Great Places Housing Association (202302849)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302849

Great Places Housing Association

17 April 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak in an ensuite bathroom.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling has also been investigated.

Background

The resident and his partner have an assured tenancy in a two-bedroom modern terrace owned by the landlord. The resident has 1 young child at the property. Through the course of the complaint, the resident informed the landlord his child was asthmatic. The landlord currently has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident or his family. The resident confirmed to this Service on 10 April 2024 that both he and his son are asthmatic.
Between 4 January and 10 May 2023 evidence provided shows the following took place regarding the leak at the property:
1. On 4 January 2023, the resident contacted the landlord, and it transferred him to its maintenance team. The resident later confirmed this was to report a leak in his ensuite bathroom. Nothing further took place at this time.
2. The resident chased his report with the landlord on 27 January 2023. The landlord completed an investigation and made an appointment for 10 February 2023 to reseal and regrout the resident’s shower. This appointment did not take place as arranged and on 10 February 2023, the resident called to chase attendance. During the call, the landlord rescheduled the appointment to 13 February 2023. It completed the work on 13 February 2023.
3. On 24 March, the resident told the landlord “a repairman had attended the previous day and was unaware of the issues at the property”. He said someone would call, but this did not take place despite him chasing this on 28 March 2023. The landlord later clarified it had sent the wrong tradesperson for the repair on 24 March 2023.
4. The resident reported his shower was still leaking on 12 April 2023. The landlord completed further investigation on 17 April 2023 and sent an incorrect tradesperson on 5 May 2023. It completed installation of a new shower and enclosure on 10 May 2023.
The evidence shows the following took place within the landlord’s internal complaint procedure as follows:
1. The resident raised a complaint on 17 February 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 23 February 2023 and responded on 8 March 2023. It stated its response was its “Stage One Complaint Acknowledgement.” It told the resident it had repaired his ensuite shower enclosure and tray on 10 February 2023. It said it was unable to identify any missed or cancelled appointments.
2. The resident escalated his complaint on 11 March 2023. He told the landlord the following:
  1. He was concerned he had been without a shower for 10 weeks. He advised the landlord there was a “family of asthma sufferers” in the property. He was concerned about damp and the potential for mould to grow in the property. He said the landlord had not recorded his concerns on 3 or 4 January 2023. He said this delayed any repairs and he had to chase this on 27 January 2023.
  2. He said the landlord’s stage 1 response was inaccurate as it had not completed a repair on 10 February 2023. He said the landlord failed to attend on this day and it rebooked the appointment when he called to chase the appointment. He provided screenshot evidence of this.
  3. He reported the leak was continuing on 3 March 2023 and it told him it would complete a repair on 8 March 2023. He said on 8 March 2023 the landlord only investigated the issue and did not repair the leak.
3. The landlord sent a “stage one complaint acknowledgement” to the resident on 23 March 2023. It told him it would reply in 10 working days. On 30 March 2023, it thanked him for his email of 11 March 2023. It offered him a payment of £200 without further explanation. It stated this was the maximum it could offer in compensation.
4. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 14 April 2023. It referred to this as its “stage one complaint response.” It told the resident it had acted in accordance with its policies in addressing his complaint and in its response to the repairs. It said it had classed the repair as routine rather than emergency as he had access to a bath in his property. It said it was unable to alter its offer of £200 compensation.
The Ombudsman accepted the resident’s complaint for investigation on 22 April 2023. The resident told this Service the landlord had wrongly labelled its responses to him. He said he wanted compensation for 4 days of lost earnings, time wasted, inconvenience, poor customer service and mental anguish.
There is no evidence of treatment of the damp reported by the resident in the property. The resident reported further issues with the shower on 6 June 2023 and there is no evidence the landlord took further action at this time. The landlord booked an appointment to attend at the property on 9 August 2023 following correspondence with this Service. The resident told this Service on 10 April 2024 the repair to the shower was fully completed on 28 February 2024. He said the landlord told him the same day it would contact him about “sorting out the damp and staining of the walls” but this has not happened.

Assessment and findings

Scope of assessment.

The resident said that he had suffered “mental anguish” and was concerned about the presence of damp on “asthma sufferers” in the property. He said this was because of the landlord’s handling of the leak in his property. Whilst we do not doubt the resident’s comments, this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim against the landlord if he considers that his health has been affected by its actions or inaction. This is a legal process, and the resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if he wants to pursue this option. However, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience that the resident experienced because of the landlord’s handling of the situation involving his property.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak in an ensuite bathroom.

The landlord’s Repairs Policy confirms it encourages residents to report repairs which it will carry out “promptly and effectively.” It says it will arrange appointments as soon as possible and aims to complete the repair in one visit. It aims to achieve “high standards of customer care and consistently high levels of customer satisfaction.” It wants residents to live in “safety, comfort and warmth.”
The Repairs Policy classifies emergency repairs as those that cause immediate damage to a property’s structure, fixtures, or fittings. It will carry out works to make it safe within 24 hours of a report. It may need to complete other repairs to complete the job. In this circumstance, it will arrange these with the resident. It classifies routine repairs as those that can be completed “without serious discomfort, inconvenience or nuisance to the tenant or others.” It aims to complete routine repairs in one visit “in as little time as possible.”

Delays to repairs.

The landlord’s repair log shows it took a call from the resident on 4 January 2023 and transferred him to its maintenance team. The log does not show the purpose of the call. On 11 March 2023, the resident stated he had called on 4 March 2023 to report the leak in his bathroom. The landlord did not dispute this was the nature of the phone call in further correspondence with the resident. As such the landlord failed to correctly log the complaint on 4 January 2023. In doing so it failed to respond to the report “promptly and effectively.”
The landlord took no further action following its failure to log the resident’s report on 4 January 2023. It was prompted to do this due to the resident chasing the issue on 27 January 2023. By this time 23 days had passed. It did act appropriately upon receiving this report and attended the next working day to investigate the issue.
The landlord arranged an appointment to repair the leak for 10 February 2023. Its records show it rescheduled the appointment to 13 February 2023 on 10 February 2023. The resident later stated on 11 March 2023 the landlord failed to turn up for the appointment on 10 February 2023 and rebooked the appointment when he chased its attendance. This Service has seen evidence of a text reminder sent to the resident for the initial appointment on 10 February 2023. In failing to turn up the appointment the landlord caused inconvenience to the resident. It also delayed further resolution of the issue. At this point, the issue was ongoing for 38 days.
The resident reported the issue was continuing on 3 March 2023. The landlord told him the same day it had raised the repair and would attend on 8 March 2023. It completed a further inspection on the issue on this date. The resident told the landlord on 11 March 2023 he believed a repair would be carried out on 8 March 2023. This Service can see no evidence the landlord indicated this to him. It was appropriate for the landlord to complete a further investigation of the issue to determine what further work it needed to complete to resolve the issue.
On 16 March 2023, the landlord determined a new shower needed to be fitted at the property. It arranged an appointment for 23 March 2023 to complete this. The resident told the landlord on 24 March 2023 it completed no repair the previous day, and its operative was uncertain what the repair was for. The landlord told this Service on 7 August 2023 it had sent the wrong tradesperson to the resident’s property to complete the repair. It also confirmed it had later sent the wrong tradesperson again for a further repair on 5 May 2023. These failures caused further inconvenience and distress to the resident. They also affected the resident’s confidence that the landlord would effectively resolve the issue. Landlords should ensure they correctly categorise repairs in order to effectively manage and respond to them. The landlord had completed necessary investigation to have sufficient understanding of this.
From 23 March 2023 the landlord promised to update the resident on further steps it would be taking but failed to do so. On 12 April 2023, the landlord again determined a new shower was required to be fitted. It arranged a repair to do this for 17 April 2023. It’s records show it completed this on 17 April 2023. However, the resident told this Service on 26 April 2023 the landlord had only investigated the issue on 17 April 2023 and not completed a repair. This was inappropriate as it had already investigated the issue determining a new shower was needed. As previously stated, it next sent the wrong tradesperson on 5 May 2023. Its further repairs log records show it completed the repair to the shower on 10 May 2023. In total, this was equivalent to 67 days in which the resident did not have full use of his shower.
After completion of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure the resident reported the shower continued to leak on 27 July 2023. The landlord arranged a follow-up for 9 August 2023. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord resolved the issues at that date. The resident confirmed to this Service on 10 April 2024 the issue was resolved on 28 February 2024. This was equivalent to 204 days from the follow-up appointment of 9 August 2023.
Throughout the period above, 4 January to 10 May 2023, the resident had to repeatedly chase for updates. On multiple occasions, he explained the impact that the issue had on him and his family. While the Ombudsman understands that complex repairs may require additional time for the landlord to complete them, there is an expectation that the landlord keeps in communication with the resident and updates them on the progress of the repairs.

Record keeping.

The landlord should keep up-to-date repair records which are easily accessible to all staff. The landlord failed to keep its repair records up to date incorrectly logging investigations as completed repairs on 23 March and 17 April 2023. This caused unnecessary delays and worsened the situation for the resident and his family. It sent the wrong operatives on 23 March and 5 May 2023. Each operative was unaware of the requirements of the job, suggesting the notes held for the report were not sufficient.
It is best practice for landlords to appropriately record information including any reports of repairs, agreed actions or further issues raised by the resident. The failure to create and record information accurately can result in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress.
The Ombudsman’s May 2023 Spotlight On: Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) report confirms good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s complaints processes are not operating effectively. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these, as should contractors or managing agents.

Reports of damp.

The landlord’s Repair Policy states it has a process for damp to ensure it can “diagnose and support to resolve the type of repair.” It states the process may include “carrying out works, advice or support or further specialist investigations.”
The resident reported damp at the property on 11 March 2023 as a result of the shower leak. He provided photographic evidence to support this. The resident also informed the landlord there were “asthma sufferers” in the household. There is no evidence the landlord communicated with the resident about his reports of damp. This caused him to feel it was not taking his concerns seriously or that it would act appropriately in attempting resolution. Although the damp may have been a secondary result of the leak it is of concern the landlord did not investigate this. In failing to do this it was unable to establish the potential impact on the household and in particular the “asthma sufferers.” An internal landlord email on 6 June 2023 states for it to quote for any damage to the resident’s ceiling caused by damp. However, there is no evidence the landlord ever informed the resident of this or completed any remedial work in accordance with its policy. This left the worried about the impact on his family’s health, without any reprieve.
Furthermore, it is of concern the landlord told this Service on 7 August 2023 there were no vulnerabilities in the household. As stated above the landlord was aware from 11 March 2023 of there being “asthma sufferers” in the property. In failing to record the vulnerabilities in the household the landlord has failed to ensure its commitment to the safety and wellbeing of the resident’s family. It also denied itself the opportunity to manage and tailor its approach at the property to the family’s circumstances. An order will be made for the landlord to complete a risk assessment and record vulnerabilities in its records as appropriate.
It is of further concern that as of 10 April 2024, the resident states there is still damp present in the property, despite the landlord’s promise to rectify this. The landlord will be ordered to investigate the resident’s reports of damp at the property and provide him with the outcome of this investigation.

Complaint responses as part of the substantive issue.

The landlord’s stage 1 and 2 complaint responses contained a number of inaccuracies that are further investigated in ‘the landlord’s complaint handling’ in this report. The landlord had the opportunity to influence and rectify any failures in its approach when it investigated and responded to the complaint. It failed to do this in both its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses. It provided its stage 1 complaint response on 8 March 2023. This was the same date it scheduled an investigation for the leak. To ensure “high customer service standards” it could have ensured this was completed before it compiled its complaint response and included the outcome in its reply. In its stage 2 complaint response of 14 April 2023, there was an outstanding repair scheduled for 17 April 2023. The landlord could again have ensured this was completed successfully before replying. It was aware of issues in the repair up to this point and should have used this as an opportunity to meet “high customer service standards.”
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response stated it had classed the leak in the shower as a routine repair rather than emergency. It said this was because the resident had access to a bathtub. This distinction was in accordance with the landlord’s Repairs Policy. However, the landlord’s response failed to acknowledge it did not meet its aims for managing a routine repair in its policy as follows:
1. It failed to complete the repair in “one visit” or in “as little time as possible.”
2. The leak caused damp which was cause of nuisance and concern to the resident.
3. There was the possibility of the leak causing damage to the structure of the building if left unresolved.

Compensation.

The landlord offered the resident £200 compensation for unspecified reasons on 30 March 2023. It chose not to amend this amount or explain its reasoning in its stage 2 complaint response. Its failure to do this caused confusion as to the outcome of the complaint and whether it had considered the resident’s compensation request. The landlord’s Compensation Policy categorises different service failures for individual awards. These matched the service failures raised by the resident’s compensation requests. The following points consider the resident’s compensation request and what the landlord should have considered under its Compensation Policy:
1. This Service can find evidence of failed appointments on 10 February 2023 and 23 March 2023. The landlord should have considered “economic loss” for the impact on the resident under its Compensation Policy.
2. There is much evidence of the resident chasing the landlord for a response and in raising a complaint to resolve the issue. The landlord should have considered this under “time and trouble” under its Compensation Policy.
3. The resident was without a shower for around 67 days causing inconvenience to himself and his family. It should have considered ‘delay in completing repairs’ under its Compensation Policy.
4. The resident states the landlord’s complaint handling and communication caused him mental anguish. It should have considered “emotional distress” under its Compensation Policy.
In summary the landlord failed to act in accordance with its Repairs Policy for all the repairs required at the resident’s property. It was delayed in assessing the leak between 4 January and 30 January 2023. It failed to attend one appointment and sent the wrong tradesperson to a further two appointments. It failed to investigate the damp in the property or consider the impact on the health of the resident or his family. The failings above were exacerbated by the landlord’s insufficient communication and poor record-keeping. The resident was required on many occasions to chase the outcome himself and provide an accurate account of what had taken place.
The landlord in accordance with the occupancy agreement is required to keep in repair the resident’s structure and exterior of the property. It failed to do so over a prolonged period which caused distress, inconvenience, and deterioration in the landlord/tenant relationship. In all the circumstances of the case, a determination of maladministration has been identified. Compensation of £500 has been awarded as the landlord failed “promptly and effectively” to complete repairs. It failed to fully consider the time and trouble, anxiety, stress, and uncertainty it caused to the resident through its poor handling of the repairs to the property. Its offer of compensation was not proportionate to the failings identified by this investigation. Orders will be made for the landlord to consider the failings identified in this report.

The landlord’s complaint handling has also been investigated.

The landlord’s Customer Feedback Policy aims to “get it right first time” and “aims to exceed customer expectations with the service it provides.” It confirms it will keep residents informed and show “listening, empathy and understanding.” It states it will acknowledge where things have gone wrong, provide an explanation and apologise. It states it learns from complaints as part of its “reporting and planning process.”
The Customer Feedback Policy confirms the landlord has 3 stages in its complaints process, as follows:
1. Expressions of dissatisfaction which it deals with in 48 hours to prevent any issues from escalating.
2. When a complaint is made formal it will log it at stage 1 of its complaints process. It will acknowledge complaints in 5 working days and provide its stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days from acknowledgement of the complaint.
3. When a complaint is escalated the landlord will raise and acknowledge a stage 2 complaint in 5 working days. It will provide its stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days.
The landlord acted in accordance with its timescales within its Customer Feedback Policy as follows:
1. It acknowledged the resident’s complaint of 17 February 2023 on 23 February 2023. This was equivalent to 4 working days. It provided its stage 1 complaint response on 8 March 2023. This was equivalent to 9 working days from its acknowledgement.
2. It asked the resident for further information about his escalation request of 11 March 2023 on 14 March 2023. The resident duly provided this on 16 March 2023 and the landlord acknowledged the escalated complaint on 23 March 2023. This was equivalent to 5 working days. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 6 April 2023. This was equivalent to 10 working days.
The landlord incorrectly headed its responses to the resident. It recorded its stage 1 complaint response of 8 March 2023 as “stage one complaint acknowledgement”. It recorded its stage 2 complaint response of 14 April 2023 as “stage one complaint response”. This caused confusion and uncertainty to the resident. In correspondence with this Service on 26 April 2023 the resident raised the “dissatisfaction” these errors had caused to him.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response contained a number of factual errors in contradiction to its repair logs. It said the resident had first reported the leak on 27 January 2023. Its records show he had reported this on 4 January 2023. It said it had completed a repair on 10 February 2023. Its records show it had not attended on 10 February 2023 and rebooked the repair for 13 February 2023. It said it was “unable to identify any missed or cancelled appointments.” The records show as above it missed the appointment on 10 February 2023.
The resident raised the above factual errors in his complaint escalation of 11 March 2023. On 30 March 2023, the landlord offered £200 compensation to the resident. It failed to explain specifically what it had awarded this for. It is uncertain if this was due to the factual errors the resident highlighted. Its response was limited on the matter. It did not acknowledge the factual errors highlighted by the resident or apologise for them. This caused the resident to believe the landlord was not taking him seriously, causing inconvenience and distress to him.
The resident told the landlord in his complaint escalation the landlord’s stage 1 response investigation was lacking detail. As identified above the resident’s belief was correct. It was ineffective therefore for the landlord to state in its stage 2 response it had “followed its Customer Feedback Policy”. It had failed to adhere to the policy in failing to acknowledge where things had gone wrong. It failed to provide an explanation and it failed to sufficiently apologise. The landlord’s dismissal of his concerns on the matter reinforced his belief it was not taking him seriously.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 14 April 2023 also failed to identify further issues since its stage 1 response. It failed to address it had sent the wrong type of tradesperson on 23 March 2023. It also failed to address his concerns that it had failed to contact him as promised for over a week from 23 March 2023. Finally, a repair was outstanding on 14 April 2023. It may have been prudent for the landlord to ensure it completed this “promptly and effectively” before replying. This would have ensured it was providing “high standards of customer care and consistently high levels of customer satisfaction” that it aims for in its Repair Policy.
The landlord’s stage 1 and 2 complaint responses failed to specifically address the resident’s itemised request for compensation. The service failures mentioned by the resident included loss of earnings, time and trouble, inconvenience, and poor customer service. The landlord’s Compensation Policy makes allowances for separate compensation for each of the service failures raised by the resident. It should have considered compensation for each of the points raised by the resident which this report has highlighted as failures.
In offering the £200 compensation the landlord told the resident in all its responses from this point £200 was the “maximum compensation its policy allowed”. This Service cannot see a maximum allowance of £200 in the landlord’s Compensation Policy for one particular service failure.
In summary the landlord failed to provide accurate information its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses to the resident or address all the concerns he raised. This prolonged the concerns for him, causing him further inconvenience and distress. It failed to sufficiently recognise its failures and failed to offer proportionate compensation. It was ineffective for the landlord not to investigate all the concerns raised by the resident, which suggests it was not willing to take appropriate action and learn from complaints.
A landlord’s complaint process enables them to learn from issues and identify trends so it can take preventative action and learn from this. The landlord failed to adhere to its own complaints policy in its stage 2 complaint response time and its communication with the resident. A determination of maladministration has therefore been determined. To reflect the resident’s distress and inconvenience due to the landlord’s failures, £250 compensation has been ordered. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance in relation to cases where maladministration has occurred over a protracted period with moderate impact to the resident throughout that period.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak in an ensuite bathroom.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord shall carry out the following orders and must provide evidence of compliance within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for its failings in handling of the resident’s reports of a leak in his ensuite bathroom and for its complaint handling failures.
2. Pay the resident a total of £750 In compensation. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises of:
  1. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the inappropriate handling of the resident’s reports of a leak in his ensuite bathroom.
  2. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s delays and unreasonable complaint handling.
  3. The above amounts include the £200 already offered by the landlord.
3. The landlord must complete a risk assessment of the resident and his family. It must ensure any further appropriate action is taken as a result, including recording any vulnerabilities on its records.
4. The landlord must take appropriate action to investigate the resident’s reports of damp at the property. It must provide the resident with the details of the outcome of its investigation.
The landlord shall carry out the following orders and must provide evidence of compliance within 8 weeks of the date of this report:
1. Carry out a full senior management review of this case to identify what went wrong and what learning it can take. The landlord must share the review with the Ombudsman and the review must include:
  1. Conduct a review of its record keeping processes and procedures in light of both the findings in this report and the recommendations made in this Service’s KIM report. The landlord is to provide this service with the outcome of its findings and any actions it proposes to take as a result.
  2. Conduct a review of its procedures for damp. In doing so, the landlord should have regard to the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Damp and Mould.