Cheshire Peaks & Plains Housing Trust (202101835)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202101835

Cheshire Peaks & Plains Housing Trust

3 August 2021

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 refers to the landlord’s handling of:
1. repairs to the resident’s roof, outhouse and front door.
2. the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a tenant of the landlord, the property is a house.
The resident initially reported issues with her front door leaking water when it rained in March 2020. A contractor had attended on 12 March 2020 but could not complete the work required that day.
On 7 July 2020, the resident reported to the landlord that a roof tile had come loose which was causing a leak into her property.
The resident emailed the landlord on 27 August 2020 and expressed concern that she had reported a leak from her roof on 7 July 2020 and was told this would be repaired as soon as possible at the time. She added that no one had been to see the issue and no ongoing work had taken place. She said that there had been water damage in her son’s room which was now running across his ceiling. She was concerned about the damage that had been caused to the timbers in the loft as the issue had not been addressed. She said that the bedroom would need repairs to the ceiling and redecorating and asked the landlord who would pay for this.
The landlord responded around this time and apologised for any confusion, its records showed that a roof tile had slipped and a repair had been raised accordingly. It said that if the roof was letting in water it would have expected the resident to let it know so that it could send a contractor to complete a temporary repair to prevent further damage. It confirmed that the roofing work had been passed to its contractors who would attend to rectify the issue. Should there be any remedial works needed following the repair, it would inspect the property. Any claim for compensation could be considered and it asked the resident to put this request in writing.
The resident emailed the landlord on 2 September 2020 and explained that she had told the landlord that the roof issue had caused leaks into her property when it was initially reported. She said that the landlord should have written evidence of this and expressed dissatisfaction that she was still awaiting a repair. She asked the landlord to check this. The landlord responded and apologised for any upset caused. it was not aware that the roof was reported to be leaking and would now treat this as a priority.
The landlord’s records show that it called the resident on 3 September 2020 in response to her emails and explained that as it was raining that day, it had arranged for an emergency repair to make safe the leak and prevent any damage. It explained that it had a three-month target date for roof repairs. Following the repair to the roof it would need to allow some drying out time before any follow-on works could be done. The resident felt that if the landlord had initially asked the right questions, the further damage could have been avoided. She added that she had not had any feedback regarding the repairs to her front door and raised concerns about repairs needed to her outbuilding. The landlord had attempted to attend before 8am on 13 March 2020 to complete work to her front door but had reported that it’s operative was not able to gain access to the property at the time. The details of this phone call were sent to the landlord’s complaint team at this stage.
The landlord’s records show that an emergency repair order was raised on 3 September 2020 to make safe the broken tile on the roof as water was entering the property. This was reported as completed on the same day. The resident has stated that she was told the repair to the roof tile would take place on 11 September 2020, however the contractor did not turn up; there is no record of this within the evidence provided by the landlord.
The landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident on 22 September 2020 and explained the following:
1. It apologised for the lack of communication related to the resident’s roof repair. It noted that the resident was told that a repair would be logged when she contacted the landlord in July 2020. It said that the advisor should have explained that its timescale for a roof repair was three months as a planned job. It confirmed that the target date for this repair was 5 October 2020 and that it should have asked further questions about whether the leak was containable at this time.
2. It confirmed that an emergency repair order was raised on 3 September 2020 as water was leaking into the property due to bad weather. It acknowledged that the operative who attended was not a roofer but was there to take pictures of the issue. It confirmed that the operative had entered the property and placed a bin bag to prevent any further water coming in through the roof. The landlord acknowledged that this was not ideal and explained that its emergency service was to make the repair safe and the first available operative was sent to the resident’s property.
3. It noted that historical issues the resident had raised and said that the repair to the resident’s outhouse was mistakenly completed to the property next door and further work was raised. It acknowledged that it also had to re-do some work on the outhouse due to bad weather washing away the mortar. It had asked an operative to attend to inspect the work and explained that they had attempted to visit on 21 September 2020, however, could not gain access to the property and they would attend on 24 September 2020 to carry out this inspection.
4. It upheld the resident’s complaint as it did not feel that it had provided enough information in July 2020 about what would happen regarding the roof repair. It confirmed that it would attend by 5 October 2020 to complete the repair. The landlord confirmed that the resident could escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied with its response.
The resident called the landlord on 8 October 2020 for an update on her roof repair as this was not fixed. She said that a roofer came out that day and applied tape to the external tile (This is in line with the landlord’s records of the visit). She called again the following day to report that the guttering was leaking as it had been cracked during the temporary repair the previous day.
The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 13 October 2020 and explained the following:
1. She expressed dissatisfaction that the repair to her roof was not treated as an emergency. She was unhappy with the temporary repairs carried out to the roof and said that she had taken days off work to be at home for the appointments, but no one had turned up. She did not understand why the contractors could reach the roof to tape the tile in place but could not replace the tile without scaffolding. She said that the damage in her son’s room was getting worse and that there was now mould on the ceiling.
2. She was concerned that there would be more repairs to undertake due to the damage caused. She explained that her gutters were now overflowing down the front of the house and onto the porch which was now leaking. She felt that this could have been avoided and now there were further jobs to complete to fix the damage due to the amount of time it had taken to repair the roof.
3. She also raised the issues of repairs needed to her outbuilding and front door and explained that she did not feel she had received the required standard of service from the landlord.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate her complaint on 14 October 2020. It said that it would respond within 15 working days.
The resident sent a follow-up email on 21 October 2020 as her roof and guttering had not yet been repaired. The landlord responded and said that it would attempt to call the resident that day. The resident sent a further email later that day as she had not received a call-back. She expressed dissatisfaction that she had been promised call-backs that never happened. She felt like she was being ‘messed about’ by the landlord which was causing significant distress.
The resident sent a further email on 26 October 2020 and noted that the landlord had said that it wanted to discuss the issues in person that week. She said that she had not been given a specific time and had been treated like her time was not important. She explained that she had taken time off work during other open-ended timeslots it had provided and said that no one had turned up. She asked the landlord to provide a specific timeframe for the appointment.
On 3 November 2020, the landlord’s records show that a repair was raised to replaster around a bedroom window at the property. This had a target date of 1 February 2021. Another repair order was raised on this date to aqua-seal the brick wall to the resident’s outhouse. This was reported as completed on 1 December 2020.
The resident emailed the landlord on 11 November 2020 as she had not received a response to her complaint or any information explaining the delay. The landlord responded the same day and confirmed that her complaint was with the complaint handler. It said that it would ask for an update.
The landlord’s records show that a repair was raised on 11 November 2020 to replace the roof tile following the temporary repair. This was reported as completed on 9 December 2020.
At some stage prior to its stage two response, the landlord offered the resident £150 compensation. The landlord has not provided any further evidence to the Ombudsman to confirm when this was offered or what this figure was based on.
The landlord issued its stage two response to the resident on 8 February 2021 and explained that the resident had said that she was happy to close the complaint once the repairs were completed to the roof. It upheld the resident’s complaint as the initial repair to the roof had been a temporary fix and it would need to return to complete the repairs needed. It added that if the repair was not completed the resident should make contact and it would seek to resolve any outstanding works. It confirmed that the complaint was now closed.
The resident emailed the landlord on 25 February 2021 and said that she had recently received its complaint response. She explained that she had sent a text message to remind the landlord that it had offered her £150 compensation for the damage to her son’s room but at the time she was unable to accept the compensation as the plaster had not fully dried out. She was concerned that the landlord’s complaint response made no reference to compensation being paid. She added that she did not want to close the complaint as the works required to her outbuilding had not been completed. She explained that the bricks, mortar and ceiling in the building were crumbling in large chunks and she had been told that a timber ceiling would be installed, this was yet to be completed.. She said that she had also heard nothing about her front door, which was letting in rainwater and had been raised in her initial complaint. She was told that this would need resealing but had not heard from the landlord since.
The landlord’s records show that another repair order was raised on 3 March 2021 to replaster around a bedroom window at the property and to line the outhouse ceiling. This was reported as completed that day.
The resident sent a further email on 9 March 2021 as she had not heard anything from the landlord. She said that the issue had gone on for too long and asked who would take accountability for her complaint and the quality or repairs and service she had received. The landlord responded on the same day and said it would escalate the resident’s concerns. It said that if she had not had a response by the end of that week she would need to get back in touch.
The resident sent a follow-up email on 15 March 2021 as she had not received a response. She asked the landlord to pay her the compensation as promised and asked when she could expect the outstanding repairs to be completed.
The landlord responded on 16 March 2021 and said that it would provide an update by 18 or 19 March 2021. The resident sent a further email that day and explained that she had been very patient but was now looking to escalate her complaint further. She was not prepared to wait any longer as the matter was causing significant distress. She felt that she was being ignored and that the landlord was not acting in line with its timescales.
The landlord’s internal records show that it had spoken to the resident on 19 March 2021 and it was agreed that the complaint would be closed and the outstanding repairs would be carried out.
The resident sent a further email to the landlord on 9 April 2021 and expressed concern that her complaint had not been fully resolved. She was told that she would now need to wait even longer for the repairs to be carried out and had been promised phone calls which had not been received. She said that she had been told that the compensation would be processed on multiple occasions and expressed dissatisfaction that she had needed to repeatedly follow-up on this. She said that some repairs still needed to be addressed and wanted these to be resolved.
The landlord responded on 13 April 2021 and said that her email had been received and it was taking these matters very seriously. The resident sent a further follow-up email on 22 April 2021 as she had not received a response. The landlord sent the resident a compensation claim form on 23 April 2021. It asked her to complete the form and send it back, following this it would process her payment of £150 within 28 days.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s roof, outhouse and front door.

The landlord’s website confirms that it would be responsible for maintaining and repairing any damage to the structure and exterior of the property, including gutters, the roof, external walls, internal walls, floors and ceilings, doors and door frames. A landlord is expected to carry out repairs within a “reasonable timescale”. No period for a reasonable time is specified in legislation. Landlords often provide target times in their tenancy agreement or residents’ handbook and these give a strong indication of what is considered to be a reasonable timescale for repairs. In this case, the landlord’s repairs policy does not provide specific timescales or information on how repairs should be prioritised. In general, emergency repairs should be ‘made safe’ within 24 hours although further work may be required following this initial appointment to complete a repair. The landlord’s tenant charter states that routine repairs would be offered within 28 days unless it is an emergency. The landlord has also referred to a three-month timescale for completing planned works. To manage expectations, it is important for a landlord to clearly explain its priorities and timescales to residents and, if these cannot be met, explain why more time is needed.
The resident initially reported a missing roof tile at her property to the landlord on 7 July 2020. The landlord has admitted that there was some confusion following this report and it was not under the impression that this issue was causing any damage or leak into the resident’s home. The landlord acted reasonably by arranging an emergency appointment to make the leak safe after receiving the resident’s follow up report that this was causing water damage.
The landlord has apologised that its initial communication was not clear and confirmed that roof repairs would be considered planned works with a three-month timescale for completion. It said that the roof was therefore due to be repaired by 5 October 2020. The roof repair was reported as completed on 9 December 2020 which was significantly outside this timescale. Following this, the internal plastering work needed because of the damage was reported as completed on 3 March 2021. The landlord has failed to satisfactorily investigate or explain the reason for any delay to the resident. It is reasonable for there to have been some delay to repairs because of the restrictions put in place as a result of Covid-19, however the landlord would have been expected to explain this to the resident which it did not do.
In her communication with the landlord and this Service, the resident explained that the landlord had offered her £150 compensation for the delay to this repair and the cost of having to carry out decoration works to the inside of the property because of the damage caused. The landlord’s compensation policy states that any offer of compensation will be accompanied by an apology; an explanation as to how the failures in service occurred; a demonstration of learning and a commitment to making service improvements. The landlord offered compensation that the Ombudsman considers was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to the roof repairs in this case. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance which suggest awards of this amount in instances of service failure resulting in some impact on the resident.
However, the landlord has not provided any evidence which shows the basis for this amount or demonstrated that it has apologised or explained the reasons behind its service failures. It is recommended that the landlord takes steps to improve its record keeping, ensuring that all communication between a resident and its staff members is documented and there is a record of any compensation offered for audit purposes.

Front door repair

It is not clear from the information provided when the resident first reported the issue with her front door leaking water when it rained. An inspection took place in March 2020 but the repair work was not completed. The resident raised this issue as part of her formal complaint to the landlord on 3 September 2020 and confirmed that this work was still outstanding when she contacted this Service on 22 April 2021, over a year later. It is not clear from the evidence provided by the landlord whether this repair has now been completed.
The repair should have been completed within a reasonable timescale, which it has not. In line with the landlord’s supposed planned repair timescales, the Ombudsman would have expected this repair to have been completed within a maximum period of three months. The resident has spent a significant amount of time following-up on this repair work and the landlord has failed to provide her with repair timescales or explain the cause of any delay. This is unreasonable and was likely to have caused the resident significant inconvenience. The landlord should offer compensation in view of this, as detailed further below.

Outhouse repair

The history of the repairs carried out to the resident’s outhouse has not been made clear in the evidence supplied by the landlord. We are not able to determine when the resident first reported issues with the crumbling mortar and bricks of her outbuilding, however, it appears that some work was completed unsuccessfully prior to the complaint raised on 3 September 2020. In its stage one complaint response the landlord acknowledged that further work was needed as bad weather had washed away the mortar. At this stage it said it would complete an inspection of the building. However, the resident reported to this Service on 22 April 2021 that the ceiling of the building had collapsed, thus requiring further repair.
It is not clear from the evidence provided as to whether any further repairs have been carried out to the outhouse. As above, the landlord would have been expected to successfully complete the repairs required within a reasonable timescale or explain the reasons why the timescales could not be met. The landlord has not demonstrated that it had done so and has failed to keep the resident updated or provide any relevant information to this Service about the status of the repairs. This is likely to have caused inconvenience and distress to the resident which has been taken into account when considering compensation.
In summary, there has been service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs to the resident’s roof, outhouse and front door. The landlord has offered some compensation in recognition of the delays to the roof repairs, however, there has also been significant delays in repairing the resident’s front door and a lack of communication regarding the work needed to her outhouse, both of which the landlord has failed to fully address.
The landlord is to pay the resident further compensation in view of the inconvenience caused by the delays and lack of clear communication about the repairs needed to her front door and outhouse. The landlord should carry out an inspection of both the resident’s front door and outhouse and complete any repairs as needed. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its repairs policy to ensure that its repair timescales are clearly published in order to monitor consistency and manage a resident’s expectations.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

The landlord’s complaint policy states that it has two formal stages for dealing with complaints. In the first instance, the landlord would attempt to resolve the complaint informally within two working days. Following this the resident can escalate their complaint formally. At stage one of its process, the landlord should respond within ten working days. If the resident is not satisfied with the response, they can escalate their complaint to stage two of the landlord’s internal process. At stage two, the landlord should respond within 15 working days. In this response it should assess how the complaint was handled, how its policies and procedures were followed and how the issue has affected the resident. If, at any stage, there is likely to be a delay, the landlord should contact the resident to agree a revised timescale.
In this case, the resident initially raised her complaint on 3 September 2020 over the phone. In its stage one response on 22 September 2020 the landlord acknowledged and apologised for its lack of clear communication. The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 13 October 2020, following this there was a significant delay and the landlord issued its stage two response on 8 February 2021, which was 66 working days outside of its published timescales for stage two responses.
The landlord has not acknowledged or explained this delay in its stage two complaint response, nor has it demonstrated that it kept the resident informed of the status of her complaint or agreed a new complaint timescale. This is likely to have caused significant inconvenience for the resident who spent considerable time repeatedly chasing the landlord for a response. This constitutes maladministration by the landlord as there was an unreasonable level of involvement by the resident in finding a resolution.
Furthermore, the landlord has not demonstrated that it had learnt from the resident’s complaint. It initially apologised for its lack of clear communication, then failed to communicate effectively following its stage one response. Similarly, the landlord did not demonstrate that it had fully considered the resident’s concerns in its complaint responses. The resident had complained about the repairs to her front door and outbuilding as well as the roof repairs; whilst the outhouse repairs were briefly mentioned at stage one, the landlord has not responded to the resident’s concerns over its handling of her front door repair.
The landlord’s stage two response did not explain the actions it had taken to resolve the issues, assess how it acted in line with its policies and procedures or identify any service failures. It is noted that an offer of compensation was also made by the landlord but this amount was not explained in its complaint response.
There has been maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint. There was a significant delay in providing a stage two response and no evidence to demonstrate that the resident was kept adequately updated. The landlord’s responses failed to address certain issues raised, such as the resident’s front door repair and its stage two complaint response did not demonstrate that the landlord had attempted to take points of learning from the complaint or identify its failings.
The landlord should offer the resident further compensation in view of the inconvenience caused due to errors in its complaint handling. It is recommended that the landlord carries out training for complaint handlers to ensure that responses are issued in line with its procedures and its stage two responses demonstrate that it had fully reviewed a complaint. This should usually include the record of events which led to the complaint, actions it had taken to resolve matters and what it would do to put things right for a resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs to the resident’s roof, outhouse, and front door.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord has acted reasonably by offering £150 compensation for the service failures associated with the roof repair. However, there were also significant delays and a lack of communication in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s outhouse and front door which is likely to have caused significant inconvenience for the resident.
There was a significant delay in providing a stage two response to the resident and there is no evidence to demonstrate that the resident was kept adequately updated on the status of her complaint. The landlord’s complaint responses failed to address certain issues raised, such as the resident’s front door repair, and its stage two complaint response did not demonstrate that the landlord had attempted to take points of learning from the complaint or identify its failings.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that the following actions are taken within four weeks:
1. The landlord is to pay the resident £500, comprised of:
  1. £150 as previously offered in recognition of the roof repair delays and decoration costs for the resident.
  2. £200 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the delay and lack of communication regarding the outhouse and front door repairs
  3. £150 in recognition of the inconvenience caused and time and trouble spent because of the landlord’s poor complaint handling.
Within eight weeks, the landlord is to:
1. Complete a case review of the resident’s complaint to identify points of learning. The landlord should provide a copy of this review to both the resident and the Ombudsman.
2. Inspect the resident’s outhouse and front door and complete any repairs as needed. Following the inspection, the landlord should write to the resident and outline its plan of action, including its proposed timescales for completing the repairs to appropriately manage her expectations.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord takes steps to improve its record keeping, ensuring that all communication between a resident and its staff members is documented and there is a record of any compensation offered for audit purposes.
It is recommended that the landlord reviews its repairs policy to ensure that its repair timescales are clearly published in order to monitor consistency and manage a resident’s expectations.
It is recommended that the landlord carries out staff training for complaint handlers to ensure that responses are issued in line with its procedures and its stage two responses demonstrate that it had fully reviewed a complaint. This should usually include the record of events which led to the complaint, actions it had taken to resolve matters and what it would do to put things right for a resident.