ForHousing Limited (202118330)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202118330

ForHousing Limited

17 October 2022

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:
   1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s balcony door.
   2. The associated complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a flat within a block of flats.
3. The resident initially reported a gap in his balcony door frame in December 2020, which allowed cold air to enter his property. He further reported the issue in February 2021. The landlord arranged for two joiners to attend shortly after, but they were unable to gain access to the resident’s property to carry out the repair.
4. The resident raised a formal complaint in late February 2021 as he was dissatisfied that he had waited “all day” and missed the joiners’ visit, because they had failed to use the intercom. The resident said he had previously advised the landlord to make a note for operatives to use the intercom or phone as he was unable to hear knocks at the door. He was also dissatisfied with the length of time taken to resolve the issue, and noted it had been ongoing for several months. Over the course of the complaint, the resident advised that contractors had attended and completed the same inspections or work as previous contractors, which had not resolved the issue and on other occasions contractors had attended without the necessary materials.
5. The landlord rearranged visits and inspected the balcony door in mid-March 2021, finding that the door runner was out of line and had cracks to the plastic underneath, which resulted in cold air entering the property. According to the repair history, its contractor renewed the hinges to the casement sash, eased and adjusted the casement and fanlight in place. Internal emails note that the contractor completed a second inspection in March 2021, following further reports by the resident that his balcony door still had a gap and had to be forced shut. An additional report was raised by the resident after further issues closing the balcony doors, which the contractor attended in May 2021. Repair records show that multiple repair appointments from June 2021 to April 2022 were cancelled and/or refused access by the resident or landlord for various reasons, including the landlord not providing sufficient notice of the appointments, operatives not using the intercom or calling as requested, unnecessary inspections taking place or the landlord bringing the job in house.
6. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord apologised for its failure to use the intercom and for the delay in carrying out repairs. It apologised for the lack of communication regarding the arrangement of repairs and asked that its contractors ensure better communication moving forward. In its final response of 13 May 2022, it acknowledged that there had been issues gaining access to carry out inspections, and that it had scheduled repairs for 18 May 2022 to resolve the issue. The landlord offered a discretionary compensation payment of £100 for the delays and the upset caused to the resident. 
7. In referring his complaint to this service, the resident remained dissatisfied that repairs to his balcony door were still outstanding. He also noted dissatisfaction with the compensation offered and asked that the landlord consider the impact the repairs had on him, the days he had taken off work for appointments, and the poor communication.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s balcony door

8. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the property in good repair including external doors.
9. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance guidance sets out timescales in which repairs should be completed. Emergency repairs should be completed within 24 hours, urgent repairs within three working days, and ten working days for routine repairs. The landlord would be expected to confirm repair appointments and provide regular updates on the progress and expected completion of the works.
10. In this case, it is not disputed that there were delays in carrying out the repairs and, as it stands, the repairs to the balcony door remains outstanding. Whilst the landlord has acknowledged its failings, it has failed to provide adequate redress for the delays that it was responsible for. This is evident as from the resident’s initial reports in December 2020, at the point of the landlord’s stage one response in April 2021, the issue had not been resolved, appointments had not been properly communicated and the landlord had merely offered only an apology. This did not adequately reflect the circumstances, nor did it adequately consider the impact on the resident of living in a property where cold air was entering throughout the winter months. This amounted to a service failure.
11. The Ombudsman does note that following the stage one response several appointments were raised, some of which were not accessed. Given the records provided it cannot be said that the lack of access was wholly attributable to the resident. Again, there is insufficient evidence to show that the resident was appropriately made aware of several of the appointments or that the intercom was used/ a call made. On the occasions that the landlord did gain entry it is clear the resident had been spoken to. The Ombudsman is however concerned by the fact that several inspections were carried out resulting in the same finding and several appointments attended completing the same repair or noting the same items needed ordering. This would wholly have caused significant frustration to the resident and the lack of adequately completing the repair was a failing which must rest with the landlord.
12. The landlord would be expected to investigate the resident’s reports and take appropriate action to resolve any issues it identified, in accordance with the above obligations. Whilst the landlord acted appropriately in arranging inspections and appointments to ascertain the cause of the gap in an attempt to repair the balcony door, the same cannot be said for its execution. Best practice would have been for the landlord to always use the intercom and call the resident; however, this did not always happen, and although it was appropriate to apologise for its neglect to use this and to arrange further works, the repetition of the same, nullified the apology.
13. The resident reported on three separate occasions that there was still a gap in his balcony door. It is apparent that the landlord made several attempts to arrange repairs to the balcony doors, following these reports and as aforementioned, the Ombudsman does note that multiple appointments were cancelled by the resident. However, as noted, insufficient evidence has been provided to conclude the resident was always reasonably made aware of appointments. The tenancy agreement states that residents should allow contractors access to carry out works required, but it also notes that sufficient notice must be provided. As such, at times, the resident was within his rights to refuse entry to the landlord’s contractors. Having considered the landlord’s multiple failings, mitigating these by the occasions where the resident did unreasonably refuse access or prevent the completion of work, the offer of £100 was still unreasonable. This is due to the length of time the repair remained outstanding, alongside the repetition of works and the fact that the resident experienced at least two winters without the property being fully protected from the cold. Taking this altogether,this amounts to maladministration.
14. The resident raised concern about the amount of compensation offered and asked that the landlord consider the days he had taken off work for appointments. The Ombudsman would not propose a remedy of compensation to reimburse a resident for their time taken off work, loss wages or loss of employment whilst repairs are carried out. While such works would inevitably cause some inconvenience to residents, the tenancy agreement requires the resident to give access for repairs to be carried out as needed, and it is not reasonable for the Ombudsman to order a landlord to reimburse a resident for loss of earnings to attend repair appointments.
15. However, the Ombudsman has considered the overall distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident in pursuing the repair. There is no dispute that, regardless of the reasons why the repair delays occurred, there was a clear and understandable impact on the resident, from the ongoing issues with the balcony and the presence of cold in his property. The landlord offering discretionary compensation of £100 did not amount to reasonable redress. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website) states awards in the region of £100 – £600 are reasonable for findings of maladministration, where there is no permanent impact to the resident and the landlord has acknowledged failings and/or made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident and/or the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. As this was indeed the case, additional compensation of £400 is warranted.
16. It should be made clear that the Ombudsman is aware that following the complaints process, the repair remained outstanding, the cause of which has not formed part of the Ombudsman’s consideration of the complaint. The landlord should however, within four weeks arrange a date for completion of works to the balcony doors if it has not done so already. In order to do so, adequate notice should be provided to the resident in order for him to allow access.
17. The landlord should also consider whether any delays following its final complaint response, are attributable to its own actions, for which compensation would be due. If it does not believe further compensation is due, it should provide the resident with an explanation why.

The associated complaint handling

18. The landlord’s complaint policy states that it has a two-stage complaints process. It sets out ten working days for its stage one complaint response and 20 working days for its stage two complaint response. The landlord would be expected to keep the resident informed where it is not possible to provide its response within the time advised.
19. The resident raised a formal complaint on 25 February 2021. The landlord provided its stage one complaint response on 29 April 2021, which was outside its complaint procedure. The resident escalated his complaint on 9 November 2021 and the landlord issued its final complaint response on 13 May 2022. This was a significant delay outside its complaint process. Despite the cancellations and the landlord’s inability to access the resident’s property and complete repairs, there remained service failure to provide the resident with complaint responses in line with its complaint procedure. This constitutes maladministration and compensation of £200 is due in view of this. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance as aforementioned.

Determination

20. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs to the resident’s balcony door. 
21. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the associated complaint handling.

Orders

22. The landlord should pay the resident £400 for its failures in handling the repairs to the resident’s balcony. This is in addition to the £100 previously offered. As such the total compensation for this aspect of the complaint is £500.
23. The landlord should arrange a date for completion of works to the balcony doors if it has not done so already. In order to do so, adequate notice should be provided to the resident in order for him to allow access. Confirmation should be provided to this Service of the date for the repair.
24. The landlord should consider whether any delays in completing the repair, following its final complaint response, are attributable to its own actions, for which compensation would be due. If it does not believe further compensation is due, it should provide an explanation why.
25. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £200 in compensation for its delays in its complaint responses.
26. The landlord should provide further training to its staff in relation to complaint handling. This is to ensure that complaints are progressed in line with its complaints policy.
27. All orders should be completed within 4 weeks of the date of this report and confirmation provided to the Service.