Chisel Limited (202217838)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217838

Chisel Limited

29 February 2024

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 handling of the resident’s:
1. Request for repairs or replacement of the bathroom and repairs to a broken door lock.
2. The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a 3 bedroom house. The tenancy commenced on 18 September 2000.
The landlord has not recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.

Landlord obligations

The landlord’s repairs policy states:
1. Emergency repairs cover any problem immediately threatening the health, safety or security of residents. It aims to carry out emergency repairs within 24 hours and make safe.
2. It would complete urgent repairs within 7 days.
The landlord’s maintenance policy states:
1. Residents would be consulted about any proposed major improvements to their homes. The consultation would take place at least 3 months before the work is due to be carried out.
2. Where improvements are necessary, it would allow the resident as much choice of fixtures and fittings as possible within its allowed budget.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. It would respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation procedure explains it may consider a further financial award to reimburse a resident where a resident incurs costs or there has been a financial loss.

Scope of investigation

The resident asked this Service to ensure the landlord uses good quality fittings and fixtures when it completes its improvement works to the bathroom. The landlord’s maintenance policy states, where improvements are necessary, it would allow the resident as much choice of fixtures and fittings as possible within its allowed budget. This Service is unable to make an order requiring the landlord to use certain items. However, should the improvements cause repair concerns, the resident should report her concerns to the landlord and if the concerns cannot be resolved, she should follow its complaints procedure.

Summary of events

On 25 February 2022, the resident requested the landlord replaced her bathroom. She said she did not receive a response.
On 8 March 2022, the resident again reported that repairs to the bathroom were required. She noted she had been contacting the landlord for the previous 2 days and did not receive a call back or response by email.
On 11 March 2022, the landlord confirmed it was not in a position to confirm whether it would replace the bathroom. It would complete a stock condition survey in the next financial year which would inform its cyclical and planned programme of works. It would be able to confirm this information halfway through the financial year. It asked the resident to report required repairs to its contractor.
On an unconfirmed date between March and May 2022, the resident states the landlord’s contractor inspected the bathroom and took pictures. It explained to the resident the washer on the bath would be changed however, the taps and the bath needed to be replaced. It was therefore considered not cost effective to complete repairs to these items. There is no record in the landlord’s evidence which confirmed the contractor attendance.
On 12 April 2022, the resident emailed the landlord and referred to the previous contractor’s visit and that it had confirmed the bathroom required replacement. She confirmed she would resubmit all the repair orders again relating to the bathroom as it was substandard.
On 11 May 2022 a surveyor attended the property to inspect the bathroom. Its report stated:
1. The bath had lost its enamel and was heavily stained. Sharp edges were also starting to form.
2. The wall tiling had started to de-bond and crack.
3. The worktop around the sink suffered from swelling due to natural usage and overspill.
4. It recommend the bathroom was fully updated with new sanitary (essential bathroom fixtures), wall tiling, new flooring, electric shower above the bath and all necessary sundries associated with a bathroom upgrade.
5. It would prepare a schedule of works on request from the landlord.
On the same date, the resident reported the survey findings as repairs to the landlord. She informed this Service she checked the landlord’s repairs portal after a period of a few weeks later for an update. She discovered the repair request had been cancelled with no explanation and no contact from the landlord.
Between 16 and 23 May 2022, the resident states she called the landlord multiple times for an update on the repairs without receiving a response back. However, when she eventually spoke to a staff member, a contractor was instructed to inspect the repair. The contractor attended and confirmed the repairs were not cost effective and a bathroom replacement was required.
On 21 June 2022, the resident contacted the landlord for an update. The landlord’s contact log stated it signposted the resident to the contractor.
Between 20 July 2022 and 4 August 2022:
1. The resident was contacted to provide pictures of the bathroom. A new works order was made to replace bath taps, replace damaged plug hole and repair or replace the extractor fan. She explained this order disregarded the other bathroom repairs required.
2. The contractor attended and confirmed the repairs to the bathroom were not cost effective and the bathroom required replacement. The contractor did not inspect the reported repair to the waste disposal as it was not part of its instruction.
On 6 August 2022, the resident complained to the landlord:
1. She requested a bathroom replacement in February 2022 however, 3 contractors have attended and each time, the contractor reported back to the landlord the repairs were not cost effective and recommended a bathroom replacement instead.
2. She asked the landlord to make a decision to sign off for the new bathroom or to complete the repairs required until her property was in line for the cyclical planned works.
3. She also previously raised a repair for the waste disposal on the downstairs sink to be completed however, the contractor attended and confused the repair request to be related to the bathroom. As it was not listed on their instruction the repair could not be completed and signed off. It raised a new repair and an estimate was provided to the landlord, but the repair was not completed.
4. She also complained about previous works to repair the top lock on her front door which broke. When the inspection took place, it was suggested old fixtures and fittings were used in the new door which was installed. This caused leaning issues and the lock to snap. She therefore had limited door security and had not received any correspondence for the repair to be completed.
On 10 August 2022, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint.
On 11 August 2022:
1. The landlord emailed the resident stating it believed the resident raised the repair concerns of the waste disposal and broken door lock to its contractor and not to itself.
2. It would speak with its contractor to investigate why the waste disposal repair was mixed up with other repairs.
3. It would also ask its contractor to repair the door lock following reports she was locked inside the property. It noted it had a backlog of repairs to work through.
On 19 August 2022 the landlord provided its stage 1 response:
1. It confirmed the resident’s bathroom was included on its cyclical planned works programme. It would carry out the repairs needed to keep the bathroom in good working condition until the cyclical work was completed.
2. The landlord asked the resident to confirm which contractor replaced her door. It acknowledged the contractor’s service was unsatisfactory if it installed used fixtures and fittings when the new door was installed.
3. It apologised for the inconvenience to the resident and said it would update the resident when it planned to complete the cyclical works to the bathroom.
On the same date, the resident asked the landlord to provide timescales for repairs to the bathroom and door lock. She explained 3 different contractors attended over previous months but the repairs were outstanding.
On 23 September 2022, the landlord emailed the resident and stated its contractors did not have availability to complete the repairs to the bathroom. However, a contractor was instructed to attend on 27 September 2022, but did not include the correct list of repairs the resident submitted for repair.
On 26 September 2022, the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 because the landlord had provided poor customer service in respect of her request for bathroom repairs and its replacement.
On 4 January 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 response:
1. It explained it had internal issues which impacted its ability to respond to the resident’s complaint within its policy timescales. It apologised and found service failure and upheld the complaint.
2. It acknowledged service failure with its communication to the resident and its repairs management with its contractors. It had taken action to ensure communication skills were tested in its future recruitment and it would be monitored.
3. It acknowledged the resident requested a bathroom replacement on 25 February 2022. Between March and May 2022, a contractor completed minor repair works, but advised a full bathroom replacement was required. It appreciated what occurred was several repair attendances and the same information was received back from its contractors, that the bathroom should be replaced. It also acknowledged it did not confirm dates for the replacement of the bathroom once it was confirmed as necessary on 19 August 2022.
4. It confirmed the replacement bathroom would be included in the planned works programme for 2023/24 and would be scheduled to take place between April 2023 and March 2024. It was likely to take place in the first 6 months of that period.
5. It offered £200 compensation comprising of:
  1. £50 for the delay responding to the stage 2 complaint
  2. £150 for the service failures.
On 8 January 2023, the resident emailed the landlord in response to its stage 2 complaint response. She explained:
1. She would like a larger compensation offer due to the time and trouble and distress and inconvenience of pursuing her complaint issues and the associated complaint. She reported she had to take time off work for contractor attendances with no further action taken.
2. She was grateful for a confirmed period of time to expect a replacement of her bathroom. However, she wanted the landlord to officially confirm the dates. She also wanted the bathroom to use new fixtures and be modern, as the landlord had a history of cost-cutting.

Events post complaint

On 28 April 2023, the landlord confirmed to this Service, it would determine the budget for replacing the bathroom using a surveyor and confirm dates for works. Its surveyor had been unsuccessful arranging an appointment with the resident. On the same date, the resident informed this Service she had not received any contact from the landlord’s surveyor.

Assessment and findings

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman considers its Dispute Resolution Principles. This is good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution:

a. be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes

b. put things right, and

c. learn from outcomes.

Request for repairs or replacement of the bathroom and repairs to a broken door lock

Whilst this Service recognises the landlord’s contractors identified the bathroom required replacement, it is not within the Ombudsman’s expertise to determine at what point cyclical works should be carried out. The nature of the issues means they do not fall under the landlord’s day-to-day repairs policy, where there may be more concrete completion timeframes against which this Service could assess whether there was a service failing. The issues instead come under the landlord’s planned works policy, where completion timeframes can be lengthy and depend on multiple factors. These factors may include the landlord’s views on the property condition, the urgency the works are given, the status of any current and future works programmes in progress and how the landlord is generally prioritising major works to its housing stock. On 11 March 2022, the landlord showed good practice to explain to the resident the works would be surveyed in the next financial year, and it would confirm further information once it had the required information.
The landlord surveyed the bathroom on 11 May 2023, in the new financial year as it explained on 11 March 2022. The survey identified the replacements required. The surveyor also confirmed it would be able to complete a schedule of works on request. There was no evidence the landlord sought to follow this up with the surveyor. This was a missed opportunity by the landlord to explore what the financial cost was. Whilst this may not have changed the landlord’s approach, it may have identified some lower cost repairs which could have been complete ahead of the cyclical works. Additionally, it may have provided the landlord with an opportunity to consider whether the required replacements were financially possible within its budget, making an informed decision on whether it had scope to push the works forward given the age of the bathroom, and where it was not cost effective to complete repairs based on its contractor’s suggestions. This indicated the landlord did not take the matter seriously enough to assess its options.
This Service recognises the landlord was not able to complete the cyclical works until the new financial year. However, it had a duty under its repairs policy to ensure it completed necessary repairs to the bathroom to guarantee it was in good working condition. Whilst the landlord confirmed within its stage 1 response on 19 August 2022, it would carry out the repairs needed to keep the bathroom in good working condition until the cyclical work was scheduled, there was no evidence it had previously assessed what repairs it could complete prior to cyclical works taking place.
Instead, despite it already having established the bathroom required replacement through its contractor and having surveyed the bathroom to confirm the items which required replacement, it continued to instruct its contractors to attend the resident’s property. This was evidenced by contractors attending on 2 further occasions in May 2022 and between 20 July 2022 and 4 August 2022, only for the same information to be confirmed, that the bathroom repairs were not cost effective and replacements were required. This evidence suggests the landlord’s record keeping and repairs management was not efficient and led to it providing an uncoordinated repairs service, which fell below its expected policy standards. This was a service failure.
The landlord’s communication with the resident fell below expectations. The resident put the landlord on notice repairs were required in her bathroom on 25 February 2022. She reported this again on 7 March 2022 as she did not receive a response from the landlord. Between 11 May and 23 May 2022 the landlord cancelled a repairs request the resident logged without informing her. The resident states she called the landlord multiple times for an update on the repairs without receiving a response back.
The resident also reported the lock on her front door snapped and her security to her property was compromised. She states the landlord had not arranged for it to be repaired. This Service has not received evidence which confirmed when the resident reported this repair to the landlord and the landlord’s handling of the matter. This is evidence of a record keeping service failure.
However, the landlord’s repairs policy categorises repairs compromising the security of the property as an emergency and should be made safe within 24 hours. Whilst the details of the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a broken door lock are unclear in the landlord’s evidence, the resident was required to chase the landlord for it complete the repairs. This suggests the landlord did not uphold its repairs policy timescales to repair the door and ensure it provided the resident with security. This is evidence of a further service failure.
The evidence also suggests the landlord failed to take proactive steps or sought to instruct its contractors to assess what temporary repairs or alternatives could remedy the resident’s concerns, whilst it waited for cyclical works to commence. The culmination of the resident’s request for updates on either repairs or the replacement of her bathroom, the landlord’s unclear communication and the number of attendances the landlord’s contractors made leading to the same outcome, suggests the landlord failed to put in place measures to manage the resident’s expectations. It is important for a landlord to clearly explain its priorities and timescales to the resident and if they could not be met, explain why more time is needed to ensure a robust handling of repairs. This Service would expect the landlord to have provided the resident with an action plan, explaining what repairs it could complete and to provide timescales to the resident. This was evidence of a further service failure.
The resident was caused considerable anxiety and distress by the landlord’s unreasonable communication and handling of the repairs, failing to manage the resident’s expectations or arrange a coordinated repairs service to manage repairs whilst it waited to confirm cyclical improvement works to the bathroom. The resident also took time off work for the contractors to attend when repairs were not carried out. The landlord failed to appropriately respond to the resident’s reports of a broken door lock appropriately within its repair policy timescales. The landlord’s record keeping was also unreasonable. Overall, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for repairs or replacement of the bathroom and repairs to a broken door lock was maladministration.
The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where a landlord has offered suitable redress to resolve a complaint. In this case the Ombudsman recognises that in its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged failures with the service it provided, and the delays caused. It also apologised to the resident. Whilst it offered the resident £150 compensation for its repairing service failures, the compensation was not in line with the Ombudsman’s remedy scale for financial remedy. This Service has therefore made an order for further compensation to be paid to the resident.

The associated complaint

The resident complained to the landlord on 6 August 2022. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 19 August 2022. This was in line with the landlord’s complaint handling policy timescales and in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). This was good practice.
The resident escalated her complaint on 26 September 2022. The landlord did not provide its stage 2 response until 4 January 2023. This was a delay of approximately 3 months. This was evidence of poor complaint handling and was not appropriate or in line with the landlord’s complaints policy timescales or the Code, which required it to provide a response within 20 working days.
The delay left the resident in the complaints process, without a clear resolution. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint was service failure. Whilst the landlord offered £50 compensation for its complaint handling failure and apologised, the compensation award was not in line with the Ombudsman’s remedy scale. An order has been made for further compensation to be paid to the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for repairs or replacement of the bathroom and repairs to a broken door lock.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord’s communication with the resident was unreasonable. It failed to manage the resident’s expectations by providing an action plan or sought to provide a coordinated repairs service to assess what repairs it could make whilst it waited to confirm cyclical improvement works. It also failed to appropriately respond to the resident’s reports of a broken door lock within its emergency repairs timescales. The landlord’s record keeping was also unreasonable.
The landlord’s complaint handling was unreasonable and there was an approximate 3 month delay to provide its stage 2 complaint response.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident a total of £500 in compensation comprising of:
  1. £300 for the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble caused by its handling of the resident’s request for repairs
  2. £100 in recognition of the time and trouble caused to the resident by its poor complaint handling
  3. £100 in recognition of its poor record keeping
  4. if it has not already done so, pay the resident £200 offered in its stage 2 response on 4 January 2023.
2. If it has not yet completed improvement works to the bathroom or ensured the resident’s front door lock was replaced, it should assess what repairs it could complete ahead of cyclical improvement works and agree an action plan of repairs with the resident providing dates for completion of any identified repairs.
3. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

The landlord should review its repair procedures to ensure there is an effective mechanism in place to manage repairs, achieve a resolution within a reasonable timescale and provides action plans to manage resident expectations.
The landlord should self-assess itself against the Ombudsman’s Knowledge and Information Management spotlight report.