ForHousing Limited (202316878)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202316878
ForHousing Limited
23 August 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
- This complaint is about:
- The landlord’s handling of multiple repairs in the resident’s home.
- The level of communication and support from the landlord’s staff.
Background and summary of events
- The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. He started his tenancy in October 2021.
- The landlord’s records show that the resident started to report a range of repair issues towards the end of 2021 and into 2022. The records also show the landlord at times having difficulty contacting him to discuss the repairs.
- Records for April 2022 refer to the landlord making arrangements for plastering in the resident’s home and inspecting the flooring.
- A repair entry in July 2022 refers to the resident “waiting a long time for several repairs”, and that he had been seeking information about them. The note refers to incomplete plastering, ongoing issues with flooring, and mentions issues with window sills. It notes that “The Customer has suffered from mental health issues and this is affecting him greatly, he also has problems with his leg since being knocked over and is largely confined to 1 bedroom at present due to the state of the Bungalow.” It asks for appointment dates and states the resident and his MP were considering making a complaint.
- Further records show the outstanding repairs being chased again in September 2022.
- Multiple internal emails in early 2023 show the landlord’s operatives explaining difficulties and delays gaining access to the property or reaching the resident. Reference is made to the resident explaining to the landlord that at times he struggled with his mental health, which impacted on his ability to make contact with or respond to its officers.
- A repair record in June 2023 refers to the landlord having had a discussion with the resident about the full range of repairs he wanted done and that “We now have an agreement in terms of a way forward to resolving his repairs.” Internal emails show the resident was to give the landlord a list of the repairs, a survey was needed, and that the repairs were to be done at the same time to reduce the impact on the resident. These also indicate that he had told the landlord he sometimes experienced anxiety with having too many people in his home at the same time, even up to 2 people could overwhelm him. Nonetheless, he had said the property’s condition was having a significant impact on his mental health.
- Through this period the resident was being supported by the landlord’s tenancy sustainment team (TSS).
- In August 2023 the resident complained to the landlord about the wide range of repairs needed in his home and the landlord’s delays resolving them. He also complained that the property was not suitable for him, and about his housing officer not contacting him.
- The landlord sent its complaint response in August 2023. It explained the resident’s housing officer was on sick leave but in his place the TSS had been providing support. It explained it was not aware of any specific unsuitability about the resident’s home, but provided different options he could consider if he believed home adaptations would be beneficial for him.
- The landlord acknowledged that repairs had been outstanding for a lengthy amount of time, but explained this was partly due to the problems it had experienced with access to the property. It explained the steps it had taken to assist the resident, such as offering permanent decants, and that it had now agreed a temporary decant for him while the repair works were done. It said it knew the resident wanted the repairs done as soon as possible, but explained why their scale and nature meant they could take up to 12 weeks to complete. The landlord said it intended to send a further response to the repair complaint with more details.
- The resident escalated his complaint soon afterwards. The landlord’s note of a conversation with him states he felt the repairs timescale was too long and there were some jobs that could be done before he was decanted. He was also disappointed with a change to his housing officer.
- In the meantime, the landlord sent the resident the further repairs complaint response on 9 September 2023. It addressed his concerns about the length of time being taken to resolve the repairs, along with poor updates about them. It explained again the steps it had taken to assess and start some of the repair work, which also included replacing the kitchen. It set out the communication it had had with him, including work timescales, and explained that some of the delay so far was due to difficulty gaining access. Nonetheless, it also acknowledged 2 repair jobs had been incorrectly closed. It explained why that had happened, apologised for the errors, and offered £50 compensation for the inconvenience.
- The landlord sent its final complaint response on 28 September 2023. It reiterated its findings from its first complaint response, and explained the resident’s housing officer was still away. It provided a temporary replacement officer in his absence, along with continued support from the TSS.
- The landlord confirmed the repair works were provisionally set to start in October, and the resident would be decanted to a hotel for their 2-3 month duration. It acknowledged his request for smaller repairs to be done before the decant, and said it would contact him once it had further information. It concluded it had handled the resident’s complaint reasonably, and that while there had initially been some delays with the repairs they had been handled appropriately since then. It referred the resident to the Ombudsman if he remained dissatisfied.
- The resident was decanted on 20 October 2023 until 22 December 2023. The landlord has confirmed that all of the intended works have now been completed.
- The resident brought his complaint to the Ombudsman seeking for the repairs to be resolved or to be moved, and to be compensated. He has explained that some of the work done was not as originally planned, especially in regard to flooring.
Assessment and findings
Investigation scope
- The Ombudsman’s investigations centre on issues of complaint which a landlord has already investigated and attempted to resolve. Issues which have not first been raised with the landlord in a formal complaint will not usually be included in an Ombudsman investigation.
- In his correspondence with the Ombudsman, following the landlord’s final complaint response in September 2023, the resident raised further issues of dissatisfaction about the landlord. This included the landlord’s subsequent handling of the decant, and further repair issues he reported following the decant.
- This investigation considers the original complaint the resident made to the landlord in August 2023, his escalation of his complaint about the repair delays and about changes to his housing officer, and the landlord’s responses to them. Any issues arising afterwards need to be raised formally with the landlord, even if they broadly follow on from issues considered in this report. If the resident remains dissatisfied following the landlord’s further investigations, it is open to him to bring his concerns back to the Ombudsman and ask for a new investigation.
- The resident explained to the landlord that his home’s condition, and having to deal with the repairs, was impacting on his physical and mental health and wellbeing. The Ombudsman’s investigations consider the impact of a landlord’s actions or service failure, which includes any inconvenience, frustration, and distress they may have caused. However, actual harm to health is not something the Ombudsman has the expertise or resources to assess, and such concerns are more appropriately made as an insurance or legal claim against the landlord. Because of that, this investigation does not consider any specific effect on the resident’s health from the circumstances of the complaint.
The landlord’s handing of repairs in the resident’s home
- The resident’s first clear complaint about repairs to his home was in August 2023. The repair issues he described involved plastering to parts of the property, uneven floors, and mould in his wet room. He said he had recently allowed an inspection, and was waiting to be decanted, but had not heard from any of the staff involved or his support workers. He complained about what he said was a lack of progress by the landlord and overall lack of support.
- The landlord’s repair records confirm that some of the repairs described in the complaint had been reported in mid-2022. An internal email in September 2022 states work had been started on the floors and plastering, but had not progressed or been completed. In his complaint the resident referred to this work still being incomplete, which is supported by the landlord’s list of outstanding repair work included in its September 2023 complaint responses. The full list of work was long and included more items than had been described by the resident in his reports and complaints.
- Nonetheless, the evidence therefore confirms that at least some of the repair work planned in 2023 had been outstanding for up to a year. In that light, the resident’s frustration and complaint were understandable, and indicated failings in the landlord’s repairs service.
- In response to the complaint the landlord acknowledged initial delays. It also explained that its repair efforts had been hampered by a lack of access to the property. The landlord’s internal emails refer to access problems from at least September 2022, at which time a note of a conversation with the resident refers to him saying “all the jobs are being no accessed and the tenant does not understand why as he had been more than obliging.”
- Internal emails in early 2023 also refer to significant challenges the landlord’s contractors and operatives were having arranging appointments with the resident, or reliably gaining access to the property once dates had been agreed.
- The evidence shows the landlord was very aware of the difficulties the resident experienced with the dual problem of the repairs, combined with potential anxiety caused by having multiple people in his home at the same time. Part of its approach to resolving this was by suggesting options for the resident to move to a new home. In March 2023 it offered a property, followed by 2 more in the next months. The resident declined them, but its action showed the landlord was adapting its services to the resident’s circumstances and the underlying need to resolve the repair work.
- Further internal records document discussions with the resident in which the landlord attempted to better understand his situation and needs. An email in June 2023 describes in detail information the resident gave during a meeting with the landlord. These were about his anxieties when having multiple people in his home and past negative experiences with home inspections. It also noted the resident’s preference to be decanted while the repairs were done. It is evident that this knowledge partly influenced the landlord’s decision to decant the resident. It also resulted in its plan to group the intended work together to be done while the property was unoccupied, so as to spare the resident the distress and disruption the work would otherwise cause.
- The resident’s escalated complaint partly concerned his view that some of the repairs could be done before the decant while he was at home. In its response the landlord explained it was still considering that option.
- The landlord’s internal correspondence confirms it considered this possibility. It concluded its priority was to group the work together and resolve it during the decant. The intention being to avoid distressing the resident and risking further access problems or cancellations. The time between the landlord’s final complaint response and the resident’s decant was approximately 3 weeks, and any impact from the decision is not apparent in the evidence. Overall, the landlord was obliged to manage the repairs in the manner it thought most suitable, taking into consideration the nature of the work and the resident’s needs. Its decision on this aspect of the complaint was reasonable in that regard.
- One aspect of the resident’s repair complaint centred on his dissatisfaction and frustration with the level of contact and updates he was receiving from 2 officers in particular. He attributed the repair delays in large part to these officers. He raised this in his original complaint and in his complaint to the Ombudsman, stating in some correspondence that he felt they should be replaced with different staff.
- The landlord did not respond directly to this aspect of the complaint, focusing instead on the repair delays overall. The Ombudsman expects a landlord to accept overall and collective responsibility for the actions of its staff and contractors, which is what it did in this case. The evidence does not show these specific concerns being raised in the escalated complaint, and so the landlord was not able to address the issue any further.
- The resident’s explanation for wanting the staff changed was because he believed they were at least partly responsible for the problems he experienced. The records and correspondence show that a wide range of staff and contractors were involved in managing the repairs, not just the ones the resident referred to. No evidence has been seen indicating clear inaction or omission by any specific person involved, such that the landlord should have considered changing staff. All indications are that the delays the resident experienced were primarily due to the repairs’ nature and the circumstances involved, and support the landlord’s explanation.
- The final list of repair issues included in the landlord’s complaint responses was larger than the resident’s reports indicated, although much of it involved plastering, and renewing the under floors. The internal correspondence shows the landlord was aware of some of the work, but that it was trying to obtain a list of repairs the resident felt was needed. Internal correspondence also shows the landlord did not always agree with some of the requested work, such as replacing the front door (rather than renewing it).
- The landlord has said the work listed in its complaint response has been completed. Internal emails in March, April, and May 2024 confirm its explanation. The resident has told the Service that some work remains outstanding, or was not done as agreed. He gave flooring as the main example. He said it should have been concreted, but instead floorboards were installed. The repair list includes flooring in several rooms, but states only that it was to be renewed. There is no clear evidence of an agreement about the floors outside the complaint responses, but an internal email in January 2024 refers to providing and installing laminate flooring over the floorboards as “disturbance compensation”.
- The choice of sub-flooring used in its properties is for a landlord to make, based on the relevant circumstances. In this case it is clear the flooring was renewed as planned, although not in the manner the resident expected. The resident may have grounds to make a further complaint about its choice, but within the remit of this investigation and the evidence provided, the landlord did what it said it would do.
- The other outstanding referred to by the resident appears to relate to further plastering needed following the work done during his decant. As explained above, this issue would need to be raised as a new complaint with the landlord so it can explain what happened. It will not be considered here.
- The landlord acknowledged that some initial delays had occurred and referred to 2 specific repair jobs that had been incorrectly closed. It explained how that had happened – which was partly due to not gaining access for the relevant appointments. It apologised and offered a small amount of compensation for these occurrences. The resident complained that he was not being updated and he felt nothing was being done. The evidence shows that many people were working to help resolve the repair issues and support the resident, and that they were working in coordination with each other towards those goals. By its nature, much of this activity was not visible to the resident, and therefore his concerns and distress is understandable.
- In considering the delays the resident experienced, it is not possible to discount the impact of the landlord’s difficulties gaining access into the property for the works. This, together with challenges around having multiple workers on site at a time, clearly increased the complexities of getting the repairs completed. Overall, the landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances of the resident’s repair reports. Where mistakes happened it offered appropriate remedies (including the compensation), in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for failings of similar nature and scale and with no clear impact.
The level of communication from the landlord’s staff
- The resident complained to the landlord that he was not receiving the level of support he needed, including from his housing officer. The landlord acknowledged there had been a lack of contact from the housing officer due to his absence from work. It apologised for that, but explained that support had been provided by the TSS in the interim.
- After the resident expressed his dissatisfaction again the landlord explained in its final complaint response that the housing officer was still absent, but that it had provided a different officer, and continued support from the TSS.
- The landlord’s records, and internal emails from the resident’s support officers to the staff managing the repairs show a significant level of contact and support. This included clarifying his circumstances needs and preferences for contact, repair visits, and decant accommodation. They also show a range of other forms of support in the period being considered, such as with day to day living. It is beyond the scope of this investigation to assess the actual quality of the support offered, as there is no objective evidence to review. Overall, the level of support, contact, and adjustment to the resident’s needs appears reasonable.
- One of the impacts explained by the resident in relation to his housing officer was the delayed repairs. That issue has been considered in the assessment of the landlord’s handling of the repairs.
Determination (decision)
- In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handing of multiple repairs in the resident’s home.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in regard to the level of communication and support from the landlord’s staff.
Reasons
- Considered objectively, the landlord’s repair actions were reasonable and appropriate. Much of the delay experienced was more due to the circumstances of the situation rather than any clear service failure. Where there were errors, the landlord acknowledged them and provided proportionate and relevant explanations and apologies.
- The landlord ensured the resident continued receiving support while his housing officer was absent, it then provided a new housing officer while ensuring support was also continued by its TSS.
Recommendations
- The evidence in this complaint suggests a diminishing relationship between the resident and the landlord. Despite the landlord’s actions to resolve the repairs and support the resident, it is also apparent he at times felt not listened to, or frustrated by its decisions and timescales. He has also explained some challenges he experiences expressing his views and concerns in writing. In the circumstances, there may be value in the landlord considering how it can assist the resident communicate with it, and work to rebuild the relationship. This could possibly include independent mediation to achieve that goal, or assisting the resident with finding external advocacy services to help him collate and prepare any future complaints he may wish to make.