Citizen Housing (202017420)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202017420

Citizen Housing

30 September 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

  1. The complaint is about the level of compensation offered to the resident for repair delays and lack of communication.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord. 
  2. On 21 August 2020 the resident reported a leak in his property. The landlord advised it would raise a work order to investigate. It left the resident a message on 1 October explaining that it needed to book an appointment to inspect.
  3. On 11 November 2020 the landlord called the resident and arranged an inspection for 20 November. Its records show it found his kitchen ceiling was damp. It also inspected the upstairs neighbour’s home and found no obvious signs of a leak, but identified damp on the floor. It raised a work order to investigate the neighbour’s plumbing.
  4. On 27 November 2020 the landlord reattended the neighbour’s property. It is unclear what it found, and whether it raised follow on work.
  5. The resident called the landlord on 9 December 2020 and 15 January 2021 to ask for an update on its findings from its visit on 20 November 2020.
  6. The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord over the phone on 19 January 2021. The landlord’s records show the resident was unhappy that the landlord had not advised him of what it intended to do following its visit, and that the leak was unresolved. He wanted to know when the issue would be resolved.
  7. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 3 February 2021. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns about its communication following the visit. It explained that it had arranged another inspection following the visit, but it was postponed due to staff shortages at Christmas, and COVID-19 lockdown restrictions. It apologised that the delay was not communicated to him. It said the work (the nature of the work is unknown) at the neighbour’s property was booked for 15 March 2021. It apologised for not providing regular updates.
  8. The resident called the landlord on 25 February 2021 requesting an update on his complaint. The landlord’s records show it noted that it would call the resident back.
  9. The landlord called the resident on 1 April 2021. Its records show the resident said he sought compensation as the issue occurred the year before, and was only recently resolved. He said wanted compensation for the inconvenience of waiting for the repair, and the landlord’s poor communication
  10. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 16 April 2021. It said it understood the resident was dissatisfied with its stage one response, as it had not offered him compensation. It reiterated that work was postponed due to staff shortages, and the COVID-19 lockdown. It offered him £40 compensation for its lack of communication, and the time taken to complete the repair. It concluded by explaining how the resident could refer his complaint to this Service if he remained dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s compensation procedure sets out that it can offer a maximum of £200 compensation for service failures which have inconvenienced the resident.
  2. On 21 August 2020 the resident reported a leak in his home. The landlord said it would arrange an inspection. There is no evidence of the landlord taking further action until 1 October when it attempted to contact the resident. It visited the resident’s and neighbour’s property on 20 November. The resident asked for updates on 9 December 2020 and 15 January 2021. It is understood that the landlord resolved the leak on 15 March 2021 after accessing the neighbour’s property. It remains unclear from its records what work was carried out.
  3. The landlord acknowledged its shortcomings in terms of its delays and lack of communication with the resident. It apologised, and offered him £40 compensation. It also explained that the repair delays were a result of staff shortages, and lockdown restrictions.
  4. Although the landlord took reasonable steps to remedy its shortcomings, its offer of £40 was disproportionately low when considering that it took over a month to contact the resident following his report in August 2020, and then another five months to resolve the issue. The evidence shows there was minimal contact from the landlord following the resident’s report of the leak in August 2020, and following his formal complaint in January 2021. Landlords should keep residents updated, and communicate any expected delays, especially when the resident chases for updates. This is the basis of good practice.
  5. Ultimately, while the landlord considered the resident’s compensation request, there is no indication that it took into account the significant delays and its poor communication in deciding on the level of compensation to offer. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code recommends that:
    1. “A landlord’s policy shall require that any remedy offered reflects the extent of any and all service failures, and the level of detriment caused to the resident as a result.
    2. “In awarding compensation, landlords shall consider…the time and trouble a resident has been put to as well as any distress and inconvenience caused.”
  6. In the absence of such consideration, it is clear that the landlord did not reasonably consider the resident’s complaint, or the frustration and inconvenience its failings undoubtedly caused him.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord’s consideration of the resident’s complaint did not take into account the significance of its delays and poor communication, or the impact they would have had on him.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £190 for the frustration and delay caused from the failings identified in this report.
  2. This order is in addition to the £40 already offered by the landlord in its complaint responses, and must be made within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should update this Service when the payment has been made.