Bromford Housing Group Limited (202124455)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202124455

Bromford Housing Group Limited

26 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s;
1. Request to replace a door;
2. Reports of outstanding repairs;
3. Reports of an overgrown tree;
4. Enquiry about a kitchen refurbishment.
This report will also assess the landlord’s:
1. Complaint handling;
2. Record keeping.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant in a 3 bedroom, mid-terraced property. The resident is recorded by the landlord as having vulnerabilities. These include mobility issues, sensory impairment, a specific learning difficulty and a mental health condition.
The resident lives with a family member, who has consent to act on the resident’s behalf. For the sake of clarify, the representatve will be referred to in this report as ‘Ms B’.
On 30 October 2020, Ms B sent the landlord several photographs of the resident’s garden, showing a large tree near her house. Ms B wrote to say that she hoped it was enough for the landlord to “see the potential for property damage”. The landlord has not provided any records to show what action it took in response.
On 10 December 2021, the landlord carried out an inspection of the property after Ms B had reported multiple repair issues. Following the inspection, the landlord raised several repairs on 22 December 2021. The jobs were to:
1. Fit a new back door;
2. Assess an uneven external pathway;
3. Plaster repair a hole in the hallway wall;
4. Refit a detached skirting board;
5. Repair bathroom windows.
On 22 December 2021, Ms B contacted the landlord to complain about the back door repair and other issues in the property. She stated that the back door had been an issue for over a year and water was coming through the frame. She stated that the resident had just come out of hospital and she was concerned the door was a hazard. She was not happy about the length of time this had taken to resolve and asked the landlord for a copy of the inspection report.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint (Complaint A) on 4 January 2022 and sent its stage 1 response to Ms B on 24 January 2022. This stated that:
1. It had tried to speak to her on the telephone but had not been able to reach her to discuss her complaint;
2. It understood her complaint to be that she had an ongoing issue with water ingress though her back door, which it had still not replaced:
3. She had first reported the issue in January 2021 and an engineer had advised her that she needed a new door;
4. The job was closed and raised again in October 2021;
5. The job was closed again because the resident was waiting for a property inspection;
6. After the inspection, the landlord advised Ms B that it would make a referral for a new door but there was no record this had been done;
7. It assured Ms B that it had escalated the matter to its Repairs and Service Delivery managers;
8. A contractor would be in contact with her directly to arrange an appointment to measure and order a new door.
9. It offered the resident £100 for the stress and inconvenience caused.
It is not clear from the evidence provided what further action the landlord took following the complaint.
The landlord emailed the resident on 2 February 2022 to say that it had made a request to its Property Investments team for a new kitchen, and it would contact Ms B if it was approved.
Ms B phoned the Service on 4 February 2022 to report that she had raised a complaint with the landlord on 4 January 2022 but had not received an acknowledgement or response. She stated that the complaint was about the landlord’s handling of outstanding repairs, which included:
1. Uneven paving slabs in the garden;
2. Tree roots in the garden that caused a trip hazard;
3. The height of the outer garden wall;
4. A hole in the hallway wall;
5. Fly tipping outside the property;
6. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a kitchen refurbishment that was due in 2018.
The Service contacted the landlord on 18 February 2022 to request an update on the status of the resident’s complaint and listed the concerns the resident wanted to raise. The landlord said it would open a new stage 1 complaint.
The landlord wrote to Ms B on 23 February 2022 to say it had tried to contact her to discuss her recent complaint. It had logged a previous one (Complaint A) regarding an ongoing issue with her patio doors, which it had been trying to contact her about since 23 December 2021. It gave the resident an email contact address and said, if it did not hear from her within the next 7 days, it would close her complaint.
The landlord emailed Ms B again on 24 February 2022 to say it had tried to phone her that morning to discuss her complaint. It had attempted to contact her numerous times via telephone and email but had been unable to reach her. It asked Ms B to let it know the best time to contact her.
On 9 March 2022, Ms B replied and stated that she did not communicate via email and wanted her response to be sent via post. She said she had received no formal responses to any of her complaints and felt she had no choice but to approach the Ombudsman.
On 14 April 2022, Ms B emailed the Service and stated that:
1. She had raised a complaint in December 2021, January 2022 and February 2022 but had not received any formal responses.
2. The landlord had raised a job to replace the back door but had ordered the wrong door;
3. It never communicated with her about repairs and “show up when they please”.
4. It was due to replace 3 window panes in the bathroom but only 1 had been completed;
5. It had logged incomplete jobs as completed, which included a large crack and plaster falling off the wall;
6. The landlord had rebuilt the garden wall and made it too high. Since then, fly tipping had increased, people were joy riding and taking drugs, and people were driving onto the pedestrian only footpaths in front of the house;
7. It had assured her several months ago that it would request a kitchen refurbishment but she had heard nothing since.
The Service wrote to the landlord on 25 May 2022 and asked it to ensure Ms B received a response to her complaint no later than 1 June 2022.
The landlord tried to call Ms B on the same day but was unable to reach her. It then wrote to the Service on 27 May 2022 to confirm it would respond by the required date and send a copy.
On 7 June 2022, the landlord wrote to the Service to explain that it had been unable to contact Ms B but was continuing to try. It added that it was working with the resident’s Neighbourhood Coach to help establish contact.
On 16 June 2022, the landlord sent Ms B its stage 1 response to Complaint B, which stated:
1. It had received correspondence from the Ombudsman regarding her complaint;
2. It had tried to contact her via telephone and email to discuss the details provided by the Ombudsman. Unfortunately, it had been unable to reach her;
3. It was conscious it had been unable to speak to her to understand the details of her complaint. From the details provided by the Ombudsman, it believed the complaint was about outstanding repairs, which it listed as follows:
  1. Uneven garden paving slabs;
  2. Tree roots causing a trip hazard;
  3. Outer garden being too high;
  4. Broken front and back doors;
  5. Cracks on a wall, which had caused a hole;
  6. Fly tipping outside the property;
  7. A kitchen replacement, which was due in 2018.
4. It had received a report of uneven paving on 22 December 2021 and work was arranged for 11 March 2022 to complete the job;
5. It had arranged an appointment for 25 January 2022 for the tree roots to be assessed. However, Ms B advised she would call it to rebook as the date was unsuitable;
6. It was unable to see that Ms B had previously reported that the garden wall was too high;
7. The complaint about the front and back doors had been closed after confirmation both had been replaced. It had not been able to establish whether the resident was happy with the completed work.
8. Ms B had reported the cracks on 22 December 2021, and an inspection was arranged for 25 January 2022. Ms B had told it the date was not convenient and that she would call it to rebook;
9. It was sorry to hear about fly tipping outside the property. It asked Ms B to report the matter to her Neighbourhood Coach, although the Neighbourhood Coach had confirmed that the issue had been resolved;
10. It had surveyed the resident’s kitchen and submitted a referral to its Investment Team. It explained that kitchen replacements were completed on a planned programme from each financial year to the next. It was unable to provide a replacement date but would be in contact about this “in the near future”.
11. It apologised for the limited information it could provide and stated that, as it had not been able to determine the full details of Ms B’s complaint, it would close it as of 16 June 2022. It would open a new stage 1 complaint if the resident was still experiencing problems.
Following discussion with Ms B, we contacted the landlord on 28 June 2022 and asked it to speak with her about the complaints. We provided the landlord with her availability.
After speaking with Ms B on 9 August 2022, the Service wrote to her on the same day. We explained that the landlord was still experiencing issues with its systems, following a cyber incident on 20 July 2022. We forwarded her the correspondence the landlord had tried to send her and discussed whether she wished to escalate her complaint to stage 2.
On 10 August 2022, the landlord wrote to the Service to confirm that it had spoken to the resident and had put a plan in place to complete the outstanding works. It stated that the resident “was happy with this”.
he resident subsequently informed us that while she had received correspondence from the landlord, nothing had been agreed. The resident confirmed she wished to escalate her complaint, and for the stage 2 response to be sent by post. We updated the landlord accordingly.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 15 September 2022 and stated:
1. Since it had been made aware that Ms B wished to escalate her complaint, it had been trying to contact her on the telephone number provided to understand the issues it had not addressed;
2. It had been unable to reach her and there was no facility for it to leave a voicemail message;
3. 4 repair jobs were raised on 15 July 2022 and due to take place at the beginning of August 2022. However, it had experienced a cyber incident on 20 July 2022, which meant it had to shut down its computer systems.
4. As it had no access to any of its electronic information, this had an impact on upcoming repair appointments and was the reason why the works on the resident’s property did not go ahead as planned.
5. It had only recently regained access to its computer systems and wanted to book the outstanding repairs as soon as possible.
6. It asked Ms B to provide it with some dates and times that were suitable so it could schedule the repairs.
7. It apologised for the “inconvenience, distress and frustration that may have been caused” and stated that, if it did not receive a response from her within 10 days, it would escalate her complaint to stage 2.
Following further contact from the landlord, we called Ms B on 22 September 2022 to advise her that, as the landlord had not been able to speak to her, it intended to send a stage 2 response by the end of that week.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 response to Complaint B on 26 September 2022, which stated:
1. From the details it received from the Ombudsman, it would investigate the following outstanding repairs the resident remained unhappy with:
  1. Latex hallway flooring;
  2. Repair lounge boxing;
  3. Fit 2 door thresholds;
  4. Repair damaged plaster to hallway.
2. It had been trying to contact her regarding rescheduling the works on a day that was suitable for her. As it had been unable to reach her, it had provisionally booked the appointment for 14 October 2022;
3. Ms B should contact it at her earliest convenience to either confirm the appointment or ask it to reschedule it;
4. The outstanding repairs that Ms B had raised as part of her original complaint were:
  1. Uneven paving slabs;
  2. Tree roots causing a trip hazard;
  3. The height of the outer garden wall;
  4. Broken front and back doors;
  5. Cracks in the property that had caused a hole;
  6. Fly tipping outside the property;
  7. A kitchen refurbishment that was due In 2018.
5. The work to the paving slabs was completed on 11 March 2022;
6. It had scheduled an appointment for 25 January 2022 to assess the tree roots but Ms B had advised she would contact it to rebook this as the date was not suitable. It asked her to let it know if she wanted it to reschedule the works;
7. It could not find any previous report regarding the height of the garden wall. It had tried to contact Ms B to discuss this in more detail but was unable to reach her;
8. It confirmed that both the doors had been replaced and it had been trying to contact Ms B to check she was happy with the work;
9. It had scheduled an appointment for 25 January 2022 to assess the cracks Ms B had reported. She had said the date was not suitable and that she would contact the landlord to rebook;
10. It had explained that Ms B should raise concerns such as fly tipping with the Neighbourhood Coach. It reiterated that the issues had been resolved and that Ms B should monitor the situation and let the landlord know if there were any further issues;
11. It confirmed that the kitchen replacement was due in 2018. However, due to the problems it had with its computer system, it was unable to establish why the work had not taken place. It was waiting for an update from its Investment Planning team so it could provide Ms B with a better idea of when the works would take place. In the meantime, she should raise any kitchen repairs that may arise.
12. During its investigations, it had struggled to contact Ms B and this had prevented it from progressing her complaint as quickly as it would have liked. It asked her to provide it with a preferred method of communication so it could update its database accordingly;
13. It recognised the inconvenience caused by the failed appointment and hoped the new date of 14 October 2022 was suitable. It would ensure it monitored the upcoming appointment and check that Ms B was happy with the outcome of the visit;
14. It offered to pay the resident £250 in recognition of the delays and inconvenience caused.
Ms B contacted the Service on 18 October 2022 to say she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 2 response. She stated that the outstanding works had been delayed for over a year, the fly tipping was continuing and the complaints process had been continuously delayed. She said she wanted the outstanding repairs to be completed.
On 4 November 2022, the Service wrote to the landlord to say that it had spoken to Ms B. She had told the Service she was having difficulty contacting the landlord and that she preferred not to receive emails. She said her accessibility needs meant it was easier for her to correspond via telephone. The Service asked the landlord to call the resident to discuss the outstanding repairs and rebook the appointments.
Ms B contacted the Service on 31 August 2023 to provide an update. During the discussion she stated that:
1. The landlord had evened out the garden paving but had not put cement between the slabs, which had created a trip hazard;
2. The landlord had done a minimum amount to make the tree root area safe and that the cement it had laid was lop sided and presented a trip hazard;
3. The outer garden wall was too high, which made it a focus for fly tipping and antisocial behaviour;
4. The front door was still broken, 2 years after surveyors had recommended that it should be replaced;
5. There were cracks running through the middle of the property, which had led to a hole developing in one of the walls;
6. The landlord had scheduled appointments for the surveyor and kitchen representative to visit about the refurbishment but cancelled it. The kitchen representative was not answering their phone;
7. Wooden panelling next to the fireplace had cracked;
8. Broken and jagged breeze blocks were sticking out of the ground from where the tree used to be and causing a safety hazard.
The landlord told the Service, on 18 December 2023, that it was trying to arrange for the kitchen replacement to take place as part of its April 2023 to March 2024 works programme and was attempting to speak to the resident about this.
The Service spoke to Ms B on 19 December 2023 and she reiterated the concerns she had previously discussed. She stated that her front door had been replaced “a few weeks ago” and that she had a problem with rats coming through a hole in her wall.

The landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures

The landlord’s repairs policy sets out 6 levels of repair. It attends to immediate and emergency repairs within 2 and 24 hours in order to make the property safe. ‘Emergency Next Day’ repairs are those that pose a reduced risk or inconvenience to the resident if left unattended for more than 2 days. An ‘Appointed Repair’ is one where there is no risk of harm or significant inconvenience and is carried out “as required” by the resident. ‘Unappointed repairs’ are for works to communal areas, and ‘Planned repairs’ are those that can be delivered more effectively through a planned or cyclical programme, respectively.
In line with Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property, excluding glazing. The resident must notify the landlord of any repair that it is responsible for. It will usually make an appointment with the resident for its contractor to visit the home and inspect and/or undertake the work. The law says that a landlord should repair a housing defect ‘within a reasonable amount of time’. This is not specific but depends on the circumstances and levels of urgency.

Assessment and findings

Request to replace a door

The landlord’s first stage 1 response to Complaint A stated that, in January 2021, the resident had reported that her back door was letting in water. Following an inspection, the landlord recommended that the door should be replaced. It is not clear from the records when the initial job was raised but the evidence shows this was closed and raised again in October 2021, around 9 months later. The landlord closed the job again before carrying out an inspection on 10 December 2021 to look at other repair issues. Following this, the landlord advised the resident it would arrange for the back door to be replaced. However, it took no further action. The records do not indicate when the door was replaced but the stage 1 response to Complaint B confirms that the work had been completed.
There is nothing in the landlord’s records to explain why the job to replace the back door was repeatedly cancelled. There is no evidence to show that the landlord had communicated with the resident about the cancelled jobs, the reasons why they were cancelled or that it had provided any updates. Nor was the landlord able to properly explain the reasons for the delays in its complaint responses. It is clear that the landlord’s poor record keeping contributed to the excessively protracted delays in replacing the resident’s door.
There is no indication of any effective joint working between the landlord and its contractors, or that it properly monitored the repair to ensure it was carried out in a timely manner. The records show that the lack of effective record keeping would have also contributed to the landlord’s poor communication with the resident. The landlord’s failure to provide any explanation for or transparency around the cancellations would have added to the resident’s uncertainty and frustration.
It is unclear why the landlord waited until it completed a further assessment before re-arranging the door repair. The door had already been assessed as requiring replacement; therefore, it is not evident why any further delays were necessary. The evidence does not provide any reasonable explanation for the additional delay or why the door replacement had to wait until a further inspection was completed.
Given the resident had already waited for around a year for the door to be replaced, it would have been reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to prioritise the repair. The failure to do so demonstrates a lack of customer-focus. In addition, despite the fact it had already closed the job several times, the landlord had failed to book the door repair following the inspection of 10 December 2021. This was a fault and further added to the delay.
The landlord has not been able to demonstrate that it took appropriate action to complete the repair to the resident’s door within a reasonable time. In addition, it cannot demonstrate that it properly communicated with the resident about the repair. This amounts to maladministration. The landlord offered the resident £100 in recognition of the delay in the stage 1 response to Complaint A. The Ombudsman does not consider this to be sufficient, or proportionate, in recognising the extent of the delay and impact on the resident. It will therefore require the landlord to pay the resident additional redress in order to put things right.

Outstanding repairs

The tenancy agreement states that the landlord’s contractors may need to enter the property at reasonable times to inspect or carry out repairs. It states that the resident is expected to agree to this. It is acknowledged that the landlord experienced difficulties contacting the resident via email and telephone, which would have made it difficult for it to arrange appointments.
It is evident the landlord had given the resident appointment dates, which she had declined due to lack of suitability. The landlord cannot be held at fault for delays caused by the resident’s lack of availability. The landlord indicated that it had made repeated efforts to contact the resident via telephone but with little success. It is recognised that it can be challenging for a landlord to carry out repairs if it is unable to speak to residents.
The resident informed the landlord, on 9 March 2022, that she did not communicate via email. The landlord could have spoken to the resident at an early stage in order to agree a preferred method of contact. It could also have discussed with the resident a plan on the best times to make contact. This would have helped increase the likelihood of it being able to reach her and arrange suitable appointment times. That the landlord did not take such steps was a missed opportunity to try to resolve the communication and scheduling issues it had experienced to date.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will ensure that any reasonable adjustments are made to accommodate the resident’s specific vulnerabilities. Although the landlord had made some postal contact with the resident, this was mainly to send her its complaint responses. It is unclear why it did not explore other ways of communicating with the resident such as hand delivering cards, for example, or offering to make home visits. The landlord was made aware that the resident had vulnerabilities that may have meant she had specific needs. It would have been appropriate for it to have explored with the resident any support it could offer in order to overcome difficulties maintaining regular contact with her.
Although the landlord states in correspondence that it had made repeated efforts to contact the resident without success, it did not provide any telephone logs to evidence this. As a result, its comments have not been supported by evidence. The failure to keep a contemporaneous telephone log meant the landlord was unable to demonstrate it had made sufficient efforts to make contact. This was a record keeping failure.
The records show that the landlord raised a number of repairs on 15 July 2022, which were due to take place in August 2022. As a result of the cyber incident it had to shut down its computer systems and cancel all non-urgent repairs. As it was unable to access vital contractor and resident information, the normal process for raising repairs and scheduling appointments had been disrupted. It is noted that the landlord acted appropriately when it took steps to continue responding to emergency repairs while its computer systems were down.
There is no record that the landlord had alerted the resident to the fact the works could not go ahead because of the cyber incident, or that it gave her any explanation at the time. It would have been reasonable for it to have been transparent with residents about the impact of the cyber incident and the likely delays caused by it. It would also have been reasonable for it to have signposted the resident to its website or any other source of information where it published updates.
The landlord confirmed that the period in which it was unable to fully access its computer systems was from 20 July 2022 to around the end of September 2022. It was appropriate that it tried to contact the resident to rearrange the repairs once the computer system was up and running. It was positive that, when it was unable to make contact via email or telephone, it sent a letter to the resident to let her know it had scheduled a provisional date of 14 October 2022. As it is recognised the landlord would have been dealing with a backlog of repairs following the cyber incident, the date the landlord offered was reasonable in the circumstances. When the landlord issued its stage 2 response to complaint B, it appropriately acknowledged the delay and offered the resident £250 for the inconvenience.
The evidence shows the landlord was unable to gain access to complete works on 14 October 2022. The Ombudsman accepts that there can be many reasons why it may not be convenient for the resident to allow work to go ahead. However, delays to repairs being completed because of issues with gaining access to the property cannot reasonably be within the landlord’s control. It was therefore not at fault for the further delay in completing these repairs. It is unclear whether any repairs remain outstanding. As such, an order has been made for the landlord to engage with the resident, undertake a further inspection of the property and raise repairs as necessary.

The resident’s reports of an overgrown tree

The Ombudsman acknowledges how worrying it must have been for the resident to have a tree growing so close to her home and that it could be damaging the property. The tenancy agreement states that residents must, at their own expense, ensure that any trees or bushes let as part of the tenancy are kept to a manageable height and spread. However, it states that residents must not cut down or uproot any trees without the landlord’s written permission.
Although it is the resident’s responsibility to manage the trees in her garden, she reported that a large cherry tree was potentially causing structural damage. The records show that the landlord carried out an inspection of the tree but it did not provide an inspection report. The Ombudsman has therefore been unable to determine the outcome of the inspection, and whether or not the tree was responsible for any structural damage. However, the landlord acted appropriately when it exercised its discretion and covered the cost of removing the tree in the resident’s garden.
The records are unclear as to when the tree was removed. The landlord’s repair log states the job was completed on 17 May 2022, while the landlord informed the Service it removed the tree on 31 May 2022. However, the stage 1 response to Complaint B says that the landlord had made an appointment for 25 January 2022 to inspect the remaining tree roots. This would suggest that the tree was felled prior to 25 January 2022 and that either the information on the repair log or the complaint response was incorrect. The lack of clear and accurate information regarding completion times of work is an example of the landlord’s poor record keeping.
It is noted that the landlord referred to the tree removal as a “goodwill gesture” in its internal correspondence. Following removal of the tree, the records show that the resident had reported that the remaining tree roots posed a trip hazard. The evidence shows that landlord had made an appointment to assess the roots but the resident had stated that the date was unsuitable. It is understood that the resident had agreed she would contact the landlord to arrange a new appointment. The landlord was therefore not responsible for this delay.
However, there is nothing in the landlord’s repair log to evidence that an initial appointment had been made or any records to indicate any attempts by the landlord to arrange another date to inspect the tree roots. Given the resident’s vulnerabilities and the potential hazard posed, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have prioritised the inspection and any further work to remove the rest of the tree. That it did not, was a failing.

Enquiry about a kitchen refurbishment

It is not disputed that the kitchen refurbishment on the resident’s property was due in 2018. It is understandable how frustrating it would have been for the resident to have to wait so long after the original planned date for her kitchen to be replaced. The evidence shows that the refurbishment had already been delayed by over 3 years by the time the resident raised the matter with the landlord in February 2022.
There is no specific requirement for landlords to replace kitchens within any set time period. In addition, landlords have to work with limited budgets when arranging cyclical and planning repairs. It is reasonable for the landlord to prioritise these repairs accordingly, depending for example on the age and condition of kitchens and bathrooms. However, it is unclear whether the landlord had communicated with the resident about the delay at the time. There are no records to show that it gave the resident a proper explanation for the delay or that it provided any approximate timeframe by which she could expect her kitchen to be refurbished. It would have been good practice for the landlord to have done this and would have helped put the resident’s mind at rest.
Internal correspondence shows the landlord had followed the matter up after the resident raised the matter as part of her complaint. It acted correctly when it prioritised the work and added the resident’s property onto its 2023-24 refurbishment programme. This is evidenced in an internal email of 29 September 2022 and appropriately recognises the delay the resident had experienced. It is also appropriate that the landlord advised the resident to report any repairs in the meantime to ensure the kitchen was kept in workable order. The evidence shows the landlord made reasonable efforts to respond to the resident’s enquiry about a delayed kitchen refurbishment.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy sets out its 2 stage complaints process. It states that residents will receive an acknowledgement of their complaint within 5 working days and a stage 1 response will be issued within 10 working days. If the landlord requires more time, it will discuss and agree an extension of the timescales directly with the resident. Generally, any extension will not exceed a further 10 working days, without good reason. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The landlord’s policy states that it will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days and any extension will not exceed a further 10 days without good reason.
It took 19 working days for the landlord to issue its stage 1 response to Complaint A. This was outside the 10 working days, as allowed by its policy. There is no evidence the landlord attempted to discuss and agree and extension of the timescales directly with the resident. That it did not communicate appropriately with the resident or properly follow its policy was a departure from its policy.
The landlord’s policy states the landlord will keep in touch with the resident via their preferred method of contact throughout the complaint. It may, in some instances, arrange to meet a resident at their convenience. It is accepted that the landlord had difficulties contacting the resident by phone and email. However, there is no evidence the landlord took any steps, at the outset, to establish a preferred method of contact. Given the challenges it faced establishing contact with the resident, it is unclear why it did not consider arranging a meeting to discuss the complaint. This may have avoided the need for her to approach the Service for assistance.
The Code states that, on receipt of the escalation request, landlords must set out their understanding of outstanding issues and the outcomes the resident is seeking. If any aspect of the complaint is unclear, the resident must be asked for clarification and the full definition agreed between both parties. In order to carry out an effective investigation and provide a thorough response, it is reasonable for the landlord to try and speak to a resident directly. This would help to establish a better understanding of the issues they have raised.
The Service contacted the landlord on 18 February 2022 to let it know the resident wanted to raise a further complaint and provided it with a list of the issues she had raised. The landlord was unable to reach the resident via telephone. It therefore acted appropriately when it sent her a letter on 23 February to let her know it was trying to contact her about her complaint. There is no evidence that the resident had responded to the letter.
The records show that the delay between 23 February 2022 and 16 June 2022 (around 4 months) was largely due to the landlord’s attempts to try and contact the resident to discuss her complaint. Although the landlord’s efforts to reach her were well intentioned, it meant that the complaint handling became excessively protracted. In the absence of further details, it was correct that the landlord opted to provide a response based on the information the Ombudsman had provided. However, it would have been reasonable, in the circumstances, for the landlord to have done this sooner rather than delaying the process.
The complaints policy states that, at stage 2, a senior manager will review the complaint along with a customer member of the Locality Influencing Network (LIN). They may arrange to meet the resident, who can bring along a friend or advocate for support. The landlord’s difficulties in contacting the resident did contribute to the overall delays in progressing the complaint. There is no evidence a customer member of the LIN was involved in this case or that the landlord offered a meeting. It is unclear why the landlord did not follow this part of its process.
It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered arranging a meeting or home visit, as this may have helped minimise the delays in establishing the essence of the complaint. That the landlord departed from this part of its process meant it was unable to demonstrate that it took all reasonable steps to address the resident’s complaint.
Although the resident raised several new issues in Complaint B, it also included the issue she had raised when she made Complaint A. This was about the delay in the installation of a new back door. It is unclear why the landlord opted to include this matter in its stage 1 investigation of Complaint B. Considering the complaint about the back door was an ongoing issue, which had already been addressed at stage 1, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have escalated this matter.
The stage 2 response to Complaint B is by and large a rewrite of the stage 1 response, and contains very little new information. However, it was appropriate that the landlord made an offer of compensation at this stage. It is noted that both responses contain inaccurate dates, which make reference to 2021 instead of 2022. It is also noted that the landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 responses to Complaint B stated that it had replaced both her front and back doors. The resident reported to the Service on 19 December 2023 that the landlord had only recently replaced her front door. This indicates a lack of attention to detail in drafting responses.
It is accepted that the landlord faced challenges contacting the resident and that this significantly added to the delays. As it was unable to provide any telephone logs, the landlord could not provide evidence of the complaint the resident had made on 4 January 2022. This suggests it may have misplaced or lost the complaint, and would explain why the resident felt she had no option but to approach the Service. This would also have added to the delay in understanding and responding to the complaint.
The landlord had departed from its policy and failed to appropriately escalate the resident’s complaint in February 2022. This resulted in unnecessarily protracted complaint handling. The landlord’s failure to follow its own policy and the Code amounts to maladministration.

Record keeping

As referenced throughout this report, the landlord’s record keeping was poor. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on complaints about repairs, published in March 2019, states that ‘it is vital landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. The landlord and its contractors should keep comprehensive records of residents’ reports of outstanding repairs and their responses, including details of appointments, any pre and post-inspections, surveyors’ reports, work carried out and completion dates’. In addition, the Ombudsman’s latest spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management states that, “the failings to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress”.
There is internal correspondence that states that the resident had asked for a copy of the inspection report from the survey completed on 10 December 2021. It was reported that she wanted this so she knew what works needed to be completed. There is no evidence the landlord had provided a copy of this to her. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to respond and explain why it would not be providing a copy.
The landlord’s records give little indication of which works were carried out, when they were completed or if they took place at all. Although the landlord did provide a repairs log, it is unclear as to when repairs were completed. This is because completion dates for some jobs are inaccurate and the log omits to include all repairs that were reported, or details of when jobs were rescheduled. For example, the repair log does not provide details of when the resident’s front and back doors were replaced or when the landlord had scheduled an inspection to look at the tree roots. This would explain why the landlord provided information in its complaint responses that conflicted with the repairs log.
In addition, the poor record keeping would explain why the landlord was unable to provide reasons, in its complaint responses, for why jobs were cancelled or the dates when some repairs were completed. In addition, the complaint responses were often inaccurate and contained incorrect dates. The landlord’s poor records keeping would have significantly contributed to its poor complaint handling.
There is no evidence of an effective system in place where repairs data is shared between the landlord and its contractor. It is unclear how the landlord checks on the progress of works in order to provide updates. In addition, there are no records of any inspection reports. In addition, as it was unable to provide any telephone logs, the landlord could not provide any evidence of the complaint the resident had made on 4 January 2022. The lack of clear and accurate record keeping would have contributed to the delays in completing some of the repairs, providing clear updates or addressing the resident’s complaints. An order has therefore been made so that the landlord reviews its record keeping processes in relation to repairs, so that the issues identified by this investigation may be avoided in the future.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to replace a door.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of an overgrown tree.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s enquiry about a kitchen refurbishment.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

The time it took the landlord to replace a door following a recommendation by the landlord’s surveyor was excessively protracted. In addition, the landlord was unable to provide any explanation to the resident of why the work had been repeatedly cancelled.
The landlord faced challenges contacting the resident to arrange repairs. In addition, a cyber incident meant that the landlord had to cancel repairs while it protected its computer systems. However, it was unable to demonstrate the efforts it had made to contact the resident as it did not provide any contemporaneous telephone records. In addition, its confusing repair logs and absence of inspection reports would have contributed to the delays completing some repairs.
It is positive that the landlord had removed an overgrown tree in the resident’s garden as a “goodwill gesture”. However, it was unable to evidence that it had taken reasonable steps to prioritise the removal of the tree roots after the resident reported them as a trip hazard. The resident’s vulnerabilities would have warranted appropriate and timelier action to be taken.
The evidence shows the resident’s kitchen was due to be completed in 2018. Although this had been significantly delayed, the landlord is not required to replace kitchens within specific timeframes. The landlord ensured the refurbishment was placed onto its 2023-24 programme while continuing to carry out any kitchen repairs in the meantime.
The landlord experienced difficulties contacting the resident to agree a complaint definition. However, it should have, at an earlier stage, based its investigation on the information the Service had provided. The landlord demonstrated lack of attention to detail and poor complaint investigation. It gave inaccurate information in its responses and could not demonstrate it had properly investigated the resident’s stage 2 response.
The landlord’s repairs log is unclear and lacks details of some repairs the resident had reported. The landlord was unable to provide any inspection reports or telephone logs to evidence its attempts to contact the resident. It’s records do not indicate any reasonable attempts by the landlord to provide updates or liaise with its contractors. In addition, due to its poor records, the landlord was unable to explain why some repairs had been cancelled.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of receiving this determination, the landlord to pay the resident £1250, which is comprised of:
1. £300 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience experienced by delays in replacing the resident’s door. This replaces the landlord’s original offer of £100;
2. £250 that it had offered in its stage 2 response in recognition of delays completing some of the outstanding repairs;
3. £100 in recognition of delays and poor record keeping following reports of tree roots causing a trip hazard;
4. £300 in recognition of its poor complaint handling.;
5. £300 in recognition of its poor record keeping.
Within 4 weeks of receiving this determination, the landlord to:
1. Provide, with a copy to the Ombudsman, an apology to the resident from a senior member of staff for its maladministration;
2. Report back to the resident within 4 weeks of receiving this determination on the latest situation with regard the resident’s kitchen refurbishment and, if known, to advise of a date when the work is due to go ahead.
Within 8 weeks of receiving this determination, the landlord to:
1. Carry out an inspection of the property and to agree an action plan with the resident that includes how and when it will update her on the progress of any outstanding repairs, explain the work that needs to be done and provide dates for when any outstanding work is expected to commence. The landlord to send the Ombudsman a copy of its action plan.
2. Ms B has reported on a number of occasions that tree roots from the removed tree in the resident’s garden are potential trip hazards. The landlord to arrange an inspection, and carry out further works as necessary. The landlord to report back to the Ombudsman with the outcome of its inspection and any resulting recommendations.
3. Contact the Ms B to confirm if there are details about the resident’s condition or other circumstances that she would like it to be aware of when arranging home visits, making contact, and if there is any support the resident may require. It should also consider offering the resident a single point of contact for her to report any further repair issues. It should then ensure its relevant systems are updated with the relevant information. Within 8 weeks of the date of this determination, confirm to the Ombudsman that this action has been completed
The landlord should carry out a review of the learning from this case and what improvements it needs to put in place as a result. This review should include consideration of record keeping and complaint handling, and the landlord is asked to formulate an action plan on how it will address the issues identified from the reviews, and share this with the Ombudsman within 12 weeks of receiving this determination.

Recommendations

Within 8 weeks of receiving this determination, the landlord to carry out a review of how it handles complaints to identify any training needs in order to ensure it correctly follows its own complaints procedure. The landlord should pay particular attention to properly escalating complaints, and keeping residents informed if there are any delays and agreeing revised timescales. The landlord to report back on any changes it had made following its review.
If it has not done so already, the landlord to review its practices so that it can provide some continuity of service in the event of a future cyber-attack or similar incident that may severely affect its service provision.
The resident reports that the current height of an outer wall in her garden is encouraging fly tipping and antisocial behaviour. The landlord to discuss with her how it could help resolve the matter and what support it can put in place to address these issues in line with its policies and procedures. The landlord to provide the Ombudsman with an update on the outcome of those discussions.