four months before there was a further report that the lift was out of service in February 2021. This repair took one month before the lift was brought back into service which was an unacceptable delay. The landlord’s records do not explain what the lift fault was nor does it explain the reason for the length of time it took for the repair to be completed. The landlord has not demonstrated in its submission that for the period that the lift was not working, it communicated with the resident regarding the fault to provide information on the length of time that the lift would be out of service or to provide updates on when the repair would be completed. This was inappropriate as the resident’s property is on the second floor and this caused inconvenience and disruption each time she left the property.
The landlord in its complaint responses accepted that the lift has reached the end of its life. Therefore, it agreed capital funding for the installation of a new lift which was due to start in June 2021. The evidence seen by this Service shows that there was a delay of three months before the installation works started on 25 October 2021. The landlord has explained to this Service that following its decision to install a new lift, a structural defect was identified, which meant that it had to undertake a building regulations application. This was unforeseen and unanticipated by the landlord. There was a further delay with the handover of the lift being set for early December 2021. The landlord has not confirmed to this Service, the date that the lift was operational and could be used by its residents.
The landlord in its complaint response apologised for the delay experienced by the resident while the works to the lift took place and advised that it has made a compensation award. However, it did not provide details of the amount of the award in its complaint responses.
The landlord has not demonstrated that it communicated effectively with the resident following its decision to replace the lift. There is no evidence that it kept in contact with the resident and provided updates on progress. The landlord has not advised of any support available to the resident while the lift was out of action, neither did it make any attempt to reassure her that it had considered her concerns about the length of time that the lift was out of service.
The landlord has not provided to this Service with the compensation policy in use when it calculated the compensation award. The landlord in its complaint response has said that it made a compensation award without providing information of the amount of the award or providing information on the factors it considered when calculated the compensation payment.
The landlord in its submission to this Service has not given the actual date when the new lift was installed. From the available evidence, the lift was due to be operational from early December 2021. Therefore, the landlord’s offer of compensation only reflected the impact on the resident until August 2021 when it sent its first complaint response and it not sufficient given the extent of the delay, its failure to keep her informed and the impact on the resident.

Repairs required to the windows in the property.

Under the terms of the tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible for keeping the window in repair and to carry out repairs within a reasonable timescale. The evidence shows that the landlord arranged for the property to be surveyed in June 2020. Its records do not explain how the request to attend the property arose. The resident has informed this Service that the landlord’s previous attempts to repair the locks to windows and to draught proof the windows have not been effective. There is no information to dispute the information provided by the resident.
The landlord has not provided its repair policy for the period of the complaint. Notwithstanding, it is reasonable to expect that the repairs reports that the windows could not lock and were draughty should be awarded an urgent priority and concluded within at least seven working days. The resident has said that her preferred means of contact with the landlord is by phone. Landlords are expected to record reports of disrepair made by its residents, there it is not appropriate that the landlord does not keep records of the contact that it receives from its residents.
Looking at the available evidence, the landlord raised an order to survey the windows in the property in June 2020 and agreed to draught proof four windows, service two windows, supply and fit new window handles and three wedges to the windows. The landlord’s records are limited as it does not identify the specific repairs it carried out to the different windows in the property and the records do not give an indication of the completion dates of the repairs. Therefore, the records do not show whether the agreed work to remedy the defect to the windows were completed in a reasonable timescale or that the correct repair was carried out.
The landlord has not provided a copy of the complaints it received from its resident. The resident has informed this Service that the landlord sent the incorrect trade to repair the living room and bedroom windows. Consequently, the resident was left with a bedroom window that did not lock for a significant period of time. The landlord in its final complaint response states that it had not received a report since June 2020 regarding the windows. However, once it had received the resident’s complaint about the condition of the windows, there is no evidence that it contacted the resident to arrange a convenient time to diagnose or assess the conditions of windows or the work that was carried out by its contractor.
Furthermore, the landlord records do not provide any information about the repair that that was carried out to the resident’s property in June 2020. This is not appropriate as the landlord records should provide information on the work carried out by its contractors.
The resident has complained that the windows to the bedroom and to the living room are draughty and that when the landlord attended it only carried out a repair to the living room window and did not carry out works to repair the bedroom window. The landlord’s records do not evidence that it carried out any monitoring or inspection once the resident raised her concerns that work was not completed to the bedroom window by its contractor.
The landlord has accepted that the windows to the buildings require replacement and has made a bid for the windows to be replaced. In its complaint responses, the landlord has not given a specific date when the works will be carried out, neither has it demonstrated that it has contacted the resident to carry out interim repairs until it has a date to change the resident’s windows.
With regard to the bedroom windows, the landlord in its complaint review did not address or consider the impact on the resident. It provided limited information to the resident that it intended to survey the property later in the year and that it intended to start work in the following summer. This did not provide sufficient reassurance to the resident regarding the date that the repairs to the windows would be undertaken or how it was intended to remedy the difficulties that she was experiencing in the property.

water penetration through the ceiling during rainfall.

The resident informed this Service that after a period of rain on 18 June 2021, there was water penetration into the property. The resident did not provide information about which rooms were affected by the rainfall. The landlord has not provided its repair policy to this Service explaining the category it awards to the different types of repairs and its response times. Nevertheless, the evidence shows that the landlord did not respond with a reasonable period of time to the repair report as the roof was inspected on 11 August 2021. This was an unacceptable delay as the landlord responded two months after the resident’s report.
The landlord has not demonstrated that it took reasonable steps to diagnose the case of the roof leak. Also, the landlord has not demonstrated that it discussed with the resident, the course of action that it proposed to take to resolve the water penetration into the property.
The evidence shows that the landlord arranged for the roof to be inspected on 11 August 2021 and that it did not agree with the assessment of the roofing company. The available information does not give information about what the roofing company diagnosed as the cause of the water penetration. Also, the evidence does not give the landlord’s reasons for disagreeing with its decision.
Following this, the landlord did not take further action to remedy the water penetration to the property. This was not reasonable as it was not in line with its repairing obligation under the tenancy agreement to keep the property in repair. Furthermore, as this was not the resident first report of water penetration, it did not consider whether this was a reoccurring problem or demonstrate that it considered the impact or inconvenience to the resident.
There was a three month delay before the next works order was raised to remedy the water penetration on 2 November 2021. The landlord raised a works order to clear the guttering but there is no evidence that the recommended works were carried out. Furthermore, that the landlord took any action to monitor or progress the works for the repairs to be carried out. The landlord informed this Service in December 2021 that it was undertaking quotes to undertake the work to remedy the defect to the roof. It explained the lack of action since August 2021 due to the surveyor being away from work and the contractor no longer working for the organisation. This is not reasonable as the landlord is expected to have arrangements in place to manage when it has staffing problems or a change of contractor.
There is a lack of clarity regarding which rooms have been affected by the leak and how severely the property has been affected. Nevertheless, the resident has experienced an unreasonably delay in getting the repair resolved and the landlord has not shown that it has taken the appropriate action to put things right.

The landlord’s record keeping and the related complaint.

The landlord’s submission to this Service was limited, as it does not record its calls and it does keep a written record of its contact with its resident. Whilst, the landlord’s submission to this Service consisted of its repair records which provided limited information about the repairs that were undertaken, this was considered as part of the investigation to the complaint, it limited the investigation as there was incomplete picture of the resident’s contact with the landlord regarding the repair reports that she had made to the landlord.
Landlords are expected to keep robust records to provide an audit trail of its actions. This evidences that it has followed it published policies and procedures and met its obligations to its residents. In this particular case, there was a failure on the part of the landlord to keep records of the resident’s contact, to keep updated records of the repairs that it had carried out and to evidence that it addressed the concerns that the resident had made about the quality of the repairs that had been carried out.
The landlord has not demonstrated that it has addressed the resident’s specific concerns about the repairs to the window and to the stop the water penetration into the property. The landlord lack of record keeping regarding the resident’s reports of water penetration into her home or the repairs undertaken to the window led to further inconvenience to the resident.
The Complaint Handling Code sets out the expectations that landlord’s should follow when they are considering complaints through their complaint procedure. The Complaint handling Code advises that at the first stage complaints are answered within 10 working days and within 20 working days. The complaint should be acknowledged within five days and address the resident’s concerns. Though requested from the landlord, the landlord did not provide a copy of its complaints or compensation procedure that was used at the time that the complaint was met. Landlords were expected to self-assess against the Complaint Handling Code, therefore, the landlord has not supplied a reasonable explanation for not providing the complaints procedure that was in use at the time.
The landlord did not supply to this Service the complaints that were made to the landlord. The resident had to request the intervention of this Service to obtain a response to the complaint including our consideration of issuing a Complaint Handling Failure Order. The resident experienced inconvenience trying to obtain the landlord’s position on the complaint as the landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s complaint, thereby, giving assurance that it was taking the resident’s concerns seriously.
The landlord did not comply with the time limits outlined in the Complaint Handling Code when responding to the resident’s first stage complaint. After contacting this Service to obtain a complaint response, the landlord took around four months before the resident received the landlord’s initial response to the complaint. This is an unacceptable delay and not appropriate. Furthermore, once the landlord recognised that it could not supply a response within the required timeline of 10 working days it did not contact the resident to request an extension to the published complaint timescale which would have gone some way to reassure the resident.
The landlord provided its final complaint response on 3 September 2021. A review of this response shows that the landlord did not take the opportunity to take a holistic review of the resident’s concerns. The same person answered the complaint at both stages of the complaint procedure, resulting in the resident receiving fundamentally the same complaint response. The landlord failed to undertake an independent review of the resident’s concerns and did not use the opportunity to properly consider the resident’s concerns regarding the reliability of the lift service, repairs to the windows and the water penetration into the property.
The landlord in its complaint responses failed to consider the impact on the resident when it assessed the compensation award. It did not consider whether an award of compensation was appropriate for the delay in diagnosing and remedying the repairs to the window and for the water penetration into the property. In addition, the award of compensation for the delay in replacing the lift does not state the amount it awarded or how it calculated the compensation award.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling and response to the landlord’s handling to the repairs to the communal lift.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling and response to the repairs to the windows.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling and response to the water penetration through the ceiling during rainfall.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling and response to the related complaint.

Reasons

The landlord has regularly maintained and regularly serviced the lift. However, the landlord has not demonstrated that it communicated effectively with the resident regarding the reliability of the lift, did not keep her updated about the works that it proposed to take or the progress of the works.
The landlord has not demonstrated that it correctly diagnosed, inspected and completed repairs to the living room and bedroom windows to ensure that all the windows in the property could be locked. There is no evidence that it informed her when it planned to replace the windows in the property.
The landlord has not taken action to diagnose, inspect and resolve the water penetration into the resident’s property. The landlord has acknowledged that repairs are required to the roof and have not undertaken the repairs in a reasonable timescale.
The landlord did not respond within the time limits prescribed in the Complaint Handing Code to the resident concerns about the lift, window repairs and the water penetration to the property. The resident had to contact this Service to progress the complaint and the landlord in its complaint review did not consider the impact on the resident and whether an additional award of compensation was appropriate for the delays that were experienced.

Orders

The landlord to write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
If the windows to the property have not been replaced, the landlord to contact the resident to arrange a mutually convenient appointment to inspect the windows to assess the repairs required to ensure that the windows can lock and are draught proofed.
The landlord to contact the resident to arrange a mutually convenient appointment to inspect and survey the property as agreed in its complaint following the water penetration into the property.
The landlord to pay the resident compensation of 1200, broken down as
1. Compensation of £150 for its failure to communicate effectively with the resident regarding the progress of works to the lift.
2. Compensation of £250 for its failure to carry out repairs to assess the condition of the windows and to carry out interim repairs that are required.
3. Compensation of £500 for its failure to diagnose, monitor and carry out the repairs required to remedy the water penetration into the property.
4. Compensation of £300 for its delay in acknowledging and providing full complaint responses to address the resident’s concerns.
The landlord to assess whether a further award of compensation is payable from August 2021 to the actual date that the lift became operational to address the inconvenience experienced by the resident.
The landlord to ensure that all complaints escalated to its final stage are reviewed by a manager not involved in the original complaint response.
The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.