Hexagon Housing Association Limited (202125894)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202125894

Hexagon Housing Association Limited

7 September 2023

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, and communication about, various repairs in the property.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a mouse infestation.
This service has also considered the landlord’s:
1. Complaint handling.
2. Record keeping.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. She resides in a two-bedroom maisonette on the basement and ground floor and has done since 2016.

Policies and procedures and legislation

Repairs:

The landlord’s published information confirms that “the length of time a repair takes will vary depending on how serious the problem is.” Emergency repairs, which include a collapsed ceiling have a target response time of 24 hours. It will “make temporary repairs when emergencies happen at night or at weekends…its contractors will come back to repair the problem as soon as they can.”
Urgent repairs have a target response time of seven days. These repairs are classed as “serious but are not likely to put life or health at serious risk.” Examples include, “normal plumbing leaks.”
Normal repairs have a target response time of 28 days. Examples include “day-to-day repairs such as woodwork, plaster.” Planned repairs included fencing repairs, easing of doors and windows.
The repairs policy sets out that “successful monitoring of contractors’ performance is critical to the delivery of the maintenance service and ensuring performance targets are met.”

Pest control

The landlord’s published information confirms that it is responsible for treating pests that are deemed a statutory nuisance in accordance with the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Residents have a responsibility to prevent and treat pests that are attributed to their lifestyle.

Compensation policy

The landlord’s compensation policy confirms that where the landlord has been negligent (for example, not conducting a repair previously reported) compensation will be paid out of its funds or through its insurance.”
The landlord’s compensation policy also confirms that it will consider paying goodwill compensation if its level of service has fallen below its standards or if inconvenience has been caused.

Complaints policy

The policy in place at the time of this complaint had “several” stages. Its “front-line staff” would try to resolve a complaint “quickly and informally.” If the resident sent a written complaint, it would provide a written response. This was not a formal stage and complaints would be escalated directly to stage one if the resident requested this. Complaints at stage one would normally be responded to within 10 working days, although if the matters were complex, it could extend this by a further 10 working days. The landlord would notify the resident if an extension was required.
If the resident felt the result was unsatisfactory, they could request an escalation to stage two. It would normally expect the resident to do this within 30 days of receiving a stage one response. The resident was required to set out the reasons they were not satisfied, and would receive a written response within 20 working days. However, if the matters were complex, this could be extended by a further 20 working days.
There was an optional third stage. The resident had the option of having the complaint heard by a Board Panel, as well as referring the complaint to the Housing Ombudsman.

Tenancy Agreement

The agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for repairing and maintain the structure, and exterior of the property including drains, external painting and decorating; outside doors, window frames; internal walls and ceilings, boundary walls and fences.

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair the structure and exterior of the property. The landlord’s obligation to do so is confirmed in the resident’s tenancy agreement.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is concerned with avoiding or minimizing potential hazards. The landlord has a responsibility to keep a property free from category one hazards, including protection from infection, damp, and mould.
The HHSRS says that poor design/layout/construction of a dwelling can mean that it is difficult to be kept clean and hygienic and can allow access for pests including rats. This can result in, among other things, gastro-intestinal disease (from spread of infection), stress (because of difficulties in keeping the home clean), infections (spread by insects, rats, and mice) and nuisance. Preventative measures include blocking holes through the roof, eaves, and verges to deny ingress to rats/mice/squirrels/birds; and any necessary holes to be covered by grilles.

Summary of events

In May 2018, the resident reported that her taps and shower head were dripping. A job was raised on 24 May 2018, to “overhaul taps to WHB (wash hand basin) bath and shower head – individual taps do not turn off fully; shower head drips continuously please overhaul.” The landlord’s repair records indicate that the job was completed the same day.
The resident reported damage to her bathroom ceiling on 29 September 2020, following a leak from the flat above. A routine repair was raised on 1 October 2020, to plaster and paint the damaged area of the bathroom ceiling. Records confirm the job was later cancelled on 3 December 2021, but it is unclear why.
The resident emailed the landlord on 7 February 2021, listing repairs which she said had been incomplete from 2018, and which included:
1. Painting of the outside had not been completed and had been done to a poor standard.
2. There was no fence along the left side of the garden.
3. Drains near the back bedroom were not covered.
4. Steps were missing, making it dangerous to get in and out of the garden.
5. The communal door was missing a draft excluder.
6. The windows had been replaced but were badly fitted, with holes underneath, causing the rooms to be cold and high energy bills.
7. Following a water leak from the resident above last year, the bathroom ceiling still needed to be replaced.
8. The shower unit installed nearly two years ago still needed completing, including tiling.
9. There was a hole in the communal hall floor.
10. Damp in the lounge.
The resident advised that if she did not receive a plan for completion of repairs by 21 February 2021, she would contact the Environmental Health department (environmental health). The resident raised a formal complaint on 25 February 2021, as she had not received a response from the landlord.
On 26 February 2021, the landlord raised a series of works orders to repair the fence; damp; and missing step and drain cover. It would check if the outside decorating could be included into next year’s cyclical programme.
An operative attended the resident’s address on 12 March 2021 to evaluate the repairs in the bathroom. The operative advised the landlord that during his visit the resident requested that the ceiling was taken down and replaced.
On 22 March 2021, an internal email confirmed “all tiles in the bathroom are loose and needed to be taken off”. It noted “no cover around the mixer (shower) for one and a half years” so the board was rotten behind the shower and a dehumidifier was needed.
The landlord emailed the resident on 22 March 2021, and said:
1. The exterior decoration would be brought forward by 12 months, due to its “poor finish”.
2. A surveyor would inspect the gaps in the windows that she had reported.
3. The rear fence was repaired and left in a reasonable condition.
4. The bathroom tiling had been completed and left in a good condition.
5. It had no record of damp in the lounge, or a hole in the communal floor, or that the draft excluder was missing on the front entrance door.
6. The resident was advised to report repair issues to the customer services team.
The resident responded the same day requesting dates for completion of the decoration. She advised that the bathroom ceiling and tiling repairs had remained outstanding for over a year and the fence on the left-hand side of the garden was missing. She requested all records of maintenance issues reported and completed since 2016.
Between May and July 2021, the landlord considered the repairs further and raised a series of jobs. The records show:
1. On 5 May 2021, a job was raised to repair the bathroom ceiling, following a leak that was reported by the resident in September 2020 and was marked as a routine repair.
2. A job to “hack off and replaster if required” in the lounge was raised on 10 May. It noted “check reason for damp.”
3. The window repairs would be picked up as a day-to-day repair with “some minor making good under the sills”.
4. A job to “overhaul faulty mixer shower” was raised on 9 June 2021.
5. The resident reported “bubbling” on the bathroom ceiling on 21 June 2021. The landlord noted that the resident was worried that the ceiling would come down and could injure herself, or her child. The repair was logged as urgent.
6. A job to “ease and adjust kitchen window not closing properly” was raised on 9 July 2021. This job was recorded as completed on 24 July 2020.
In an email marked as “urgent” on 31 July 2021, the resident advised the landlord that the bathroom ceiling had collapsed while she was running a bath for her son. She requested immediate help to make her home safe. The landlord said that the ceiling was made safe by the out of hours team, that day. It is noted that the resident disputes this.
On 4 August 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to ask when the ceiling in the bathroom would be made safe. Chaser emails were sent on 6 and 11 August 2021.
The landlord emailed the resident on 8 September 2021 to advise that ceiling works were approved in August 2021, and should have been completed. It noted that its contractors had left a voicemail for the resident on 12 August requesting that she booked a convenient time for them to attend.
The resident responded the same day, stating that she had been awaiting a response from the landlord since 2 August 2021. She advised that she did return the call and was awaiting a call back. She confirmed the ceiling repair had been arranged for 22 September 2021.
A repair was entered on the landlord’s records on 14 September 2021 to “make safe by temporary boarding up ceiling, to stop loose debris from falling until plastering works had been carried out.” This was recorded as an emergency repair. The temporary fix was completed on 4 October 2021.
The landlord issued an “informal complaint response” on 14 September 2021, following the resident’s complaint in March 2021. It confirmed:
1. A works order was raised on 1 October 2020 to plaster and paint the damaged area to the bathroom ceiling (routine repair) following the reported leak.
2. It should have considered compensation and subsequently offered £50 as a goodwill payment, in recognition of a service failure to carry out the repair within 28 days. It apologised for the inconvenience caused.
In a response the same day, the resident requested confirmation on how the complaint could be concluded, with bathroom ceiling repairs outstanding. She advised that concrete and plaster was coming down daily, and she was not able to use the bath, of which photographs were provided. She further advised that the repairs in her complaint remained outstanding and she had requested detailed records of reported and completed works from 2016 onwards, which she had not received.
A job to install temporary lighting in the bathroom was raised on 23 September 2021 and the repair to the bathroom ceiling was completed in November 2021, which the resident said was of sub-standard quality. The resident emailed the landlord on 4 December 2021 and asked why only four bathroom tiles had been replaced. She requested a date for repairs to the shower, and when the shower pole would be replaced after being damaged by a contractor. A follow-up email was sent on 13 January 2022, as the resident had not received a response.
The landlord emailed the resident on 2 February 2022 in relation to the shower pole. It asked for the details of the contractor, and whether the resident made them aware of the damage at the time. The resident was asked to email a central complaints inbox, rather than individual employees to ensure delays in providing responses were minimised. The landlord provided the resident with repairs history, up until 16 September 2021.
The resident contacted this service in February 2022, after remaining dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, as well as the standard of service she had received. In a further email in May 2022, she requested that this service reviewed:
1. The length of time the landlord took to respond to repairs and complaints.
2. The “alarming” amount of time and effort taken for the landlord to acknowledge and repair the bathroom ceiling.
3. The level of compensation offered in relation to:
  1. Physical and psychological damage caused to herself and her son when the bathroom ceiling collapsed.
  2. Missed appointments and time taken for repairs to be completed.
4. All outstanding repairs to be completed.
5. For the landlord to acknowledge its responsibilities.
This service wrote to the landlord on three occasions between 22 April and 27 May 2022, to query if the response it had sent on 14 September 2021, was a final response.
The landlord confirmed to this service on 7 June 2022, that the matter had not been considered through its complaints procedure, and it had only issued an “informal response.” This service asked the landlord to provide a stage one response by 4 July 2022. The landlord responded on 4 July 2022 to confirm that the complaint had been treated under its old procedure as ‘unofficial’, and that it no longer did this. It requested guidance as it did not know whether it should reply to the resident at stage one or stage two of the complaints process.
The landlord issued a stage one response on 14 July 2022 in which it said:
1. Contact was made by the resident on 7 February 2021 in relation to outstanding repairs from 2018. The complaint was acknowledged on 5 March 2021 and treated as an informal complaint. The resident had listed “some 10 items of repair” that she was unhappy with. Some of the works were passed to its Stock Improvement Team. The following were raised by the then area surveyor – damage to the bathroom ceiling following a leak, tiling in the shower unit, a hole in the communal wall floor and damp in the lounge.
2. The works were managed by the then surveyor; however, he left organisation in May 2021, and there was no internal handover of the complaint. The emails that were subsequently sent to the surveyor were to his personal inbox, and it was therefore not aware of the outstanding issues until the resident’s email of 20 September 2021.
3. The bathroom ceiling partially came down due to a leak from the upstairs tenant’s washing machine on “31 July 2021”. It said it was sorry that the issue had occurred but as it was a new leak, it was only brought to its attention in June 2021, when the resident raised concerns that the bathroom needed to be investigated. It had offered £50 compensation in September 2021.
4. Works “finally” started on 15 November 2021, due to miscommunication with the contractor. Bathroom works were completed on 23 November 2021.
5. An MP made contact on 23 December 2021 with concerns that repairs were outstanding and there was concern of asbestos in the property.
6. It wished to offer an inspection of the property and a member of staff would be in touch during the week commencing 25 July 2022, to arrange an appointment that was suitable for the resident.
7. Once works had been signed off, it would be happy to review the compensation offer, in line with its policy.
8. It confirmed learning from the complaint that:
  1. It would have been prudent to investigate the bathroom ceiling at the time. It missed the opportunity to trace and remedy the leak earlier which may have averted the ceiling partially coming down.
  2. As it was using a different contractor and had staffing issues, it did not carry out a post inspection.
  3. It acknowledged that communication could have been better. It would be implementing a customer relation management system to see all communication in relation to repairs.
  4. It confirmed that it wanted to work with the resident to bring the complaint to a permanent resolution.
  5. The resident was informed how to escalate her complaint.
On 30 July 2022, the resident emailed the landlord in response to the stage one reply. She said:

a. The bathroom ceiling was reported on 29 September 2020, and it collapsed on 31 July 2021. The ceiling repair was not completed until November 2021 and the works were of substandard quality. She and her family had suffered due to contractors not attending and being left without electricity. Since 29 September 2020, she had suffered serious inconvenience and distress because of the ceiling.

b. Tiles needed to be fitted, as well as the shower unit and curtain pole replaced.

c. Asbestos was found in both bedrooms and hall. £200 was offered following the discovery of asbestos tiles by a carpet fitter. The compensation was offered to cover the fitting charge, after he refused to lay the carpet.

d. The only repair from the 2018 list that had been completed was the painting in the lounge and under the window.

e. She was waiting for a refund as the communal lighting was running off her electricity. This was logged on 22 March 2021.

The landlord acknowledged the resident’s email on 23 August 2022, and apologised for the delay in responding. It advised an update would be provided by 30 August 2022. The resident sent a chaser email on 5 September 2022, after not having received an update.
This service wrote to the landlord on 19 October 2022, and asked it to issue a stage 2 response by 2 November 2022.
The landlord emailed the resident on 2 November 2022. It advised that it hoped to attend the property and discuss an action plan for the outstanding repairs. The landlord asked the resident to get in touch so that a mutually convenient time could be agreed. The resident wrote to the landlord on 9 November 2022 to advise that she had been unable to speak with landlord staff using the number that was provided, and she had left two messages. She requested that the landlord called her.
On 10 November 2022, the landlord confirmed it would call that afternoon to arrange a suitable appointment. After failing to receive a call, the resident emailed the landlord the following day and provided available dates for the landlord to attend. She sent a further email on 30 November 2022, after not receiving a response from the landlord.
This service emailed the landlord on 3 December 2022, and requested that the resident was provided with a final response by 9 December 2022. This service issued a Complaint Handling Failure Order (CHFO) to the landlord on 12 December 2022, as it had unreasonably delayed responding to the complaint.
In a response on 12 December 2022, the landlord offered “profound apologies” for the delay in its response. It advised that its repairs manager was unable to attend the resident’s property due to unforeseen circumstances. It confirmed that it would offer an update of proposals by 16 December 2022.
The landlord emailed the resident on 18 December 2022, with a letter headed “stage one response to your complaint”. It apologised that the complaint had not been escalated, following her request on 30 July 2022. It added:
1. It had recently agreed a new responsive repairs contract, and the landlord had requested that the resident liaison officer treated the repairs as urgent. Contact would be made with the resident within five working days to agree an action plan for the repairs.
2. A new complaints process had been introduced to ensure complaints were dealt with in a reasonable amount of time. It hoped to see an improvement in dealing with its repairs’ complaints in the coming months.
The resident emailed the landlord on 20 January 2023, and said:
1. A contractor attended on 18 January 2023 and advised her that only the cracked tiles would be replaced. She confirmed that due to the damp and mould after years of water leaks, the walls needed to be treated and all tiles replaced with new. She stated that she was “extremely concerned” that the bathroom repairs had been outstanding for two years.
2. She had paid for a new sink and taps to be installed due to “no response” and “delays to repairs.”
3. She had expected works to be completed over 18, 19 and 20 January, and had taken time off work, but was inconvenienced again.
4. She had previously offered to pay for new bathroom tiles but was “alarmed” at the costs she had incurred to fix repairs that were the landlord’s responsibility.
5. The leak from the kitchen ceiling had damaged the property. The contractor had filled the crack and only painted over the patched area, not the whole ceiling as she would have expected.
6. The plumber was expected that day to replace new taps for the bath, and operatives had been booked for 25 January to replace the kitchen worktop, and to seal the windows.
7. She requested compensation for:
  1. All non-attended appointments and delays.
  2. Delays and injury following the collapse of the bathroom ceiling.
  3. Asbestos being found in the property.
  4. Paying for the communal electric.
  5. Paying to fix the garden wall to ensure her sons safety.
8. She requested that the exterior painting of the property; garden fence panels and gate were fixed; exterior and interior holes filled to stop mice; ceiling and walls insulated; and reviewing the blocked drains.

She had not had contact from a surveyor to inspect the property.

Following a conversation with the repairs manager on 20 January 2023, the resident complained in relation to the service provided by the landlord’s contractors. She said:
1. An operative attended on 17 January to replace the kitchen worktop. A text message from the contractor confirmed that the appointment was scheduled for 18 January (the resident provided a screenshot of the appointment confirmation). She then received a message stating the operative “could not gain access.” An appointment was rebooked for 25 January 2023.
2. An operative attended on 18 January to complete bathroom repairs and kitchen ceiling repair. The resident requested that the bathroom tiles were not replaced with the standard tiles, as this was subject to a complaint.
3. Another operative attended in the afternoon of 18 January who advised that due to it being late in the day, he would return on either 19 or 20 January to replace the bath taps, shower unit and bath panel.
4. She requested to know why the plumber had not attended and was informed that no appointment had been made. The resident sought clarification as to why her shower was disconnected and bath panel removed if the operative was not a plumber.
5. She had been left seriously inconvenienced and she did not have access to a fully functional bathroom and was without a shower as it had been disconnected. She stated that the level of service was not acceptable.
In an email response the same day, the landlord advised that three appointments had been booked for 17, 18 and 19 January. It said that the 17 January had been cancelled by the resident (which the resident said was not correct) and a plumber had been booked for 25 January 2023. It apologised for any confusion.
The resident sent an email to the landlord’s Chief Executive (CEO) on 25 January 2023, seeking assistance in receiving a complaint response. The CEO responded on 26 January 2023 to advise that a response would be provided by 10 February 2023. A subsequent email the following day advised the resident that she would receive a response by 1 February 2023. The resident requested clarification as she had been provided with different dates. The landlord apologised for the confusion and confirmed a stage two response would be issued by 10 February 2023.
On 25 January 2023, the resident advised the landlord that a contractor had attended that day to replace the kitchen worktop. However, the contractor advised that a new worktop would need to be purchased, to be completed with help from another contractor, on another day. She also said that the plumber had not arrived, nor the contractor to seal the windows. She stated that she had taken another day off work, which caused further inconvenience.
The resident sent a chaser email to the landlord on 13 February 2023, after failing to receive a stage two response to her complaint. The landlord responded the same day to apologise and advised that it would call the resident that afternoon, before finalising its response.
The landlord sent an email on 13 February 2023 advising the resident that it had tried to make contact regarding the complaint and had left voice messages. It requested a time that the resident would be free, to call again. In response, the resident confirmed that she would welcome a discussion, however, it was a formal complaint and she had been expecting a written response. The landlord confirmed that it wished to discuss additional issues raised by the resident in January 2023, that did not form part of the stage two escalation.
In an email to the landlord on 15 February 2023, the resident listed seven officers that had been involved in the repairs. She requested that the landlord consulted with its responsive repairs team regarding works, as she had been inconvenienced on several occasions.
The landlord issued a stage two response on 15 February 2023. It said:
1. It wished to apologise for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint. It explained that due to a period of absence from work, the investigation was halted.
2. It apologised that the resident’s complaint was not escalated to stage two within its published timescales. It confirmed it was an unacceptable delay.
3. It apologised for the unacceptable delay in completing the repair to the ceiling, which affected the residents use of the bathroom. It noted that the resident had confirmed that repairs had been completed in early February 2023.
4. The responsive repairs manager would contact the resident, by 24 February 2023, to arrange for a contractor to treat the damp and mould in the bathroom; retile the entire bathroom; replace the taps and shower pole. It said that the manager would also arrange for:
  1. A repair to the secondary damage in the kitchen caused by the leak, including painting the entire ceiling and walls.
  2. A repair to the kitchen worktop.
  3. The damp in the lounge to be treated.
  4. The drains to be unblocked for the building and the resident’s home.
  5. Repair to the garden fence panels and gate.
  6. Repairs to the gutters and hole in the communal area of the building.
  7. It would aim to complete all repairs by 31 March 2023.

a. It would reimburse the resident the cost of purchasing the sink and new taps on provision of receipts.

b. An appointment had been arranged for 20 February 2023 for a contractor to seal the windows.

c. It would reimburse for costs incurred for electricity paid by the resident in the communal area.

d. It apologised for injury caused to the resident after the bathroom ceiling collapsed.

e. It apologised that the resident had to undertake works to the garden wall. Upon receipts/invoices for materials and labour, the landlord would reimburse costs incurred to fix the garden wall.

f. The stock improvement manager would contact by 24 February to arrange a survey to identify sound attenuation works and details of the external painting works.

g. Compensation of £1650 was offered for:

£150 for three missed appointments and delays by contractors
£1500 for the time trouble, distress and inconvenience and poor handling of the complaint
The responsive repairs manager would contact the resident by 24 February 2023, to commence processing of compensation requests via its insurer.

h. It identified key lessons being:

To complete all repairs to the resident’s satisfaction
To respond and escalate complaints within published timeframes
Stage two complaints should be allocated to a senior manager, who is working
It should respond urgently to safety-related repairs (within urgent response times).

i. The resident was advised how to escalate her complaint to this service if she remained dissatisfied. Additionally, the resident was advised on how to escalate her complaint to stage three of its complaints process.

The resident confirmed that a contractor attended her property on 20 February 2023. He advised the resident that his workplan confirmed he was to fix the taps, but not replace them, and was not told to renew the shower unit, bath panel, or shower pole. The resident contacted the landlord to express her dissatisfaction about the situation. She said she had previously sought confirmation that all works would be completed during this attendance. She was frustrated that this would not be the case, and that she would need to provide access again at a later date.
In a response the same day the landlord confirmed that it would be “extremely difficult” to coordinate the attendance of differently skilled operatives to attend and complete longstanding repairs in one day’s visit. It reconfirmed the deadline for responses, as detailed within its stage two response.
On 24 February 2023, the resident emailed to confirm that she had not received contact from the responsive repairs manager, the stock improvement manager, or the neighbourhood lead, as advised she would. She asked for her complaint to be further escalated in the circumstances.
The landlord offered its sincere apologies on 27 February 2023. It confirmed that the complaint would be escalated to stage three of its complaints process.
On 19 May 2023, the landlord emailed the resident to apologise for the delay in completing the actions set out within its stage two response, and for not making contact by 28 April 2023. It confirmed that a new member of staff would be overseeing the outstanding actions, as detailed in its stage two response. The resident would be contacted in May 2023, and progress updates would be provided fortnightly until all actions were completed. It confirmed that pest control attended on 29 April 2023 and 12 May 2023 to complete works, to fully address the pest infestation.
The landlord confirmed in an email to this service on 3 July 2023 that the following repairs remained:

Bathroom:

Tiles to bathroom wall – only patch repair completed, and tiles remain unsafe.
Bath panel, shower unit and shower pole defective.
Patch repair to bathroom ceiling completed but resident was unhappy with the quality.

Kitchen:

Worktop to be replaced in black.
Ceiling to be decorated due to leak from above.

Garden:

Six fence panels missing

Drain cover to be replaced to stop vermin entering.

Ventilation installation:

a. Upgrade ventilation in kitchen and bathroom and paint mould affected areas and sterilise. It confirmed a 7–8-week lead time to for a closed ventilation unit to be fitted.

Follow-on actions:

a. A supervisor would attend early the following week to double check repairs, ensuring that when repairs are schedules, the operative had the correct parts and knew what repairs were needed.

b. Within 36 hours of the visit, a full schedule would be sent with completion dates to the resident.

c. It could not see that the resident had previously raised paying for communal electricity.

d. The resident would be contacted every Thursday until all repairs completed.

Mouse infestation

On 28 June 2018, the resident reported mice “everywhere”, apart from the bathroom, in her property. The landlord logged the report as routine, however, did not provide a completion date. It is unclear if the landlord attended the property; and if so, what action was taken. A second report of a “nest of mice” in the kitchen cupboard was made by the resident on 25 April 2019. The landlord’s records detail that the matter was resolved the same day. A third report was made on 8 January 2020, when the resident reported mice again in her kitchen. The job was marked as resolved on 7 February 2020; however, it is unclear what action was taken by the landlord.
The evidence provided to this service does not detail what happened next. However, an “urgent” job was raised on 9 April 2020, to eradicate mice and block entry holes. A further job was raised on 22 September 2020, as the previous job was not carried out.
On 29 September 2020, the records confirm that pest control started a course of treatment at the property, following a “reoccurring problem”. Recommendations were made by pest control to the landlord to block various holes in the kitchen and fill a large gap at the wall-to-floor junction. It advised the need to use steel plates, mesh, and steel wool to block holes. The landlord was provided with a quote for the works.
Between June 2021 and December 2022, the repair records confirm three jobs were raised to “eradicate mice and block up entry holes.” It is unclear what, if any action the landlord had taken at this point.
The landlord’s stage two response issued on 15 February 2023, confirmed that the repairs manager would contact the resident by 24 March 2023, to arrange for the holes and cracks to be repaired, and a treatment programme undertaken for the mice infestation.
In July 2023, the landlord confirmed to this service that it would arrange for pest control to seal up entry points from the outside of the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has detailed her request for compensation for injury, following the bathroom ceiling collapsing. She has also detailed the psychological effect this had on her and her son.
The landlord confirmed in its stage two response that it would contact the resident for her to progress a personal injury claim with its insurers. The resident has confirmed to this Service in June 2023, that the landlord has not made contact regarding this to date.
Claims of personal injury are most appropriately considered by a court, where liability can be established. This service has therefore not sought to establish liability in this case, but has considered the landlord’s handling of the ceiling repair, and the way in which the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of injury.

Bathroom ceiling

Once on notice, the landlord is required to carry out repairs for which it is responsible, within a reasonable period. This is in accordance with its obligations under the terms of the tenancy agreement, repairs policy, and law.
In line with its policy, the landlord should have attended the property to conduct investigations and carry out necessary repairs within seven days of the resident’s report of a leak on 29 September 2020. While the evidence confirms it raised a repair for the ceiling on 1 October 2020, the job was not attended, and the resident was not provided with a reason as to why the repair was not completed. The landlord failed to respond appropriately to the repair, or act in accordance with its policy, which is a failing.
Given the lack of action, the resident raised a complaint on 7 February 2021, in relation to the outstanding repairs in her property. The landlord appropriately arranged for an inspection of the bathroom, albeit some weeks later, on 12 March 2021. During this inspection, the evidence suggests that the resident had requested the ceiling was taken down and replaced due to its condition. In the absence of any records detailing any decisions made following its inspection, or that it kept the resident informed, it is found that the landlord unreasonably delayed in reaching its decision to replace the ceiling.
There is no evidence that the landlord raised a repair or took any further action to complete the works following its inspection. Due to the inaction on the landlord’s part, the resident chased the repair again in May 2021. At this time, the evidence shows that a repair was logged by the landlord, to repair “following a previous leak from the flat above,” in September 2020. While the repair was logged, the evidence confirms that the landlord failed to complete the repair and gave no justifiable reason as to why it remained outstanding for eight months at this point. This is a failing on the landlord’s part to appropriately arrange and complete repairs within a reasonable time. The resident was caused considerable time and delay, as well as distress and inconvenience in having to consistently chase the matter.
The evidence shows that the resident spent an unreasonable amount of time pursuing the landlord for updates, which is a common theme throughout this case. Again, in June 2021, the resident contacted the landlord, as she was concerned that the ceiling was “bubbling.” The landlord recorded that the resident expressed concerns for the safety of herself, and her son, as she was worried the ceiling would collapse. The landlord raised an “urgent” repair, which, in line with its policy should have been attended within seven working days. The evidence confirms that the job was not attended. The landlord’s response does not demonstrate that it took this matter seriously, or that it had due regard for the resident’s safety. This is a significant failing.
The bathroom ceiling partially collapsed on 31 July 2021. Despite the landlord’s out of hours team attending on 31 July, the ceiling was not made safe. In line with its policy, the landlord is required to ‘make safe’ within 24 hours of being notified of a collapsed ceiling. The “temporary boarding” fix was completed on 4 October 2021, 45 working days after the ceiling partially collapsed. It is unclear why the landlord did not take steps to make the area safe sooner. However, that it did not was a significant departure from its repair obligations and was the cause of considerable inconvenience to the resident. Had the landlord responded to the matter as it was expected to, the impact upon the resident could have been reduced.
Furthermore, the evidence provided to this service shows that the resident had to chase the repair prior to it being completed. When the resident chased the matter in September, the landlord confirmed that a works order was raised in August 2021, and the repair should have been completed. The repair records do not show that a job was raised in August, as such it is unclear why the resident was advised as such. This is indicative of poor record keeping. It is also of concern that even though the landlord was aware that the ceiling had partially collapsed, it was not proactive in responding to the matter and the resident was left to chase repairs again.
Remedial works to patch repair the ceiling were completed in November 2021, 14 months after the ceiling damage was first reported, and four months after the ceiling partially collapsed. Without an explanation to justify the significant delay, the resident was left distressed, as she did not know when the landlord would complete the repair. Its lack of ownership and accountability significantly impacted its ability to manage the repairs appropriately. The landlord’s actions also evidence a lack of empathy for the detriment caused to the resident.
Following the patch repair, the resident explained that she was unhappy with the standard of workmanship. In the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have post-inspected the works. It is noted that the landlord had advised that it was unable to undertake a post-works inspection due to a “resourcing issue”. While this may have been the case, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to prioritise such an inspection given the circumstances of the case and how long the matter had been ongoing by that time. It was inappropriate that it did not provide the resident with a date for a surveyor to attend until 25 July 2022, eight months after the repair was completed. It is not evident if the inspection took place, or if it did, that the landlord satisfied itself that the repair was carried out to a reasonable standard. As such, the resident was left pursuing the matter.
The landlord has acknowledged in its stage one response that it “missed the opportunity to trace and remedy the leak earlier which may have averted the ceiling partially coming down.” It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge this. The landlord also offered £50 for the time taken to complete the repair. The remedy offered was disproportionate to the level of detriment caused to the resident, over a significantly protracted period.
The landlord and resident confirmed that the ceiling was repaired to an acceptable standard in February 2023. As such, the repair took a total of 381 working days to be fully completed and made good, following its partial collapse. The evidence provided to this service does not demonstrate that any of the delay was unavoidable; and the landlord’s failings in this matter were profound.
The landlord confirmed within its stage two response that the resident would be contacted by 24 February 2023 to process a personal injury claim via its insurer. This was an appropriate step to take. However, the landlord did not contact the resident, compounding its previous failures to meet self-imposed deadlines. While the landlord indicated in its stage one response that it had learned from previous mistakes, the evidence does not suggest that it did this. The resident was again left to pursue the matter which remains unresolved.
The evidence shows that the resident received a poor service from the landlord, and its contractors on many occasions throughout the course of the complaint. This was because of missed appointments; trades arriving on the wrong day; contractors work schedules not reflecting what had been agreed with the landlord and resident; multiple appointments being arranged; and repairs not being post inspected. This caused significant inconvenience on multiple occasions and is indicative of poor record keeping, and poor repairs management. This caused significant inconvenience to the resident.
When the landlord considered the matter at stage two it increased its compensation offer to £1650. This was comprised of £150 for missed appointments, and £1500 for time and trouble, distress, and inconvenience.
It was appropriate for the landlord to offer the resident increased compensation. However, the landlord failed to acknowledge all of the failings that have been identified by this investigation. In addition, the evidence does not show that it fully considered the impact on the resident. Its offer was therefore not proportionate in the circumstances. The Ombudsman has therefore made an order considering the following:
1. The landlord’s failure to act within a reasonable timeframe following the report of the leak.
2. The length of time taken to repair the ceiling from 31 July 2021 until February 2023.
3. That rent was payable by the resident during this time, but the relevant and appropriate service was not provided by the landlord.
4. The distress and inconvenience caused.

Other bathroom repairs

The resident informed the landlord that tiling around the shower had not been finished since the job commenced in 2018, which the landlord refuted. The repair records detail a job was raised on 1 October 2020, to “renew tiles around mixer [shower]”. It is unclear what information or records the landlord relied upon to determine that the tiling was completed.
Following an inspection in March 2021, the landlord confirmed that all the bathroom tiles were “loose” and needed “taking off.” During this inspection, it was also confirmed that the shower had not had a cover for a year and a half, which had caused the board in behind the shower to rot and a dehumidifier was needed. It is not clear why this was not noted previously by the landlord. In addition, there is no evidence that the landlord provided the resident with a dehumidifier, or effectively communicated a schedule of works, to carry out necessary repairs.
In its stage two response, the landlord agreed to re-tile the entire bathroom. It is noted that the resident advised the landlord that she would purchase her own tiles and did not want the landlord to replace like for like. The evidence provided to this service does not suggest that any further steps have been taken in relation to this. An order has therefore been made to ensure that the necessary works are completed without further delay.
Further repairs were reported to the taps and shower, which the resident had reported in 2018. The landlord’s repair log indicates that the taps were “overhauled” and completed the same day they were reported. Given that the resident purchased her own taps, and continued to report the leaking shower, the landlord’s repair records do not provide an accurate record of completed repairs, upon which it could reply on.
The resident advised the landlord that she purchased her own sink and taps, after “no response” and “delays” to repairs. The landlord later confirmed that the taps to the bath would be replaced by 31 March 2023. The landlord later requested copies of receipts from the resident for purchasing the taps and bathroom sink, and the cost of installing the items, for which the landlord would reimburse the cost. It is unclear whether the resident has been reimbursed. As such an order has been made regarding this.
There were significant failings in the ongoing issues with communication, the continued delay to complete the repairs initially identified in 2018, and the failure to keep the resident updated with timeframes for the works. The landlord’s failure to undertake repairs meant that the resident and her son were living with a bathroom in need of repair since the matter was first reported. This is a significant failing, which caused further distress and reduced the resident’s enjoyment and use of the bathroom. The landlord failed to acknowledge this and the impact on the resident during the complaint. As a result, it has not taken steps to try and put things right. This service had made a series of orders, aimed at addressing the distress and inconvenience that was caused.

Windows

The resident confirmed in February 2021 that the windows were badly fitted, with gaps which were causing draughts in her property. The landlord is responsible, as per the terms of the tenancy agreement to maintain the structure and exterior of the property, including outside walls and windows.
Although the landlord confirmed that a surveyor would inspect the windows in March 2021, there is no evidence that this was completed. In May 2021, the landlord confirmed that works should be carried out as day-to-day repairs. Therefore, the landlord should have completed works within 28 days, or provided the resident with a reasonable timeframe to complete the works, to appropriately manager her expectations. There is no evidence that the landlord did this.
In the stage 2 response, the landlord confirmed that its contractor would seal the windows on 20 February 2023. The resident has advised that despite this assurance, the repairs remain outstanding. That the landlord did not ensure that the works were carried out is a further failing in its handling of the situation.
The resident expressed concern about draughts in the property. The landlord was aware that repairs to the windows were required, and as such, it would have been reasonable for it to ensure that repairs were carried out so that any additional heat loss and draughts through windows were resolved.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of outstanding window repairs was inappropriate. The Ombudsman has therefore made a series of orders aimed at putting things right and ensuring that the necessary repairs are carried out without further delay.

Damp

The landlord informed this service that it has published information on damp and mould on its website, but it did not (at the time of complaint) have a specific damp and mould policy. In reviewing its published information, the landlord confirms that a survey will be carried out to ascertain if there is an underlying problem which has caused damp. While the information does not confirm when the survey will be undertaken, following notification of damp, the landlord would be expected to carry out an investigation within a reasonable period.
The resident alerted the landlord to damp in the lounge on 7 February 2021. The landlord was aware that the resident resided with her young son, and it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered any vulnerabilities of those within the property and prioritised the works accordingly.
Despite this, the records indicate that a job was not logged to “check reason for damp” until 10 May 2021, 63 working days after it was made aware of the issue.
It is unclear what the outcome of the inspection was. In addition, the landlord has not provided contemporaneous evidence in relation to the action taken to address the damp. The repair records give contradictory information, indicating that some works were completed on 12 September 2022, while a later entry confirms the date as 20 September 2022. The landlord’s stage two response asserts that the issue remained outstanding at that time. This is further poor record keeping, which has impacted the landlord’s ability to manage repairs, and accurately record progress and completion of repairs.
The lack of action taken by the landlord up to this point was unreasonable and it delayed significantly in responding to the matter. This is a significant concern given that the resident had a young child in the property.
A surveyor attended on 24 April 2023, 560 working days after the landlord was notified about the issue. He inspected damp in the bathroom, lounge and kitchen and advised the resident that there was a “significant difference in temperature” between the basement and ground floor of the flat. The resident was advised that the landlord would be forwarded the report. The evidence does not suggest that the landlord has considered the findings from the report, or decided what course of action it will be taking. This is inappropriate, and the landlord should ensure that it takes action now to avoid further delays.
The landlord’s response to the matter was poor, and lacked clarity in effectively resolving the issue, which the resident has advised remains outstanding. The landlord has not provided any account for the excessive delays in carrying out necessary repairs to resolve the issue.
The lack of satisfactory records impacted the landlord’s ability to effectively manage the repairs. As a result, the resident has experienced distress and inconvenience, while living with damp for a prolonged period. The landlord’s lack of timely response not only increased the frustration and discomfort of the resident but failed to accurately diagnose the issue at an early stage.

Electricity

The evidence confirms that the resident notified the landlord in March 2021 that she was incurring an additional charge for electric, due to the communal lighting being run from her supply.
The landlord confirmed that it would rearrange for a refund in its stage two complaint response in February 2022. However, the landlord confirmed to this service in July 2023, that it “could not see” that the resident had raised the matter previously. It is unclear what evidence or investigation the landlord relied upon to base its conclusion.
The landlord had given an assurance that a refund would be provided within the stage two response, and it was a failing that this was not followed up. It would be appropriate for the landlord to do this now.

External repairs

The resident advised the landlord on 7 February 2021 that she had no fencing along the left-hand side of her garden boundary. In line with the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for repairing and maintaining boundary walls and fences.
In its response in March 2021, the landlord confirmed that the fence had been repaired and left in a “reasonable condition”. It is unclear what evidence the landlord relied upon to make this conclusion, as its repair log details an entry on 8 July 2019 to repair the “bottom fence” in the garden. This pre-dates the resident’s report. There are no other entries logged to confirm that a repair was completed to the left-hand side fence.
The landlord’s complaint response indicates that it did not consider the specific location that the resident referred to. Nor does the evidence suggest that the landlord fully investigated the matter, before responding to the resident’s complaint.
It is unclear whether the resident has referred to an existing fence, or an absence of fencing in her garden. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have sought clarification regarding this during the complaint process, and either carry our repairs, or advise the resident that it was not obliged to install fencing.
It is unclear from the evidence when the resident reported that the back garden wall was unsafe. However, it is noted that the landlord confirmed within its stage two response that it would reimburse the resident for repairs works she completed, upon receipt of labour and materials. This was appropriate in the circumstances. It is unclear whether the resident has provided the landlord with this information. If the resident is unable to provide proof of receipts at this point the landlord should consider what it would have cost for it to carry out the works itself and offer this to the resident.
The landlord was notified in February 2021 of blocked drains, and a cover missing on the drain near the back bedroom. The landlord’s published information confirms that it is responsible for the repair and maintenance of shared drains, however, a job was not raised until 5 May 2021. The repair log confirms that the repair was completed on 21 January 2022. However, this does not appear to be accurate, given that the landlord confirmed in an email in July 2023, that the repair is outstanding.
The resident has and continues to experience a significant amount of distress and inconvenience, as well as time and trouble, because of the landlord’s repeated failings in its handling of the repairs. The landlord has continually failed in its management and oversight of the works and missed self-imposed deadlines to complete works. The resident has persistently raised repairs, over a prolonged period. The cumulative failings identified are serious. The extent and cumulative failings, over a prolonged period, constitute severe maladministration.

Mouse infestation

The evidence confirms that the resident initially reported a mouse infestation in 2018. The repair records detail an entry in June 2018 for an infestation but do not provide a date for this service to determine what, if any, action the landlord took at this point. A further report was made in April 2019, and the repair records suggest the matter was resolved the same day. However, the evidence is unclear as to what action the landlord took to resolve the matter.
A further report of mice was made to the landlord in January 2020. The resident reported that the mice were in her kitchen. The records indicate that the matter was attended on 7 February 2020, but a lack of evidence means this service has been unable to establish what action the landlord took, and whether it appropriately dealt with the issue at that time.
A subsequent repair was raised in April 2020 to “eradicate mice and block entry holes” which indicates that previous attempts had been unsuccessful, or the landlord had not carried out the necessary repairs, to prevent further infestations.
Although it raised an urgent job in April 2020, the landlord failed to act in accordance with its repairs policy by attending within seven days. It later confirmed in September 2020, that the job raised in April was “not carried out.” It is unclear why the landlord failed to attend. However, that it did not was a failing in the circumstances.
The resident had been reporting signs of infestation for two years by this time; and the evidence does not suggest that the landlord had taken appropriate action to inspect, fill and bait the access points that the mice were using. As the mice were seen in the kitchen, the landlord has not shown that it took appropriate action, in a timely manner, to reduce the potential impact of any hazard.
Pest control attended on 29 September 2020, and provided recommendations to the landlord for works needed to block holes and fill access points. The evidence does not confirm that the landlord raised a works order following this, or that it appropriately considered the recommendations made, to remedy the problem. When deciding on how best to deal with the matter, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to rely on the conclusions of qualified pest control contractors. The evidence does not show that the landlord acted upon the recommendations, to resolve the issue for the resident.
Further reports of infestations were made by the resident in June and October 2021, and April 2022. The landlord failed to provide a reason for the delay in addressing the issue. It later confirmed within its stage two response in February 2023, that the resident would be contacted by the repairs manager in March 2023, to arrange a treatment programme and the blocking of access points.
In the circumstances, and in the absence of any explanation as to why the holes, cracks and other entry points had not been blocked, this is a significant failing. The landlord lacked empathy for the resident’s situation with having an ongoing issue with pests, for a significant period.

Complaint handling

The resident raised a formal complaint on 25 February 2021. The landlord advised this service that it dealt with the complaint as “informal.”
The Ombudsman encourages the early and local resolution of issues between landlords and residents and recognises that there may be times appropriate action can be agreed immediately. Any decision to try and resolve a complaint informally must be taken in agreement with the resident. Despite this, there is no evidence to indicate that the resident was advised that the landlord was dealing with her complaint in this way.
Landlords must ensure that efforts to resolve a resident’s concerns do not obstruct access to the complaints procedure or result in any unreasonable delay. The landlord’s “informal” response spanned a total of 350 working days and failed to fully address the issues raised by the resident in February 2021.
The response dated 22 March 2021 did not acknowledge the resident’s formal complaint appropriately, and although noted that some repairs, namely the “rear” fence and tiling had been completed, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to satisfy itself, as part of its complaint investigations, that all repairs had been completed, or provided the resident with completion dates for outstanding repairs. The response did not satisfactorily address all concerns raised and indicates that either incomplete records did not enable a thorough investigation and response, or the landlord’s complaint investigation was limited.
The evidence confirms that the resident emailed the landlord on 22 March 2021, outlining that the repairs were outstanding, and not completed as suggested. At this point, she requested copies of maintenance reports made since 2016. There is no evidence that the resident was provided with this information at this time.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the response and contacted this service for advice. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 22 April 2022, to establish if the response sent was a final response. A chaser email was sent on 27 May, and a final request for the landlord to send a stage one response no later than 4 July 2022.
In its response, it failed to respond to the matter appropriately given the significant issues raised, and was only raised as a formal complaint, after a request was made by this Service. Its handling of the matter protracted the complaints process.
Furthermore, the response was not compliant with the Code, as it did not advise the resident of the stage of the complaint or give details of how to escalate the matter. Therefore, the resident was unable to establish if the matter had exhausted the landlord’s complaints process.
Despite the evidence confirming that the resident requested escalation of her complaint on 30 July 2022, a stage two response was not forthcoming. Eventually, the landlord issued a response on 14 September, 123 working days after the request was made. This was a significant departure from its complaints procedure.
This Service asked the landlord to issue a stage two response by 9 December 2022. The landlord failed to provide this, and sent an acknowledgement on 18 December 2022, confirming an escalation of the resident’s complaint. A CHFO was issued in January 2023, following the landlord’s non-compliance with the order.
The complaint should not have required repeated contact from the resident, and the Ombudsman’s intervention, to obtain a formal complaint response.
The landlord has not demonstrated how it intended to “put things right” in detailing the steps it would take to suitably resolve the issues, in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles to put things right and learn from outcomes.
This service notes that the landlord states in its Code self-assessment that it “erroneously refers to informal complaints when we should be clear that we are referring to service requests in these sections of the policy.” Furthermore, it confirms that it “will always escalate matters to a stage one at the resident’s request, and in practice our handling of service requests does not obstruct or delay access to the complaints process.” The insight provided by this case, raises concern as to whether the informal resolution of complaints is due to complaints being wrongly referred to as service requests, or its complaints procedure not being appropriately applied and followed. An order has therefore been made to ensure that similar errors are not made in the future.
The resident went to considerable time and trouble to obtain responses, that then failed to address all the issues raised. Despite many assurances of contact, the resident was let down on numerous occasions, severely impacting the trust the resident had in the landlord’s ability to draw the matter to a reasonable conclusion.
The resident’s increasing frustration and exasperation is apparent throughout her communication. The delayed and confused handling by the landlord will have understandably eroded the resident’s confidence in the landlord’s ability to appropriately consider her complaint and request for compensation. This will have compounded an already stressful situation.
The landlord’s offer of £1500 provided tangible recognition of the failures in its complaints handling. However, it has continued, post complaint, to make the same mistakes which do not show that it has learned lessons from this complaint. Furthermore, it has not considered reviewing its offer, to reflect that works remain outstanding in July 2023, because of its continued failings to adhere to its deadlines.
The landlord’s failings in its complaint handling constitute severe maladministration and an additional order of compensation has been ordered, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. This order is proportionate to the detriment caused to the resident, following:
1. The resident repeatedly having to chase for responses;
2. A lack of responsibility and accountability being taken by the landlord;
3. The failure over a considerable period to act in accordance with policy;
4. The repeated failure to meaningfully engage with the substance of the complaint, leading to considerable delay in resolution;
5. Repeated failures to meet deadlines following completion of its internal complaints process.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in:
1. The landlord’s handling of, and communication about, various repairs in the property.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a mouse infestation.
3. Complaint handling.
4. Record keeping.

Reasons

The landlord failed, despite many promises, to resolve the repairs within a reasonable timeframe. It has failed to demonstrate that it met its repair obligations; appropriately investigated concerns raised by the resident in relation to its repair’s obligations; and the impact this will have had and continues to have on the resident.
The landlord failed to respond appropriately to the resident’s reports of a mouse infestation, which has been unresolved for several years. The landlord did not act upon the recommendations made by pest control and delayed in resolving the matter appropriately. Further, the landlord failed to consider the impact on the resident, over a prolonged period.
The landlord’s complaint handling was inappropriate and not in accordance with the Code. The landlord delayed unreasonably in progressing the case through its complaints procedure; repeatedly failed to meet its own deadlines or do little to “put things right” for the resident, the least of which should have been to satisfy itself that as part of its complaint investigations, all repairs were satisfactorily completed. Despite identifying key lessons, the landlord continued in the same vein with further failings, post-complaint response, particularly in relation to its communication with the resident. The landlord failed to apply the key principles of the Code by learning from outcomes.
There were serious failings in the landlord’s record keeping, which hindered its ability to progress repairs swiftly, and communicate effectively with the resident. The delays were exacerbated by incomplete repair records, incorrect completion dates, and a lack of oversight and management to progress the repairs. These failures added to the resident’s distress.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. A senior member of the landlord’s staff should apologise to the resident in person for the failings identified (or in written format, if preferred by the resident).
Pay the resident compensation of £6339.60, comprising:
1. £3339.60 for the delay in repairing the bathroom ceiling from August 2020, until February 2023. This has been worked out at 1/5 of the rental amount (£125.55 per week) for 133 weeks.
2. £1000 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the remaining repairs.
3. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
4. The £1500 offered at stage two of the complaints procedure. If this has already been paid, it should be deducted from the above total.
The landlord should reimburse the resident the costs of repairing the wall. This is dependent on the resident providing the landlord with receipts. If the resident no longer has the receipts, the landlord should consider what it would have cost to complete the work itself and offer this sum to the resident.
The landlord should arrange for an independent survey of the property, to review all outstanding repairs. The landlord should then write to the resident with its position on each issue, and detail works it intends to carry out, with completion dates. A copy of this should be provided to this service.
Investigate whether the communal lighting is still being charged to the resident and, if so, why. It should rectify the issue and reimburse the resident for any additional costs incurred as a result.
Within six weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Considering the complaint handling failings identified, the landlord should review:

a. How it will manage complaints; how it will escalate complaints; and how it will ensure that it responds to complaints in a timely manner, in accordance with its policy and the Code.

b. The efficacy of its “informal” process of its complaint’s procedure. It should review how it will ensure that this stage does not obstruct or delay a resident’s right to have their complaint considered through the formal complaints process.

Within eight weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to review its approach to its repairs record keeping, considering the failings identified in this case. Particularly:
1. Satisfying itself that it has effective procedures in place to record and store repair information accurately.
2. It should consider its staff training and system needs, regarding how it arranges repairs, maintains repair records, which reflect its own and contractor’s actions.
3. Considering the number of missed appointments in relation to this case, it should consider what steps are required to avoid this in future.
4. That there is effective internal communication, and that teams are aware of relevant roles in keeping the resident updated.
5. Whether its record keeping system and process support a risk-based approach to damp and mould. It should ensure that staff can identify and report early signs of damp and mould.
6. The landlord must share the outcome of its review with this service, also within eight weeks.

Recommendation

The landlord should review the Ombudsman’s spotlight reports covering issues relevant to this case (available on our website):
1. Complaints about repairs.
2. Damp and mould.
3. Knowledge and Information Management.