Arun District Council (202510430)

Background

1. The landlord agreed to move the resident to temporary accommodation in February 2024 while it carried out repairs at the property.  The resident complained about the conduct of the landlord’s contractors and the landlord’s handling of the repairs.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Concerns about the behaviour of its contractor.
   2. Concerns about repairs at the property.
   3. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the behaviour of its contractor.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about repairs at the property.
   3. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the behaviour of its contractor

4. The landlord acknowledged the failings in the conduct of its contractor. It asked the contractor to investigate the issue, and the contractor offered an apology and compensation, which was enough to put things right.

The resident’s concerns about repairs at the property

5. The landlord did not complete repairs in line with the timescales set out in its repairs policy. It acknowledged failings during the complaint process, and offered the resident an apology and compensation. However, it did not complete all of the repairs, so the landlord failed to fully put things right.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

6. The landlord delayed responding to the resident’s complaint and provided an additional response between stages 1 and 2, instead of escalating the complaint to stage 2. It did not acknowledge the failings in its complaint handling, and therefore failed to put things right.

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.

7. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance code of conduct applies to its external contractors. It says they will be polite, respectful, and respect the home, contents and environment of the resident at all times. It says contractors will communicate clearly and effectively with residents about the work being carried out. The code of conduct also says contractors will not play music or the radio without the resident’s permission, and they will leave the site clean, tidy and secure at the end of each working day.
8. The resident complained because the landlord’s window contractor had arrived at the property without an appointment. She said they played loud music, and called out to her baby when she had been trying to get the baby to sleep. She said the contractors had knocked into a display cabinet and damaged items. She said they left large panes of glass in the property over the weekend.
9. The landlord acknowledged and responded to the resident’s concerns about the window contractor in its stage 1 complaint response. It apologised for the problems with its contractor’s conduct and arranged for the contractor to investigate the matter. The contractor apologised, repaired the damaged items and offered the resident a shopping voucher as a goodwill gesture.
10. We found the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the contractor’s conduct was reasonable. It recognised the inconvenience it caused the resident because of its service failures. The resident told us the contractor carried out the proposed actions to put things right. We found reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its contractor.

What we have not investigated

11. The resident said while it was investigating her complaint, the landlord decided some of the radiators at the property needed to be replaced. She said the radiators have not yet been replaced.
12. The resident also said the landlord told her it would pay the bills for the temporary accommodation. She said since moving back to her property, she has been pursued in relation to outstanding rent and bills at the temporary accommodation.
13. We have not considered these issues because they did not form part of the resident’s original complaint. A landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any complaints about its actions before we investigate. However, the resident can raise a further complaint with the landlord about these matters.

What we did investigate

14. The resident agreed to move into temporary accommodation on 23 February 2024 while the landlord carried out substantial works to repair a leaking roof, and associated damage, damp and mould inside the property.
15. The landlord’s repairs policy states that complex repairs will be carried out within 60 working days. When she returned to the property on 18 October 2024, the resident told the landlord the bathroom and shed doors had not been replaced, mould in a kitchen cupboard had not been treated, the ceiling had not been repaired, and the plastering work had not been done. This was 167 working days after she was decanted, and 107 days in excess of the landlord’s complex repair timeframe. The resident also reported the bath had been chipped, and the floor had been damaged.
16. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord mistakenly said all planned repairs had been completed. It corrected this position after further investigation, and issued a further response where it acknowledged that some works remained outstanding. It said it would inspect and complete the outstanding repairs and offered the resident £250 compensation for the delay, distress and inconvenience. This was in line with its compensation policy. It also said it would contact the asbestos surveyor to ask it to repair the flooring, and the landlord would repair the chipped bath.
17. In January 2025, the resident contacted the landlord again to escalate her complaint because it had still not completed most of the repairs. The landlord apologised for the further delay and offered an additional £350 compensation. It also said it would inspect and complete the outstanding repairs.
18. At the date of this report, the landlord had completed repairs to the shed door, chipped bath, bathroom door, a patch of plastering in the bedroom, and a mould treatment in the kitchen cupboard. However, the landlord had not resolved the problems with the ceiling, walls and flooring. It has therefore failed to fully put things right. The delay completing the outstanding repairs caused the resident frustration, distress and inconvenience. She contacted the landlord on several occasions to ask it to complete the outstanding repairs. She told the landlord she could not hang curtain poles as the walls are crumbling, and she could not redecorate her home until the landlord confirmed work to the walls, ceilings and floors was complete.
19. Overall, there was maladministration in the handling of the resident’s concerns about repairs at the property. We have ordered the landlord to pay an additional £300 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the additional delay following the stage 2 response. It must also inspect the walls, ceiling and floors, and carry out any works recommended as a result the inspection.

20. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code 2024 (the Code) was in place at the time of the resident’s complaint.
21. The landlord had a 2-stage complaints policy. It said it would acknowledge a complaint at stage 1 within 5 working days and provide its response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. At stage 2 it said it would respond within 20 working days. This was in line with the Code.
22. Initially, the landlord did not recognise or respond soon enough to the resident’s complaint. The resident raised concerns about the standard of repairs on 17 and 25 October 2024, but the landlord did not raise a complaint until she contacted it again on 12 November 2024. This was a delay of 18 working days after she first expressed her dissatisfaction.
23. Once it raised the complaint on 13 November 2024, the landlord complied with the timescales for acknowledging and responding at stage 1.
24. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint, but instead of escalating the complaint, the landlord issued a further response at stage 1. It changed the outcome from partially upheld to fully upheld, and offered the resident compensation. The landlord also asked the resident to confirm she did not want to escalate to stage 2 when she accepted the compensation.
25. It was appropriate for the landlord to correct its errors, set out planned actions to resolve the complaint, and offer compensation. However, it should have confirmed this in a stage 2 response to the resident’s escalation request, rather than an additional response at stage 1. The failure to escalate to stage 2 in line with the Code meant the resident asked the landlord to escalate the matter again. The need to escalate her complaint a second time delayed the resident in bringing her complaint to us.
26. The landlord did not acknowledge its failure to recognise and escalate the resident’s complaint, and therefore did not apologise or put things right.
27. Overall, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.  We have ordered the landlord to pay £100 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

28. The landlord’s records, particularly of works it requested, and carried out by its contractors were poor. Better record keeping would have assisted the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Communication

29. The landlord communicated well with the resident in response to her request for information following an asbestos survey at the property. It provided reassurance regarding the very low risk from the presence of asbestos in the roofing felt, and explained clearly that the recommendation from the surveyor was that no action was required at that time.