Citizen Housing (202222927)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222927

Citizen Housing

7 May 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:
1. The resident’s report of a water leak from an upstairs property into her bathroom and the associated repairs.
2. The planned kitchen replacement.
3. The resident’s concerns regarding staff conduct.
This Service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident occupies a housing association ground floor bedsit and has held an assured tenancy since 4 October 2019. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. However, the resident has advised the Ombudsman that during the course of the issues complained about she has been registered disabled. The resident did not provide details of her disability.

Scope of investigation

4. The resident advised the Ombudsman that she suffered a personal injury caused by the landlord’s failure to fix the leak. The Housing Ombudsman cannot determine liability for damages, including claims for the impact a situation has had on someone’s health. Therefore, while we assess the service the landlord has provided and any overall distress or inconvenience this may have caused, the assessment is unlikely to directly assess any reported impact on someone’s health. Any such claim would be for an insurer or a personal injury claim.

5. The resident raised 2 linked complaints over a period of 9 months. Both complaints progressed through the landlord’s internal complaint process. The Ombudsman will consider both complaints as part of this investigation. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident continued to raise complaints with the landlord. The Ombudsman is unable to investigate the subsequent complaints within this investigation, as these complaints were made after the Ombudsman accepted the original complaint was eligible for investigation. In addition, it is not clear if the complaints raised have completed the landlord’s internal complaint process.

Summary of events

The landlord’s contact notes showed that on 6 June 2022 the resident reported a leak into her bathroom from the property above. The notes stated that the resident was not sure of the flat number for the property above and said she would call back. The same day the landlord inspected the electrics to establish if they were affected by the leak.
On 8 June 2022 the resident phoned the landlord again to report a wet patch on the bathroom ceiling. In response, and as evidenced by the landlord’s repairs log, the landlord raised a job for the bathroom ceiling to be painted following the leak. The notes also stated that there had been no previous mould or damp treatment. At the same time, the resident also asked for an update on the planned kitchen refurbishment.
The landlord’s contact log showed that the landlord had arranged to visit the property on 14 June 2022 between 12pm and 1pm to discuss the works in the kitchen. However, the visit never took place that day as the landlord was delayed, and the resident had to return to work. The landlord said that it would rearrange the meeting for an alternative time.
The following day the resident submitted a formal complaint regarding the landlord’s failure to conduct repairs to the bathroom ceiling over the previous 3 to 4 months. In her complaint, the resident said that the ceiling had been made safe but not decorated. She added that a manager should have conducted an inspection the previous day but failed to attend. She added that by way of resolution she wanted the landlord to attend that day to assess the issues in the kitchen and to inspect the bathroom ceiling. Alternatively, she would arrange for the repairs to the bathroom ceiling and invoice the landlord.
The landlord’s contact log showed that on 16 June 2022 the landlord said it would conduct the inspection it missed 2 days earlier. The repairs log showed that on the same day the landlord raised an appointment for 21 June 2022 to make good the bathroom ceiling and apply a stain block. According to the contact notes on 17 June 2022 the landlord contacted the resident to confirm that a kitchen upgrade was due that year and to explain that for any further information on the kitchen upgrade the resident could speak with the planned maintenance team.
The repairs log showed that an operative attended the property on 21 June 2022 to conduct the works to the bathroom ceiling but was unable to complete the repair due to an ongoing leak. The landlord’s notes showed that the bathroom light fitting was full of water. The landlord arranged for an emergency electrician to disconnect the cables from the light fitting in the bathroom and make the cables safe. The repairs log also showed that the landlord booked in a follow-on job for the light fitting to be reconnected on 8 July 2022.
The landlord contacted the resident on 23 June 2022 to advise that she would receive communication regarding the kitchen upgrade some time that week. The following day the landlord phoned the resident again to discuss her complaint. During this call, the resident confirmed that she had received a letter from the kitchen contractor and that she was waiting for someone to visit.
On 28 June 2022 the resident phoned the landlord to report that the leak into her bathroom was ongoing and asked for a plumber to visit the property above to resolve the issue. Evidence showed that the landlord told the resident that due to data protection issues it would not be able to visit the property above, and advised the resident to speak with the neighbour to make them aware of the leak so they could report it. The resident was not happy with the landlord’s response and asked the landlord to raise her concerns with its complaints team.
The same day the landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. In its response the landlord confirmed that a landlord employee visited the property on 17 June 2022 to confirm with the resident that it had made an appointment for 21 June 2022 to stain block the bathroom ceiling following the leak. It noted that since having made that appointment it had been brought to the landlord’s attention that the leak was ongoing, which had impacted on the resident. It added that it had made an appointment for 1 July 2022 to attend the flat above the resident’s and would fully inspect and fix any leaks. In addition, it had made another appointment to stain block the resident’s ceiling on 8 July 2022.
The landlord confirmed the asset management team was responsible for the kitchen replacement, and that it was aware the resident had received an appointment for a kitchen inspection. It confirmed that following on from the inspection the relevant team would clarify the next steps.
According to the landlord’s contact log the landlord attended the resident’s property on 1 July 2022 but was unable to gain access as the neighbour was not aware of the appointment and therefore was not at home. The contact log showed that the operative left a card for the neighbour to make them aware of the missed appointment. The same day the resident reported an accident at the property.
On 2 July 2022 the resident responded to the landlord’s stage 1 response and asked for the landlord to escalate the complaint. The resident asked for the complaint to remain open as she did not feel the landlord had resolved her issues. She confirmed that although the landlord had visited her property on 17 June 2022 and arranged for the bathroom ceiling to be painted, the leak was still ongoing. She also confirmed that an electrician attended on 21 June and 22 June 2022 to remove the bathroom light unit. She explained that on the same day an operative scraped away the wet ceiling plaster. The resident said that she had been without a bathroom light for 15 days.
The resident added that due to the lack of lighting and because of the wet floor, on 30 June 2022 she fell in the bathroom and remained unconscious for 2 to 3 hours. The resident maintained that the leak should not have been left unrepaired and there was no reason given for the landlord’s failure to resolve the leak in the property above.
The resident said that while she was agreeable to the landlord’s suggestion that it stain block and paint her bathroom ceiling on 8 July 2022, she explained that plaster was missing from the ceiling due to the water leak, which had also stained the bathroom walls. She added that the ceiling was still wet and acknowledged that although there was a heater in the bathroom there was no extractor fan which prevented the ceiling from drying quick enough.
With regards to the kitchen replacement, the resident explained that the issue she raised in her complaint remained unresolved as the landlord had failed to confirm a date for the work to the kitchen.
The resident concluded that she felt the landlord’s failure to respond appropriately to the reported water leak had contributed to the injuries she sustained when she fell. She added that the leak had been an inconvenience for a significant period and that she felt the landlord had not taken her report seriously.
On 4 July 2022 the landlord raised a job for a plumber to attend the property above the resident’s. The same day the resident phoned the landlord for an update on her request to escalate her complaint. The contact log showed that the landlord attempted to contact the resident later that day to discuss her complaint but there was no answer. The resident phoned the landlord the following day to advise that she had not received a call about the ongoing leak or about the fall she reported.
The landlord’s repairs log showed that it attended the resident’s property on 8 July 2022 to repair the bathroom light, but the resident was not at home.
Evidence provided by the landlord showed that a plumber attempted to access the property from which it believed the leak to be coming from on 12 July 2022. There was no response either at the property or on the phone consequently the plumber left a calling card.
Evidence showed that the landlord attempted to contact the resident on 13 July and 15 July 2022 to obtain additional information about the accident she reported.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 19 July 2022. In its response the landlord confirmed that the leak from the property above the resident’s had been repaired. With regard the kitchen upgrade the landlord confirmed that a contractor would attend the resident’s property that day to complete a survey.
Further to the resident’s report that she slipped in the bathroom while the light fitting was disconnected, the landlord explained that from its records it could see that an engineer attended on 22 June 2022 to reconnect the light but was unable to gain access. It added that a card was left for the resident asking her to make contact to rearrange the appointment but that up until that point she had failed to do so. The landlord revisited the property on 21 July 2022 but again failed to get access.
On 19 July 2022 the landlord raised 2 jobs in relation to the bathroom ceiling repairs. The first was to refit the bathroom light and the second was to patch plaster the ceiling, which the landlord booked for 26 September 2022.
The resident responded to the landlord’s stage 2 response on 24 July and 27 July 2022. The resident maintained that the leak from the property above had not been resolved and that the landlord had failed to respond appropriately to her reports of the leak which had resulted in unnecessary lengthy delays in completing the repairs and associated decoration. She added that there was still no functioning light in the bathroom. With regards to the kitchen refurbishment, the resident acknowledged that a surveyor had been to her property to discuss the kitchen, but that the kitchen layout proposed was generic and was not the most effective use of the space taking into account the need for adequate space on work surfaces, and compliance with fire prevention strategies. The resident suggested an alternative to the layout proposed which included the removal of an internal airing cupboard. In the meantime, on 26 July 2022 the landlord emailed the resident explaining that it had been trying to contact her to discuss the kitchen works.
The landlord’s repairs notes dated 27 July 2022 showed that it phoned the customer for access to the property to refit the bathroom light. There was no response from the resident, so the landlord closed the job.
In an internal email exchange between 4 August and 8 August 2022 the landlord discussed the actions it had taken to resolve the leak. It said that on entering a property above the resident’s it discovered that there was a leak in the service duct, but that the main source of the leak was in different property. It explained that it arranged to enter 2 other properties and found the source of the leak on 8 August 2022. The landlord explained that as it had found the leak later in the day, and to fix it would require a wall being removed it would return to complete the works on 10 August 2022. It confirmed that once the repair was complete it would check that there are no other leaks and arrange for remedial works to the resident’s property once the affected areas had dried out.
There was an email exchange between the landlord and the resident between 10 August 2022 and 22 August 2022. The landlord confirmed with the resident that it had resolved the leak, and that it wanted to arrange a time to start the process of drying out the bathroom. The landlord rejected the weekend date suggested by the resident due to its operatives not being available at the weekend. Following a request from the resident for confirmation of why the leak occurred, on 22 August 2022 the landlord asked the resident to confirm she was satisfied that the leak had stopped. There is no evidence suggesting that the resident responded further nor is it clear to the Ombudsman if the parties agreed on a date.
On 23 September 2022 the resident phoned the landlord as she was unhappy with the time it was taking to complete the repairs to the bathroom. She said that she had attempted to contact the landlord, but the last contact she had was 22 August 2022. Notes provided by the landlord showed that its phone call to the resident on 26 September 2022 was unanswered. The landlord’s repairs notes showed that it was unable to gain access to the resident’s property on 26 September 2022 to complete the proposed plastering in the bathroom. The landlord re-raised the job the same day for 18 November 2022.
The landlord’s repairs log showed that later the same day the resident phoned the landlord to find out when the kitchen refurbishment would take place. It is not clear to the Ombudsman what response the landlord gave at that time. But we note that on 18 October 2022 the landlord phoned the resident to advise that it would not start the kitchen refurbishment until at least November 2022.
According to the information provided, other than the landlord’s update on the kitchen refurbishment, there was no correspondence between the parties in October 2022 in relation to any of the issues complained about. The landlord’s contact log showed that the resident phoned the landlord on 5 November 2022 to report the bathroom light had not been fitted and the repairs log showed that it was repaired the same day. The landlord went to the property on 18 November 2022 to complete the plastering repairs to the bathroom ceiling. However, on attending the property there was no answer at the door or phone, so the landlord left a voicemail. The repairs log showed that the ceiling was bonded and skimmed on 26 November 2022
The landlord has provided evidence showing that it attempted to phone the resident on 12 January 2023 in relation to the kitchen refurbishment as it understood she was concerned that the kitchen layout would not be suitable. The landlord was unable to contact the resident by phone, so it sent a text message to confirm that it had arranged a second appointment for 19 January 2023 at 9:15am. It explained that a landlord surveyor, representatives from the kitchen company, and the contractor would attend to discuss any concerns the resident may have regarding the proposed layout. After a failed attempt to speak to the resident on 16 January 2023 to confirm the appointment the landlord sent another text message. Landlord notes showed that it was treating the appointment as confirmed and it would attend at the time and date previously stated.
The resident called the landlord to confirm she was happy for the meeting to go ahead on 19 January 2023 but that it would need to be via telephone as she was in hospital.
Later in the day on 16 January 2023 the landlord returned the resident’s call. Landlord notes stated that the resident cancelled the appointment as she was in hospital. The landlord said that it explained the purpose of the visit was to check the layout of the kitchen following concerns she had previously raised. According to the landlord’s notes the resident was unhappy with the number of visits that had taken place up until that point and suggested that the landlord should change the layout based on preexisting measurements. In response the landlord explained that it was unaware of the issues with the layout and consequently could not amend it. It added that if the resident needed kitchen adaptations, she may need an appointment with the occupational health team. In response to the resident’s concerns regarding the time it was taking to complete ongoing repairs, the landlord told the resident that it would pass her concerns to the appropriate team. The resident agreed to provide dates when she would be free for the landlord to conduct the site visit.
The same day the resident submitted a stage 1 complaint about the telephone conversation with the landlord. In her complaint she said that she was unhappy with the way the landlord spoke to her during the conversation. She explained that the conversation exacerbated her anxiety and that she did not feel the landlord had considered her needs, which included more kitchen cupboards and larger kitchen workspace. By way of resolution the resident asked that the landlord take a more considerate approach in future, and she also made a request for a different landlord employee to be present during the face-to-face meeting. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the following day and advised the resident to expect a response by 31 January 2023.
The landlord phoned the resident on 24 January 2023 and asked her to provide suitable dates that she would be free to meet. On 29 January 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to advise that she would be free on 3 February 2023.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 31 January 2023. In its response it apologised for the way she felt during the telephone conversation with its employee and confirmed that it would discuss her concerns with the employee. In respect of the resident’s concerns regarding the kitchen design the landlord said that the external kitchen designer team would ensure that the design was compliant to regulations in force at that time. The landlord confirmed the appointment on 3 February 2023 and gave the names of the people attending, which also included the person who was the subject of the complaint. The landlord confirmed that the purpose of the visit was to re-check the design measurements, to review outstanding repairs, and to book dates for repairs to be actioned.
The landlord’s contact log showed that the landlord went to the resident’s property on 3 February 2023 for the pre-arranged meeting, but the resident was not at home and there was no response to the landlord’s phone call.
The resident responded, by email, to the landlord’s stage 1 complaint on 13 February and 23 February 2023. The resident explained that she was disappointed that the landlord had arranged the kitchen design appointment and included the staff member about which she had complained. She added that she had not received an apology nor had there been an investigation into the incident. In addition, the resident said that the landlord had failed to consider her kitchen replacement as a priority. The resident referred to a previous meeting with the landlord and said that following the meeting she expected the landlord to have conducted the following:
1. Provided a list of repairs and dates for completion.
2. Replacement of the kitchen sink.
3. Approval of replacement bathroom floor.
It is not clear to the Ombudsman when the meeting referred to by the resident took place. However, the landlord’s repairs log for 14 February 2023 showed that the landlord raised a job for a painter to:
1. Paint the bathroom ceiling, bathroom walls, skirting and bath panel.
2. Repair damaged plaster in kitchen, fill and paint.
3. Paint the ceiling in the lounge where it joins with the bathroom wall.
Evidence showed that the appointment was booked for 6 April 2023.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 24 February 2024 and advised that it would be in contact with 24 hours to discuss the details of her concerns. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the landlord contacted the resident as suggested.
The landlord responded to the stage 2 complaint on 6 April 2024. It set out its responses to each point raised by the resident as follows:
1. It confirmed that it had sent a schedule of repairs to the resident via email on 27 March 2023.
2. It confirmed the repairs arranged for that day and explained that any follow up work would be completed on 15 April 2023.
3. It explained how the resident could book and manage appointments via the online portal and confirmed that it provided a text message service to alert residents once an appointment had been arranged.
4. It denied the resident’s request for compensation for the damaged bathroom flooring as it did not agree that there had been a service failure, given that it was not responsible for the leak from the property above. However, it said that as a goodwill gesture it would cover the cost of the floor replacement, and asked the resident to provide a copy of the receipt for the original flooring. Alternatively if that were not available, she should provide 3 quotes from floor suppliers.
5. The landlord apologised again for how the resident felt following her interaction with its employee on 16 January 2023. It confirmed that it had investigated, and it would contact the resident on 15 April 2023 to discuss the outcome of the investigation.
6. In respect of the kitchen refurbishment the landlord confirmed that it was planned for the end of April into May 2023. The landlord acknowledged that during the process to arrange the kitchen refurbishment there had been some failed contacts, but it was satisfied that it had kept her informed throughout the process. It added that it would monitor all actions until completion.
7. In conclusion the landlord acknowledged that the resident had been inconvenienced and apologised for the impact on her. However, it did not agree that the inconvenience had been because of a service failure on its part.

Post internal complaints process.

The landlord completed the follow-on painting works on 15 April 2023.
Evidence provided by the landlord showed that there was a delay in completing all works in the kitchen due to the resident not being contactable, issues accessing the property, and due to a disagreement regarding the placement of an electric cooker. The landlord explained that except for the connection of the electric cooker, the kitchen was fully installed and decorated by December 2023.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s policies and obligations

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a legal duty on landlords to make full, effective, and lasting repairs once it is given notice of disrepair. The landlord must keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling house. The structure means the elements of the dwelling house that give it its essential appearance, stability, and shape. For example, walls, ceilings, and the foundations.
The landlord’s repairs policy confirms its commitment to contractual, legislative, strategic, and statutory requirements and commits to providing a cost-effective repairs and maintenance service with the objective of completing repairs right first time.
The repairs policy does not set out responsibilities or timescale for repairs. However, the tenancy agreement and the landlord’s website sets out each parties’ responsibilities for repairs.
The landlord is clear that it is responsible for making sure supplies for water are in good working order and that it considers uncontainable water leaks as an emergency. It states that it will complete emergency repairs in 24 hours or make them safe until a permanent repair is possible (within 12 days).
With regard timescales for routine repairs, this varies dependent on location and tradesperson needed. Based on the information on the landlord’s website, within the area in which the resident lives, repairs requiring a plumber can take 5 weeks, repairs needing an electrician can take 3 weeks.
The tenancy agreement explains that in the event of an emergency where the landlord is unable to gain access to the property it may force entry into the property. As an example, the landlord explains that this may be where water is overflowing.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak from an upstairs property into her bathroom and the associated repairs

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
1. Be fair.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.
This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.
When the resident first reported the water leak into her bathroom on 6 June 2022 she said that she was unsure of the property the leak was coming from. While it was reasonable for the landlord to ask the resident where the leak was coming from. It should not have relied on the resident to provide that information. On its website the landlord is clear that it will deal with uncontainable water leaks within 24 hours. However, on this occasion it failed to do so. This was not a reasonable response. It is not clear to the Ombudsman the extent of the leak. However, given that the resident reported slipping on a puddle of water in the bathroom and that on removing a light fitting the landlord found it to be full of water, it would be reasonable to assume that the leak was serious enough to be considered ‘uncontainable.’
In contrast, evidence showed that the same day the resident reported the leak the landlord acted immediately to check the bathroom electrics. This was an appropriate response.
In her stage 1 complaint the resident said that she had experienced issues with the bathroom ceiling for the previous 3 to 4 months. This Service has not seen any evidence to suggest that there had been issues with the bathroom ceiling in the 3 to 4 months prior to the report of the leak on 6 June 2022. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the issues referred to relate to the leak reported at that time.
Evidence showed that the landlord booked a job to make good the bathroom ceiling and apply a stain block for 21 June 2022 and that on attendance the operative was unable to complete the works due to an ongoing leak. Additionally, the landlord carried out another check on the electrics and disconnected the light. It was reasonable that the landlord ensured the electrics were safe. But it is not clear to the Ombudsman why this appointment was needed if the electrics had already been checked two weeks earlier.
On 28 June 2022 the resident reported that the leak was ongoing and on 2 July 2022 the resident told the landlord that the ceiling was still wet. It was therefore unreasonable for the landlord to attempt to arrange remedial works without first resolving the cause of the issue. In addition, the resident made the landlord aware that the property did not have the appropriate facilities to speed up the drying time. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered the possibility of providing the resident with a dehumidifier. This would have demonstrated that the landlord was listening to the resident’s concerns and keen to find a solution.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord attempted to reconnect the bathroom light and conduct the repairs to the bathroom ceiling within a reasonable timescale. However, given that the leak remained unresolved, the Ombudsman considers the landlord’s timeliness to conduct the repairs ineffective.
The landlord booked an appointment to investigate the leak at an adjacent property on 1 July 2022. This was 20 working days after the resident first reported the leak and is outside of the 24 hours prescribed by the landlord in its policy. The Ombudsman acknowledges that there were access issues which may have contributed to the delay in resolving the leak. The Ombudsman also acknowledges that the landlord attempted to gain access to the property from which it believed the leak to be coming, on at least 3 occasions between 1 July 2022 and12 July 2022. Nevertheless, it was not appropriate that it took the landlord until 1 July 2022 to start investigating the leak.
In its stage 2 response the landlord said that the leak had been resolved. However, the resident rejected this, maintaining that it was ongoing. It is not clear to this Service what checks the landlord conducted to ensure the leak had been resolved. As set out in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on repairs, it is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records. Landlords and its contractors should keep comprehensive records of residents’ reports of disrepair and their responses, including details of appointments, any pre- and post-inspections, surveyors’ reports, work conducted and completion dates. The Ombudsman has made an appropriate recommendation in respect of this.
It took the landlord until 8 August 2022 to find the source of the leak and a further 2 days to resolve it, which was 48 working days after the resident first reported it. The time it took the landlord to fix the leak was too long
The landlord confirmed to the resident that it resolved the leak on 10 August 2022 and asked the resident to make contact to arrange remedial works. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord faced some challenges in gaining access to the property and engaging with the resident, which subsequently delayed the completion of the associated repairs.
However, while there is evidence of the landlord having communicated some of the arranged appointments via a text message, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the landlord notified the resident of all the repairs appointments. As set out in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on repairs, when making appointments it is important that landlord’s provide sufficient notice to the resident and try to accommodate their preferred timing. Landlords should confirm appointments and send reminders by text message or other agreed method of contact if the resident agrees to this.
The landlord’s approach to resolving the issue appeared disorganised. It arranged for a repair to the property without first ensuring the leak had been resolved. The landlord failed to thoroughly investigate the resident’s report of a leak which has led to further inconvenience for the resident and avoidable appointments. The landlord did acknowledge the leak was ongoing on the 28 June 2022 and had arranged for investigations on the 1 July 2022. However, when the resident reported the leak again on the 28 June 2022, she was informed by the landlord that it was unable to act on her report due to data protection issues and she should speak to her neighbour directly. The landlord has a responsibility for repairing uncontainable leaks, the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that it was unable to assist, was unreasonable and unfair.
Having considered the time taken to investigate the leak and subsequently resolve it, and having considered the landlord’s attempts to conduct remedial works prior to the substantive issue having been resolved, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and the associated repairs.

The landlord’s handling of the planned kitchen replacement.

The resident first asked for an update on the planned kitchen replacement on 8 June 2022. Evidence showed that the landlord told the resident on 17 June 2022 that the upgrade was due later that year. In addition, the resident confirmed that she received a letter on 23 June 2022 to arrange an appointment to survey the kitchen. The landlord has demonstrated that it responded appropriately and in a timely manner to the resident’s request for an update on the situation.
Furthermore, in its stage 1 response on 28 June 2022 the landlord provided the details of the team responsible for the planned refurbishment and confirmed that once the surveying visit had taken place the appropriate team would clarify the next steps. This was a reasonable and appropriate response. The Ombudsman accepts that it would have been difficult for the landlord to provide a confirmed date for the refurbishment until it had conducted a survey to confirm what works would be needed.
Evidence showed that on 12 January 2022 the landlord notified the resident that a further survey of the kitchen would take place on 19 January 2022. It confirmed the purpose of the visit was to discuss any concerns the resident had about the proposed layout. Given the resident had expressed concerns about the layout, it was reasonable for the landlord to arrange another appointment to ensure it fully understood her needs and to discuss any concerns prior to work starting.
The resident raised a second stage 1 complaint on 16 January 2023 in which she expressed concern regarding the landlord’s consideration of her needs in respect of the kitchen layout. In its response the landlord assured the resident that the layout would be compliant with regulations in force at the time. This was a reasonable response. Social landlords have limited budgets and are expected to use resources effectively for the benefit of all residents. While the Ombudsman accepts that the landlord should consider the individual needs of residents, this must be balanced within the confines of its available resources. It is reasonable that a landlord should rely on its qualified staff and contractors when considering planned refurbishments.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that there were delays in completing the kitchen refurbishment and accepts that some of these delays were outside of the landlord’s control. However, the landlord has shown that the resident was kept informed of progress of the works. The Ombudsman is satisfied that on balance there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the planned kitchen replacement.

The resident’s concerns regarding staff conduct.

The resident first raised concerns regarding staff conduct in her stage 1 complaint on 16 January 2023. She expressed how the interaction with the staff member made her feel and said that she preferred an alternative staff member to be present at any in-person meeting.
In its response the landlord apologised for the way the interaction made her feel and assured the resident that it would discuss the concerns with the employee in question. However, the landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s request for an alternative staff member to attend the in-person meeting. This caused the resident distress as she did not feel that she had been listened to.
In its stage 2 response the landlord assured the resident that it would complete an appropriate investigation into the concerns raised and share the outcome with the resident. This was an appropriate and reasonable response and demonstrated that the landlord was keen to rebuild its relationship with the resident.
However, the landlord initially failed to consider the impact on the resident of a potential meeting with the subject of her complaint. The Ombudsman therefore finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding staff conduct.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The resident submitted 2 separate complaints to the landlord within a period of 9 months, both of which proceeded through the landlords’ internal complaints process. The landlord responded to the first of the 2 complaints within the timescales set out in its complaints policy, which comply with the Complaints Code. However, in respect of the second complaint it took the landlord 39 working days to respond at stage 2 of its complaints process. In addition it failed to contact the resident within 24 hours as suggested in its acknowledgement of the stage 2 complaint.
In its stage 1 response on 28 June 2022 the landlord acknowledged that the ongoing leak had impacted on the resident and apologised for this. However, other than setting out the action it would take to fix the leak it failed to offer any other remedy for the detriment caused by the leak.
In her complaint escalation on 2 July, the resident told the landlord that she had slipped in the bathroom because of the light being disconnected in the bathroom. In its response on 19 July 2022, the landlord expressed sympathy but failed to recognise the full circumstances of the situation. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident contacted the landlord’s insurance department on 8 October 2022. However, it is unclear from the landlord’s evidence when the landlord provided these details, if at all. It is prudent in cases where there has been an accident, that the landlord provides the relevant details and instructions on how to make a claim, should the resident choose to do so. The landlord failed in this aspect of complaint handling.
In addition, despite advising the resident that the leak had been resolved, it failed to apologise for the delay in resolving it. Nor did it offer an update on when the associated repairs to her bathroom ceiling would be completed. The landlord failed explain what action it would take to remedy the disrepair caused by the leak. This would have frustrated the resident who had no clear timescale for the outstanding repairs.
In its stage 2 response on 6 April 2023, the landlord acknowledged the leak had damaged the resident’s flooring and while it did not accept it was at fault for this, it did offer to cover the cost of the floor replacement. It was reasonable for the landlord to offer compensation for this. However, it was not acceptable that it failed to acknowledge the inconvenience and the distress the leak caused the resident. The landlord said that it did not accept there had been a service failure as it did not cause the leak into the property. This is an unreasonable response. The Ombudsman accepts that the landlord did not cause the leak into the property, however evidence has shown that it did not act quickly enough to resolve the leak. Therefore, to refute discretionary compensation on the basis that it was not directly responsible for the damage is unfair and not in keeping with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
Having considered the delay in responding to the second stage 2 complaint and the landlord’s failure to acknowledge the inconvenience caused to the resident, the Ombudsman finds a service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak and the associated repairs.
2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the planned kitchen replacement.
3. A service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding staff conduct.
4. A service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

While the landlord has shown that it made timely attempts to conduct the associated repairs. The repairs would have been in ineffective, given the substantive issue was ongoing and unresolved. The landlord failed to demonstrate that it acted within a reasonable timescale to resolve the leak and failed to adequately acknowledge the inconvenience caused to the resident.
The landlord demonstrated that it kept the resident informed and updated of progress of the planned kitchen replacement.
The landlord failed to fully acknowledge the distress caused to the resident in respect of its handling of her concerns regarding staff conduct.
The landlord failed to respond appropriately to the resident’s complaints and failed to respond in a timely manner to the second complaint. Therefore, adding to the resident’s frustration.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise in writing for the failures highlighted in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident a total of £650 which comprises of:
  1. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in resolving the leak and the associated repairs.
  2. £50 for the distress caused by the landlord not fully acknowledging the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
  3. £100 for the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
3. Re-offer to cover the cost of the bathroom floor replacement, as set out in its stage 2 response on 6 April 2023. If this has already been paid, the landlord should provide evidence of this to the Ombudsman within the timescale set out.
The landlord is ordered to provide training on the new Complaints Handling Code to all appropriate members of staff. The training must be completed within the timescales set out as part of the Ombudsman’s Code compliance framework, and evidence of the training submitted to the Ombudsman. For the avoidance of doubt, this means that the appropriate evidence must be provided to the Ombudsman by 30 June 2024.

Recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord self- assess against the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on repairs, in particular in respect of appointments and contractors notes.