GreenSquareAccord Limited (202012871)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202012871

Accord Housing Group Ltd

13 July 2021

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint refers to the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs to plastering in the property.
2. Repairs to the resident’s boiler.
3. The resident’s request for a replacement bathroom suite
4. The resident’s request for kitchen alterations.
5. Its communication with the resident
6. The resident’s concerns related to racial discrimination.
7. The length of time taken for the landlord to offer the resident a property transfer.
8. The associated complaints.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

The resident’s concerns related to racial discrimination.

Paragraph 39 (i) of the Scheme states:
1. The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.
The resident has accused members of the landlord’s staff of being prejudiced and discriminatory towards her. This Service cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place, as these are legal terms which are better suited to a court to decide. However, we can look at whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s allegations of misconduct by its staff.

The length of time taken for the landlord to offer the resident a property transfer.

Paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme states:
1. The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.
The resident has raised concerns that it had taken the landlord three years to offer her a property transfer following her application. There is no evidence of a formal complaint being raised about this until 11 August 2020, which is more than six months since the issue arose. As the substantive issues become historical, it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues. The historical issues provide contextual background to the current complaint, but the assessment is focused on the landlord’s actions in responding to the more recent events and, specifically, to the formal complaints made from August 2020 about repairs and communication.

Background and summary of events

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord that started in January 2020.
On 30 January 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord and asked for permission to remove a cupboard in her kitchen to make room for her fridge/freezer. The landlord gave its permission on 11 March 2020 under the conditions that all costs were paid for by the resident, any damage caused would be made good by the resident’s contractor and both the wall unit and worktop were retained for refitting in the future.
The landlord issued the resident a precautionary Notice of Seeking Possession (NOSP) letter on 4 May 2020. It explained that whilst the resident was paying an additional amount each month towards her rent arrears, the arrears were at a significantly high level. It confirmed that, if it continued to receive additional payments each month, no further action would be taken. However, if the resident missed any payments and did not make contact to discuss any change of circumstances, it would take this matter to court.
The landlord’s records show that a repair was raised on 9 June 2020 as the resident had reported that her hot water was coming out a strange colour. The contractors had attempted to book an appointment with the resident on 9 June 2020, but she was not available to take the call. The contractors then received a call from the resident on 13 July 2020 who asked when they would be arriving, but no appointment had been booked. An appointment was offered for the following day, but the call disconnected. On 23 July 2020, the contractor attended and found that the water had become oxygenated by the boiler. It noted that the water cleared quickly when left in a glass.
On 22 July 2020, the resident reported that she had been unable to decorate her living room due to chunks of plaster falling off the walls when she removed the wallpaper. At this point the landlord had introduced temporary repair timescales due to a backlog of repairs because of Covid-19. Any repairs raised after 1 June 2020 should have been assigned a repair date by 31 August 2020.
The resident reported that her boiler was making a strange noise on 3 August 2020. The landlord’s records show that the landlord attempted to call the resident to book an appointment but the call did not go through. It sent a text message on the same day, asking the resident to call to book an appointment.
The resident called the landlord on 11 August 2020 to raise a complaint for the following reasons:
1. She had been told that plastering works were currently on hold but wanted this rectified as soon as possible.
2. She said that she had been unable to use her bathroom as it was in a “poor state” and had been using a bucket to bathe or going to a friend’s house. She noted that her bathroom was due to be replaced as part of the planned works for the 2021-22 financial year, however, she was concerned that she would not be able to bathe properly for another year in the meantime.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 13 August 2020 and confirmed that it would issue a response by 27 August 2020.
On 17 August 2020 the resident provided a list of additional issues she wanted the landlord to address in its complaint response, which included:
1. She noted that the bathroom suite was over 30 years old and had rusty taps which she was unable to use. She was also dissatisfied with the ‘avocado green’ colour of the walls and asked for her bathroom to be replaced.
2. She asked to be reimbursed for the cost of a kitchen cupboard she had needed to purchase to replace the one she had removed to make room for her fridge/freezer. She felt it was the landlord’s responsibility to provide adequate storage and asked it to change her kitchen worktops to a black colour.
3. She asked for the void report for the property and the Gas Safety Certificate as her boiler had been making a loud noise when switched on and her hot water had been cloudy for seven months.
4. She also asked why a member of the landlord’s staff had asked how long she had lived in the country as part of an application for financial hardship. She had applied for £75 to install a new cooker and did not feel this question was appropriate.
The landlord issued its stage one response to the resident on 22 September 2020 and explained the following:
1. It acknowledged that its response was not issued within its expected timescales and confirmed that this was due to staff absence.
2. It confirmed that the plaster issues had been reported on 22 July 2020. It upheld this aspect of the resident’s complaint as an appointment was booked on 22 September 2020 for 8 October 2020 when it should have been booked by 31 August 2020 in line with its temporary repair timescales.
3. It had attempted to arrange an appointment with the resident for her hot water coming out of the taps a strange colour, but she had not been available to take the calls. The contractor then attended on 23 July 2020 and determined that the water was oxygenated and cleared quickly when left. The landlord confirmed that the visit was completed within its timescales following Covid-19 and did not uphold this aspect of the resident’s complaints.
4. It confirmed that it had inspected the bathroom and found that it was coloured “avocado green” and was in a useable condition. It confirmed that the bathroom was on the 2021-22 planned bathroom replacement programme and would be replaced within this period. It had asked the surveyor to attend the property that day to determine if any repairs were required to the bathroom but this appointment had been declined by the resident for unknown reasons.
On 10 October 2020 the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage two for the following reasons:
1. She explained that the contractor who attended on 8 October 2020 had not completed the work to her plaster. She said that this needed to be addressed as a matter of urgency as this issue had been raised in June 2020 and the plaster was falling off the walls in her living room in larger areas.
2. She explained that the colour of her current bathroom affected her mental health because it reminded her of a past trauma, which was the reason she wanted the bathroom to be replaced.
3. She explained that a plumber had attended without an appointment on 8 October 2020 to inspect her boiler but she had received no further comment from the landlord.
4. She expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord’s response had not addressed her concerns about having to purchase a new kitchen cupboard or being asked how long she had lived in the country by a member of the landlord’s staff as part of an application for financial hardship. She added that she felt it was insensitive for the landlord to have begun possession proceedings six weeks into her tenancy and that she had also been told by another staff member not to talk to her neighbours, which she did not feel was appropriate.
5. She explained that the service she had received from the landlord impacted her health and asked the landlord to reimburse her for the cost of her new cooker and cupboard on the grounds of financial hardship.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 16 October 2020 and confirmed that it would issue a response by 30 October 2020.
On 19 October 2020 the resident sent a further letter to the landlord outlining her complaint. She added that the contractor who attended on 8 October 2020 to plaster the walls in her living room had not carried out this work as they felt uncomfortable working in her home. She was not provided with this feedback until 17 October 2020. She noted that this work had now been arranged for November 2020 and asked for this to be brought forward.
The landlord issued its stage two response to the resident on 29 October 2020 and explained the following:
1. It confirmed that the plastering would have been completed on 8 October 2020, but the resident wanted a full replaster of the room rather than patching. The plasterer did not agree this was necessary so the resident had asked him to leave. It confirmed that the patch work had now been booked in for 3 November 2020 which was the earliest date it had available. It had asked a member of its housing team to be present to ensure that the repair work was carried out correctly.
2. It had found that the resident’s bathroom was fully functioning and would be replaced as part of its planned work for the 2021-22 program. It confirmed that she could ask for a different colour during this change.
3. It explained that the resident accepted all storage in the kitchen on signing the tenancy agreement. It noted that the resident had adjusted the kitchen to make room for her fridge freezer, but as this change had been made by the resident, the landlord would not be responsible for the cost involved. It declined her request to have black worktops as the kitchen was a new installation.
4. It said that it had requested a plumber to re-attend to check the noise from the boiler and the condition of the water. It apologised that the level of service was not what the resident expected and stated that she could escalate her complaint to stage three of its complaints process if she remained dissatisfied.
The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 9 November 2020 for the following reasons:
1. She explained that she had not asked the contractor to leave the property on 8 October 2020 and had not been given any information about why they had left until 17 October 2020. She explained that the plaster was now coming off in larger chunks than previously reported. She expressed dissatisfaction that this work was still outstanding and believed that a full replaster was needed.
2. She said that the bathroom issues were prolonging her health conditions and PTSD.
3. She noted that it would have cost more to replace her fridge than to replace a cupboard and was dissatisfied that she had needed to remove a cupboard to place her own fridge.
4. She expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord had not addressed her concerns about its past communication. She asked for a specific member of the landlord’s staff to address all issues she had raised.
On 23 November 2020, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage three escalation and confirmed that it would issue a response by 5 December 2020. It explained that it had raised a new stage one complaint for the resident’s concerns about the communication of its staff members.
The landlord arranged for a meeting to take place on 8 December 2020. The resident was given the opportunity to discuss her complaints further. It issued its stage three complaint response on 9 December 2020 and explained the following:
1. It had agreed to raise another inspection for the plastering in the resident’s living room following the resident’s concerns that a full plaster rather than ‘patch-up’ work was required.
2. It agreed to reimburse the resident £40 for the cost of the cupboard she had purchased for her kitchen. It confirmed that it would not be able to fit new worktops as this was not a service it offered. It advised the resident to contact a trusted trader to find a contractor that she would feel comfortable allowing into the property if she wished to do this herself.
3. It was confident that the resident’s bathroom would be fitted with a white suite when it was replaced. It agreed to investigate the possibility of a new shower being fitted as an interim measure.
4. It recommended that the resident raised the issues with the boiler to the operative during her next annual gas service and reiterated the importance of making sure that this appointment was scheduled.
The landlord also issued a stage one response to the resident’s other concerns on 9 December 2020 and explained the following:
1. The landlord explained that it had asked standard and mandatory questions during an application for the help of £75 towards a new cooker. It assured the resident that it had no need to ask this question for any other reason and if not queried, it could be fined. It confirmed that unless the resident needed assistance in relation to financial skills, she would not need to have contact with this member of staff again. It agreed to reimburse the resident £75 to cover the cost of the cooker.
2. It confirmed that any communication between the resident and the member of staff who told her not to speak to her neighbours and sent the NOSP should now be in writing and no verbal communication should be received.
The resident’s boiler was serviced on 11 December 2020 and passed the inspection. A further appointment was requested on the same day as the resident had reported the same noise issues with her boiler. A contractor found that the pump on the boiler was not functioning as it should and needed to be replaced. This repair was reported as completed on 23 December 2020.
On 25 January 2021, the landlord sent the resident an acknowledgement email for a separate complaint. She had also expressed dissatisfaction that several operatives had attended the property in the previous 10 months and had not diagnosed any issues with her boiler. She had an annual gas service in December 2020 and continued to have the same issues. The landlord confirmed that it would issue a complaint response by 8 February 2021.
The landlord provided a stage one complaint response on 8 Feb 2021 in relation to the resident’s concerns about her boiler. It detailed the following:
1. The landlord attached a list of all contact the resident had made with its contractors between 9 June 2020 and 23 December 2020 and the diagnosis of the boiler following each appointment. It confirmed that since January 2020 the resident had reported five repairs needed to the boiler. It confirmed that it had attended or attempted to attend each repair, but the resident had not confirmed an appointment date.
2. It explained that a repair order had not been raised to check the water at the resident’s property following its previous stage two complaint response. It confirmed that it had requested for this to be carried out and explained that two engineers would be in attendance due to the serious nature of the accusations made regarding staff being discriminatory.
3. It explained that the gas service was carried out on 11 December 2020 and said that it would not usually check the pump specifically, however, if the pump were not working correctly at the time of the service, this would have been identified. It said that it was unable to link the pump causing the noise following the service, to the standard of the service carried out.
4. It explained that without access to the property it would not be able to look at the issues and provide a diagnosis. It stated that until access was granted it would not escalate her complaint any further.
The landlord sent a letter to the resident on 27 May 2021 and confirmed its position for each of the resident’s complaints. It confirmed that the bathroom replacement works were scheduled to commence on 5 July 2021. It explained that the resident had refused to allow a further inspection of the plastering to go ahead and that another appointment had been booked for 21 June 2021. It acknowledged that it had offered to reimburse £40 for the cost of a replacement kitchen cupboard and that this matter was closed. It noted that a further appointment for the boiler was due to take place on 28 May 2021. It felt that it had fully addressed the resident’s concerns about the actions of its staff members on 9 December 2020 and would not consider this matter further.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding her health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. However, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation involving her property has caused the resident.

Repairs to the plastering in the property.

In line with its repairs policy, the landlord would be responsible for keeping the structure of the property in good repair, this would include the plaster. The resident would be responsible for allowing access at all reasonable hours to employees or contractors to carry out repairs, servicing or other work to the home or to check its condition in line with her Tenancy Agreement.
The landlord has acknowledged that there was an initial delay in booking the repair appointment for the plasterwork and has apologised for any inconvenience this caused to the resident. This apology is reasonable given that there had been a backlog of repair works because of Covid-19 which was beyond the landlord’s control.
The further delay in completing this work is reasonable, as there remains a dispute between the resident and the landlord about whether the three lounge walls should be completely replastered or whether patching would suffice. The landlord would be entitled to do a patch repair rather than replastering the whole wall unless this was found to need a full replaster. The landlord is entitled to rely on its contractors’ opinions concerning the level of plastering needed. The landlord should consider whether further plastering is needed once a patch repair has been completed if the patch repair does not resolve the issue.
It was reasonable for the landlord to arrange for a further inspection before completing any repair work following the resident’s concerns that the plaster was now coming off in larger chunks. However, the landlord has reported that the resident has refused access to the property to carry this inspection out. The resident would be expected to allow access to the property in line with her tenancy agreement and the landlord is entitled to do an inspection before agreeing to replaster the whole wall as it may not be able to tell whether this was needed from photos alone.
In summary, there has been no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the repairs needed to the plaster in the resident’s living room. The landlord would not be expected to completely replaster the walls without first completing a further inspection. Any delay in completing this work is reasonable as the resident has not allowed access to the property for a further inspection to be carried out.

Repairs to the boiler.

The landlord’s repairs policy states that the landlord would be responsible for any repairs needed to the heating, gas, water and electricity supply. Following the resident’s initial report of issues with her boiler making noises and the water coming out a grey colour, there was some confusion about whether an appointment had been booked. The evidence shows that the landlord had made reasonable efforts to arrange further appointments following the inspection on 23 December 2020 and resident’s continued concern that her boiler was making noises, but the resident had either declined the appointments or had not called back to arrange for a convenient time. The landlord and its contractors would not be expected to repeatedly chase the resident and it would be the resident’s responsibility to arrange for this appointment to take place at an appropriate time.
The resident has also expressed dissatisfaction that the gas service engineer who attended on 11 December 2020 did not identify any issue with the pump on her boiler and this had resulted in a separate appointment on the same day, where it was established that the pump needed replacing. The pump was then replaced on 23 December 2020. It is understandable that this may have caused some inconvenience for the resident. Whilst a basic gas servicing may not have established an issue with the pump, a more in-depth servicing should have taken place on this occasion given her previous reports of issues with her boiler. Ultimately the repair to the pump did not resolve the outstanding issues so the resident was not significantly disadvantaged by having two appointments on the same day.
The landlord appears to have attempted to raise a further appointment on 5 February 2021 to inspect the boiler however this appointment was also cancelled as the resident had stated that it was inconvenient. Without another inspection the landlord cannot determine whether there may be other issues with the boiler. There has been no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the repairs needed to the resident’s boiler. The landlord has made reasonable efforts to arrange further inspections of the boiler but it would be the resident’s responsibility to allow access to the property for this to go ahead.

The resident’s request for a replacement bathroom suite

Following the resident’s report that she was unable to use her bathroom as it was in a “poor state” on 11 August 2020, the landlord confirmed that her bathroom would be included as part of its planned replacement works for the 2021-22 financial year. It also made reasonable attempts to inspect the bathroom for any further repair issues on 22 September 2020 however this appointment was declined by the resident for unknown reasons. Ultimately it was found that the bathroom was fully functioning, although it is acknowledged that the resident has said she cannot use the bathroom because of her PTSD.
There has been no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s request for a replacement bathroom suite. The resident accepted the property as it was and could have decided not to accept the property if she felt that the colour of the bathroom might have a negative effect on her usage of the room. It is understandable that the resident may not have felt that she had much choice when accepting the property due to a lack of availability of social housing and the rules around housing allocations. However, there is no evidence that she had raised any concerns about the bathroom colour when her tenancy began.
Social landlords have limited resources and in order to be fair to all tenants and manage their resources effectively, landlords are expected prioritise upgrades and major repairs. It is more economical to run these upgrades as part of a program than to individually pick properties to be upgraded ahead of schedule. The landlord would not be expected to replace the bathroom suite outside of its planned schedule unless it was beyond economic repair or it had received a recommendation from an occupational therapist for adaptations to be made for health reasons.
It is noted that the resident wanted her bathroom to be replaced sooner due to the affect the colour of the bathroom was having on her mental health. As above, the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding her medical conditions, however, we are not qualified to make judgement about how her health and wellbeing was affected. The resident could have approached the local authority or her GP for a referral for an occupational therapy assessment to provide evidence to support her claim that she needed the bathroom to be changed for health reasons. The landlord would not be able to determine what adaptations may be appropriate without advice from a qualified occupational therapist and it was therefore reasonable that the bathroom was not replaced sooner, as it was reported to be fully functioning.

The resident’s kitchen alterations.

The landlord’s repair policy states that a tenant should obtain permission before carrying out any improvements to the property and comply with any conditions the landlord puts in place.
There has been no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s kitchen alterations. In this case, the resident asked the landlord for permission to remove a kitchen cupboard to make room for her fridge/freezer. This was granted by the landlord under the conditions that all costs were paid for by the resident. The landlord would not be expected to replace the cupboard which was removed or reimburse the resident for the cost of a new cupboard as she had made the alteration herself and accepted the conditions. The landlord did, however, offer to reimburse £40 for the cost of a new cupboard which, while it was not obliged to do so, demonstrated its willingness to resolve matters for the resident.
The resident had also requested for her kitchen worktops to be replaced with black worktops. The landlord was not obliged to replace the resident’s kitchen worktops as this would be considered an improvement rather than a repair because the worktops were usable and not in need of repair. The landlord acted reasonably by advising the resident that she could replace this herself, at her own cost if she wanted.

The landlord’s communication with the resident

The resident has expressed concern that the landlord had begun possession proceedings six weeks into her tenancy and explained that she felt this was insensitive. In line with the tenancy agreement, the resident is responsible for ensuring that her rent is paid on time and in full. The landlord has provided evidence that it issued a letter to the resident on 4 May 2020, approximately four months into her tenancy as a precautionary step due to the level of arrears on her rent account. There is no evidence to show that any possession proceedings had begun at an earlier date.
It was reasonable for the landlord to warn the resident of potential possession proceedings if she did not continue to pay an additional amount towards her rent arrears. Whilst it is understandable that the resident may have found this distressing, it was not a disproportionate step for the landlord to take given that her rent account was in a negative balance and the arrears were a significant amount. It also gave the resident an opportunity to discuss any changes in her circumstances if needed and would not be considered unfair or unreasonable in this case.
The resident has also expressed dissatisfaction that her application for help with financial hardship was rejected and that she had been asked how long she had lived in the country as part of this application. The landlord has explained to this Service that the resident’s application for £75 was rejected because it had completed an income assessment at the time and found that the resident could afford the cost of fitting the cooker. This was because she had an income and had funded the purchase of the cooker herself. The landlord has provided a satisfactory explanation as to why the resident did not receive any hardship funds at this time, however, this does not appear to have been explained to the resident in its complaint response. The landlord has since agreed to reimburse the resident £75 towards the cost of the cooker installation, which is reasonable as it was not strictly obliged to do so.
The landlord has explained to the resident that the question was asked as a standard and mandatory question on the application form for financial hardship and that, if it did not ask this question, it could be fined. The landlord has explained that it had no reason to ask the resident these questions for any other reason than as part of this application. It has since explained to the Ombudsman that there was no application form when applying for financial hardship as the assessment was carried out verbally. However, the resident was also assisted with her application for Universal Credit during this time and was asked “Have you been out of the country in the last two years?”. The landlord has provided a copy of the section of the universal credit application form which includes this question to this Service.
Ultimately, this Service cannot determine how this question was phrased to the resident as the landlord did not have call recordings from this time. There has been service failure by the landlord for his aspect of the resident’s complaint as it has not provided the resident with the information she had requested about the application form and the record of events provided to the resident and the Ombudsman seems to differ. This can be attributed to poor record keeping by the landlord and is likely to have caused some inconvenience and confusion for the resident.
The resident has also expressed dissatisfaction that she was allegedly told not to speak to her neighbours when she moved into the property. In its complaint response on 9 November 2020, the landlord confirmed that the resident would no longer need to speak to the staff member responsible. This goes some way to resolving her concerns, however, it does not fully address the issue or confirm whether this advice was appropriate.
Whilst the landlord has explained to this Service that the resident was advised to be cautious when speaking to her neighbours about her previous housing experience to keep her safe, the landlord has not provided sufficient evidence to show that it took adequate steps to investigate the resident’s concerns by interviewing the member of staff responsible at the time or providing evidence of this communication with the resident. This indicates poor record keeping by the landlord and the Ombudsman cannot say whether the advice not to speak to her neighbours was appropriate as there is no evidence to suggest that it was.
This advice was likely to have caused the resident some distress and by simply stating that she would not have to speak to that member of staff, (without specifying why it had advised this or how it established that due process was followed) the landlord has failed to provide a satisfactory response to this aspect of the resident’s complaint. This constitutes a service failure by the landlord and the landlord should offer compensation in view of this as detailed further below.

Handling of the associated complaints.

The landlord’s complaint’s policy confirms that at the time of this complaint, it had three main complaint stages and at each stage a response should be issued within ten working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response at stage one, they can escalate their complaint to stage two and then stage three. If there are likely to be any delays in issuing complaint responses, the landlord would be expected to inform the resident and keep them updated. The landlord would also be expected to address each aspect of a resident’s complaint at each stage or raise a separate stage one complaint for new issues.
There has been maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint. The resident initially raised her complaint on 11 August 2020, the landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 22 September 2020 which was 20 working days outside of its complaint handling timescales. The landlord explained that this delay was due to staff absence, however, the landlord would be expected to have processes in place to prevent any delays because of staff absence and it does not appear to have kept the resident updated regarding this delay.
It is noted that the resident raised new complaint issues on 17 August 2020 about being asked how long she had lived in the country following the landlord’s stage one complaint acknowledgement. She also initially raised the issues around the NOSP and being told not to speak to her neighbours in her stage two escalation request on 10 October 2020. It is ultimately up to the landlord to determine how it should approach these new issues but it would be expected to either address the resident’s concerns within its current complaint or raise a separate complaint about the new issues. The landlord did not address this concern within its stage one or stage two complaint response and did not raise a separate complaint on these matters until 23 November 2020. This was an unreasonable delay and significantly extended the timeframe of the complaint for the resident.
The landlord has stated that the resident’s complaint regarding staff conduct was closed at stage one following a meeting on 8 December 2020. The resident has explained that she did not feel that the landlord had fully addressed her concerns about the NOSP or being told not to speak to her neighbours, in its response. As this was a stage one response, the landlord would have been expected to consider the resident’s further concerns at stage two of its process. The landlord has not acted reasonably as it did not provide or explain the resident’s escalation rights in this complaint response and did not provide a suitable explanation as to why this stage one complaint could not be escalated further through its internal process.
It was reasonable for the landlord not to escalate the resident’s final complaint about her boiler as she had not allowed a further inspection to go ahead. The landlord would not be able to take any further action to resolve the resident’s concerns unless it was given the opportunity to inspect the issue.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of:
1. Repairs to plastering in the property.
2. Repairs to the boiler.
3. The resident’s request for a replacement bathroom suite
4. The resident’s request for kitchen alterations.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of:
1. Its communication with the resident.
2. Its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord would be entitled to rely on its qualified contractors who determined that the resident’s lounge needed patch-up work rather than a full replaster. Following the resident’s disagreement, the landlord acted reasonably by offering a further inspection to see whether a full replaster was required but the resident has denied access to the property.
The landlord made reasonable efforts to arrange for a further inspection of the resident’s boiler following her continued concern that it was making noises. The resident has not allowed access to the property for a further inspection to take place and therefore the landlord cannot progress the matter at this time.
The landlord acted reasonably by adding the resident’s bathroom to its 2021-22 planned bathroom upgrade programme. The landlord would not have been obliged to replace her bathroom suite sooner as it was fully functioning during this time and it had not received advice from an occupational therapist to confirm the bathroom needed to be replaced sooner for health reasons.
The landlord would not be obliged to reimburse the resident for the cost of a new cupboard after she had removed one to make room for a fridge/freezer within her kitchen, although it was more than reasonable for it to do so in this case.
This Service cannot confirm that the advice provided to the resident about not speaking to her neighbours was appropriate due to the lack of records provided by the landlord. It has not provided any further information to show that it had investigated the resident’s concerns in full or explained its position on this matter. It has also provided a differing account of when and why the resident was asked how long she had lived in the country to this Service which means we cannot definitively confirm what happened.
The landlord did not provide its stage one complaint response within the expected timescales and did not keep the resident informed of any delay. There was a further delay in acknowledging the resident’s concerns about staff communication and the landlord did not adequately provide the resident with her escalation rights or fully explain why it would not escalate this complaint further through its internal process.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that the following actions take place within four weeks:
1. The landlord is to pay the resident £200 in recognition of the inconvenience caused as a result of its communication and complaint handling.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord arranges inspections of the boiler and plaster when the resident arranges appointments and allows access.
It is recommended that the landlord reviews its record keeping practices to ensure that it can provide sufficient evidence to show that it had taken adequate steps to investigate a tenant’s concerns.