Hyde Housing Association Limited (202016737)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202016737

Hyde Housing Association Limited

23 June 2022

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

This complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the garden;
2. The landlord’s response to resident’s reports of a leaking bath;
3. The landlord’s response to resident’s reports of various repairs to the building’s communal areas;
4. The landlord’s response to resident’s concerns about external appliances connected to the property’s electricity meter;
5. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured shorthold tenant, and her current tenancy agreement began on 12 July 2021. The information seen suggests her original tenancy started in January 2015. The property is a two-bedroom ground floor flat with a shared garden in a converted building. The Ombudsman has not seen the resident’s original tenancy agreement.
The current tenancy agreement confirms the landlord is obliged to keep the “structure and outside” of the property in repair. This includes outside walls, pathways, steps or other access routes and the outside of garages or stores. It shows the resident is responsible for maintaining the garden. Since these are standard tenancy terms, it is reasonable to conclude the original agreement is broadly similar.
Details of the landlord’s repairs procedure can be found online. The information shows emergency repairs concern issues that “threaten health, safety, security or could cause significant damage” to a property. The landlord will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours to make the situation safe. It will respond to non-urgent repairs within 20 working days.
Landlords are required to look at the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS is concerned with avoiding or minimising potential hazards. “Entry by intruders” and “falling on level surfaces” are potential hazards that can fall within the scope of HHSRS.
The landlord’s “fencing and boundary walls” procedure confirms its process for repairing fences. It shows the landlord’s repairing obligations vary depending on ownership of the fence and the nature of the boundary. It confirms the landlord’s surveying team will determine responsibility through the Land Registry in the event of an ownership dispute.
The landlord operates a two stage formal complaints policy. Its relevant policy document can be found online. The document shows the landlord aims to respond to stage one complaints within ten working days. At stage two, the landlord aims to respond within twenty working days. A further ten working days is available at both stages for complex investigations, providing the resident is updated. The online information confirms residents can raise a damage claim against the landlord if they feel it is liable.
The resident’s partner helped her complain to the landlord. For readability, this report makes no distinction between the actions of the resident or her partner.

Summary of events

The resident said she reported asbestos on fencing in the property’s rear garden around August 2018. However, the landlord did not remove the fencing until
14 February 2020. The resident also said she raised various additional concerns about the safety of the garden between January and March 2019. She said, despite several inspections, the landlord failed to respond and was later unable to locate any corresponding records.
From the landlord’s repair history records, the Ombudsman was unable to fully confirm the resident’s version of events. The records seen run from
8 January 2018 to 21 December 2021. The records confirm a works order was raised to inspect the garden on 17 February 2020. Subsequently, a further order was raised on 26 February 2020 to complete the identified repairs. While no information was seen to support reports in 2018 or 2019, the landlord has not disputed the resident’s version of events.
On 25 October 2020 the resident raised an online complaint with the landlord. The complaint included an image of an injury to one of her children. The main points were:
1. The landlord took around 18 months to remove asbestos from fencing in the communal garden. Though the affected fencing was eventually removed, it was not replaced leaving the garden “unsecured”.
2. Despite several inspections and multiple follow up enquiries from the resident, the landlord failed to respond to her reports of “cracks and sink holes” in the garden for around 21 months.
3. Overall, the resident felt she was paying to live in an environment that was unsafe for her young children, who were frequently injured while playing in the garden. She said the landlord had not maintained the garden since she moved in.
4. To resolve the situation, the resident said the landlord should replace the rear fence, address a lifting communal carpet, repair cracks and falling walls in the garden, repair a letter box and paint the exterior of the property.
The landlord’s call records show the resident made a follow up enquiry on
22 March 2021. They show an outstanding bath repair was mentioned along with the condition of the garden. The landlord’s repair history shows a works order to inspect the bath was raised the same day.
On 23 March 2021 the resident approached the Ombudsman. She said the landlord failed to respond to three online complaints between September 2020 and March 2021. The Ombudsman subsequently told the landlord to respond to the complaint, and we received an acknowledgement on 12 April 2021.
The landlord’s records detail a further call from the resident on 28 April 2021. She reported the bath was rotten and contained a hole which allowed water to escape onto flooring in the hallway. Further, a pathway and wall in the garden were unstable, a fraying communal carpet was causing a health and safety issue and the post box on the entrance door was broken, along with the main glass panel. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint in writing the same day. It said it aimed to respond by 12 May 2021.
On 5 May 2021 the landlord issued a stage one response. It apologised for a delay in responding to the complaint and attributed the delay to backlog of communication. The main points were:
1. The landlord accepted a delay in responding to the bath repair, which it said was reported on 22 March 2021. However, it said it was unable to find any records relating to the other reported issues. As a result, it partially upheld the complaint.
2. The resident was offered £100 and £50 in compensation to recognise any distress and inconvenience caused by the delayed repair and complaint response respectively.
3. The landlord would repair the letterbox, door glass, carpet and an electrical cupboard door on 4 June 2021. The bath would be repaired on 20 May 2021, and a surveyor would inspect the garden and fencing. The surveyor would also supervise the overall repair works.
4. In the meantime, the resident was encouraged to stop using the bath. The landlord’s repairs team had been asked to prioritise these works and they would inspect the flooring for water damage. Similarly, the resident was advised to keep her children away from the garden until after the inspection.
5. The resident’s building was included in an upcoming improvement programme due to take place in 2021. This would address the external decoration and communal carpets, but no commencement date had yet been scheduled. The building’s residents were responsible for the upkeep of the garden area.
On 12 May 2021 the resident disagreed with the landlord’s findings. This was broadly on the basis the level of compensation awarded was insufficient given the condition of the property, and the level of distress caused. Supporting video evidence was attached to her email. The key points were:
1. The building’s fire alarm had been connected to the property’s electricity meter for around 37 months between 5 January 2015 and 30 January 2018. The resident should therefore be compensated for her increased electricity costs during this period.
2. The garden was unsecure and unsafe, which allowed the police and a fox to enter from next door. The children were frequently injured, and the resident felt the landlord should award compensation that also recognised lost use of the garden given the landlord’s recent advice.
3. The landlord’s supervising surveyor had visited the property around five times since 2018 yet the landlord was unable to find any relevant records. (This issue was also raised in the resident’s initial online complaint).
4. £150 compensation was insufficient to allow the resident to repair damage from the leaking bath because the affected flooring needed replacing.
The parties exchanged emails on 14 May 2021 following a call from the resident. During the exchange, the landlord said it did not compensate for damaged personal items and the resident should raise a home insurance claim. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on the basis the whole garden should be made safe for the family and the gate was broken. She said she did not have insurance and the water damage was the landlord’s fault.
On 24 May 2021 the resident updated the landlord. She said the bath was installed, a day late, on 21 May 2021. However, the area under the bath was “extremely damp”, so the panel could not be fitted for a week to allow sufficient drying time. Further, the leak had “done extensive damage to the bathroom floor and the hallway”.
She also said missing bathroom tiles had not been replaced and additional tiles were broken when the old bath was removed. Since the broken tiles were at risk of falling, the bathroom was now unsafe. Further, tiling works that should have been completed were rescheduled for 17 June 2021, which was her daughter’s birthday. The resident felt this situation was unfair on her daughter.
Between 14 and 15 June 2021 the resident contacted the landlord several times by phone and email. This was on the basis the landlord had not responded to her escalation request and works agreed in the landlord’s stage one response were all outstanding. The Ombudsman asked the landlord to escalate the complaint.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 15 June 2021. During internal correspondence the same day, it said the resident had been aggressive on the phone and she had not previously requested an escalation. Further, the resident had attempted to introduce new issues which were not part of her original complaint.
Between 17 and 28 June 2021 the resident contacted the landlord on at least five occasions. She initially reported scheduled bathroom works were not completed because the landlord allocated insufficient time for the repair. She then reported the landlord failed to attend a scheduled appointment to address various works. Finally, she updated the landlord on its current progress. The update said:
1. Works to the electric cupboard door, carpet and post box were outstanding. External painting had begun, and the front door had been sanded down. However, the glass had not been repaired.
2. The resident had not received any information about repairs to the fence and garden. She was also unclear about which party was responsible for maintaining the garden based on the tenancy agreement. The resident asked for clarification and said, if residents were responsible for its upkeep, the garden should be converted into a low maintenance area.
On 29 June 2021 the landlord called the resident about the complaint. The call notes show the bathroom was completed on 28 June 2021. However, the resident was concerned the bath had been installed by an unqualified operative. The notes suggest this was based on comments from the landlord’s contractor. They also show the surveyor had attended the property several weeks prior, but they did not update the resident as promised. The landlord issued a holding response the same day. It said it aimed to respond to the complaint by 27 July 2021.
On 30 June 2021 the landlord returned a call from the resident. The call notes show she disputed the landlord’s target response date based on the timing of her escalation request. Further, the resident said the supervising surveyor was not welcome at the property. They also show the resident reported a member of the landlord’s staff had recently made an inappropriate comment around the resident’s priorities. The landlord’s internal correspondence shows it subsequently confirmed the resident’s report and took disciplinary action against the member of staff involved.
Call notes from 5 July 2021 show the resident again raised the issue of water damage, which she attributed to the landlord’s “negligence”. This was on the basis the leak had been reported promptly but the landlord failed to respond accordingly. The resident also said the landlord’s contractor had damaged her barbeque during external works to the property. The landlord accepted the resident’s new complaint points on 7 July 2021.
On 21 July 2021 the resident told the landlord she was still waiting for the garden repairs to be scheduled. She said the landlord should get in touch to discuss the design of the low maintenance garden. She also reported further concerns about subsequent staff conduct.
On 30 July 2020 the landlord told the resident it needed more time to respond to her complaint. It said it hoped to issue a full response by 10 August 2021. Its senior surveyor also inspected the property’s garden with the landlord’s contractor in attendance. Later that day, the resident emailed the landlord to say how unhappy she was with the outcome of this inspection. She said she refused to accept anything but “a fully accessible and safe garden for (her) children”
In internal correspondence on 31 July 2021, the surveyor said the landlord now had “a complete overview” of the garden along with supporting pictures. Further, the resident had asked for “major landscaping work which would require extensive excavation”, and the cost of the desired works was likely to be excessive. However, the resident was advised the landlord was happy to instruct works to repair a damaged retaining planter wall, uneven paving presenting a trip hazard, and the rear fence. The surveyor said they were asked to leave following an argument with the resident.
On 14 August 2021 the Ombudsman issued the landlord a Complaint Handling Failure Order (CHFO) due to its delays in providing a final response. The Order said the landlord should respond to the complaint by 19 August 2021.
On 18 August 2021 the resident asked the landlord to clarify which party was legally responsible for maintaining the garden. She also reported an electrical cupboard located in the indoor communal area was “too big” and presented a fire hazard. As a result, the resident said the landlord should relocate the cupboard.
The landlord issued a stage two response on 19 August 2021. The response said all internal works to the property were now complete including a new bath and shower. The main points were:
1. The landlord took too long to rectify the leak and its communication was inadequate. It would therefore increase the level of compensation to £250 in addition to offering £100 towards the cost of a damaged carpet and £44.98 to replace the damaged barbeque. In total, the landlord’s award was now £469.98. (This figure also included a £75 contribution to the resident’s electricity costs described below).
2. The revised offer recognised additional complaint handling delays following the stage one response. The landlord also acknowledged it had not responded to a number of the resident’s complaint points. During its stage two investigation, the landlord found evidence of previous reports to both the property’s manager and the landlord’s repairs team. This information was overlooked by the landlord’s initial response.
3. Four visits were required to repair the bathroom due to poor planning and communication on the part of the landlord. The landlord had begun to address its mistakes to improve its service going forwards. Though the bath was fitted by a qualified operative, the landlord recognised the resident’s related concerns were avoidable.
4. The landlord’s senior surveyor and specialist contractor inspected the garden. The landlord also reviewed the resident’s photo evidence. While residents were responsible for maintaining the garden, the landlord was obliged to complete essential repairs for health and safety purposes. Repairs to the rear fence, uneven paving and a damaged “retaining planter wall” were therefore approved.
5. There were no sink holes in the garden and uneven paving was caused by trees in neighbouring properties. The landlord would not restructure the property’s garden to address imperfections. The landlord was aware the resident was unhappy with this outcome and that she did not agree to the identified repairs. The specialist contractor reported it was unwilling to work at the property due to abusive behaviour by the resident. Additional reports of abusive behaviour would be passed to the landlord’s tenancy team.
6. The landlord would not schedule the outstanding garden repairs until the resident accepted its approach was appropriate to make the garden safe. The resident should contact the landlord’s supervising surveyor, using the details provided, to agree and schedule the repair works.
7. The resident declined works to the electric cupboard door on the basis the cupboard was in the way and should be moved. Though the resident later reported the cupboard was a fire hazard, the building’s Fire Risk Assessment showed otherwise. The works were still outstanding, but the landlord would not move the cupboard.
8. The landlord was struggling to source a like-for like replacement stained- glass panel for the front door. It had recently approached another specialist to try and source a panel. It would eventually install a clear glass replacement if it was unable to source a stained-glass version. The supervising surveyor would keep the resident updated. The post box and communal carpet were currently being repaired as part of the landlord’s cyclical maintenance programme.
9. The resident’s concerns over electricity usage were not part of her original complaint. However, the landlord was able to offer a reimbursement of £10 per year calculated on the average cost of a lightbulb. It would also offer £5 per year for the period the fire alarm was connected to the property’s meter.
10. The landlord was currently reviewing its process around the supply of “landlord electric” in these situations. It was therefore unable to confirm how the issue would be resolved going forward. However, any residents with landlord lighting connected to their electricity metre would be contacted in due course.
The resident responded in detail on 24 August 2021. The main points were:
1. The landlord failed to meet its obligations in respect of health and safety. Examples given included the original asbestos fence, the lack of a rear fence for an extended period after the asbestos was removed, the electrical cupboard and the overall condition of the garden.
2. The resident said, “none of the repairs had been completed” and no works were scheduled. Further, the landlord had threatened her with tenancy action based on a report from its contractor. She also said she unfairly paid to supply electricity to both a communal area and a neighbour’s fire alarm over several years.
3. The landlord failed to accept responsibility for injuries to the resident’s children or for her damaged floorboards. It failed to respond to requests for information about its maintenance obligations, and its staff had made inappropriate comments to the resident. Overall, the resident said, the situation was distressing.
On 10 October 2021 the resident updated the landlord with the Ombudsman copied in. She said she called the supervising surveyor several times from
20 August 2021. However, her calls were not returned so the garden repairs were outstanding.
The landlord updated the Ombudsman on 16 June 2022. It said the garden works had been delayed because the resident did not agree to the identified repairs. However, it recently instructed repair works, addressing uneven paving slabs and a retaining wall, to proceed on the basis the garden was shared, and access could be gained without the resident’s permission. It also said a search of the Land Registry confirmed the fence belonged to a third party. It was therefore trying to contact the owner with a view to ensuring they replaced the missing fence.

Assessment and findings

It is recognised the situation has been distressing for the resident and her family. The evidence suggests that it been ongoing for a considerable period of time.
It may help to explain that, though this service is an alternative to the courts, the Ombudsman is unable to establish liability or evaluate medical evidence. Nor can we calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider any personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court. The Ombudsman can consider the distress and inconvenience caused by any identified failures on a landlord’s part.
The scope of an Ombudsman investigation can be time limited by various factors including the availability of evidence. Our assessments are evidence led, so the length of time that has passed since an incident can impact our ability to fairly assess a complaint. Given the above, this assessment will focus on events since February 2020, which is when the evidence begins.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s recent concerns about the condition of the garden

The timeline shows it took around 9 Months, based on the period between
25 October 2020 and 30 July 2021, for the landlord to inspect the garden following the resident’s online complaint. This was an unreasonable timescale given the inspection was ultimately agreed in response to the resident’s safety concerns. It is reasonable to conclude the inspection should have occurred, broadly, in line with the landlord’s non-urgent repair timescale. On that basis, there was an avoidable delay of around eight months.
The Ombudsman has seen multiple images from the surveyor’s inspection including a picture of the garden gate. The pictures support the landlord’s assertion, from its internal correspondence the day afterwards, that it obtained a full overview of conditions in the garden. While the resident has expressed concern about the quality of the landlord’s surveying team, the landlord is entitled to rely on the professional opinion of qualified surveyors.
The internal correspondence shows the landlord accepted some of the resident’s safety concerns and it agreed remedial works accordingly. This was appropriate action given the circumstances. However, the landlord should reasonably have instructed the identified works promptly after the inspection, regardless of the resident’s position. This is because it identified potential hazards within the scope of HHSRS. Once identified, these potential hazards should not have been left unaddressed for an extended period.
The landlord’s recent update shows it ultimately drew the correct conclusion about the garden works. For example, it recognised the safety of the building’s other residents should be considered, and that it did not depend on the resident for access to the garden. However, the timeline suggests it took around 27 months, based on the period between 26 February 2020 and 16 June 2022, for the landlord to take the required action by instructing the repairs. This was an inappropriate timescale given the circumstances.
The landlord could have reasonably avoided subsequent concerns about its communication, in respect of the garden works, if it had promptly arranged the identified repairs. For example, the resident said she was unable to contact the supervising surveyor on several occasions following the landlord’s stage two response. The landlord also failed to provide sufficient redress for the inappropriate comments which a member of its staff made to the resident. The comments were prompted by an enquiry about the garden.
While the evidence suggests appropriate disciplinary action was taken, the comments were offensive and likely distressing to the resident. On that basis, the matter warranted distinct recognition during the landlord’s final response. It is reasonable to conclude a formal apology should have been issued, along with compensation for any distress caused. The resident should also have been told that the landlord had addressed the issue appropriately with the member of staff concerned.
For a significant portion of the timeline, the landlord did not dispute that it was responsible for repairing the fence. However, its recent update shows the landlord’s position changed and it currently holds a third-party owner responsible for the repair. It is reasonable to conclude ownership of the fence should have been established at a much earlier stage of the timeline, especially because the landlord’s surveying team conducted the inspection.
The changed position suggests the resident was given incorrect information about the landlord’s obligations during the inspection. It is reasonable to conclude her expectations, around the timescale for the repair, were based on this information. The resident may now be disappointed if the various garden repairs are completed within different timescales.
Overall, the above identified delays and failures confirm there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s recent concerns about the condition of the garden. The tenancy agreement shows the landlord is obliged to keep the structure of the garden in repair. No information was seen to show it was obliged to create a low maintenance garden for the resident.

The landlord’s response to resident’s reports of a leaking bath

The timeline confirms the landlord treated the leaking bath as a non-urgent repair. It also shows the initial repair was delayed by 22 working days based on the period between 22 March and 21 May 2021. Additionally, a further 25 working days were needed to fully complete the bathroom works. This represents a combined delay of around ten weeks.
The landlord said it took four visits to repair the bathroom and the timeline supports this figure. The resident has not disputed the landlord’s comments. The evidence shows the landlord failed to attend a scheduled appointment on at least one occasion. Another appointment proved unnecessary because the landlord failed to allocate sufficient time for the scheduled works. The landlord accepted these issues stemmed from its poor planning and communication.
It is reasonable to conclude the unreasonable delays and excessive number of visits were inconvenient for the resident. Further, that there was a period of around eight weeks, between 22 March and 21 May 2021, during which the resident’s family reduced their showering time, in accordance with the landlord’s advice, with a view to preventing additional damage to the property. The timeline suggests the landlord could have prioritised the repair based on its conversation with the resident on 28 April 2021.
From the wording of the landlord’s complaint correspondence, it awarded the resident a total of £250 in compensation to recognise its delays and failures in relation to the resident’s reports about the leaking bath. This figure is based on £100 at stage one and £50 at stage two, along with an award of £100 towards the resident’s damaged flooring. From the information seen, it is unclear how the landlord reached its figure in respect of the flooring. No information was seen to confirm the damage was inspected in line with the landlord’s stage one response.
In relation to any failures identified the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the complainant’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
Based on the information seen, the landlord’s final redress offer was unfair. This is because the resident clearly stated she held the landlord responsible for her “badly” damaged flooring on several occasions. The landlord has a process which enables residents to raise damage claims, so she should have reasonably been provided with the correct details to enable her to raise a claim against the landlord’s insurer. Instead, the resident was advised to approach her own insurer. This was unreasonable advice from the landlord given the circumstances.
The evidence suggests the resident was impacted by this unreasonable advice. This is on the basis she was unable to replace the damaged flooring, which likely remains in place at the time of this assessment. This represents a period of around 12 months where no progress was made in relation to this issue.
Given the above, this assessment will increase the landlord’s compensation offer in accordance with the Ombudsman’s internal redress guidance. This will bring the compensation in line with the Ombudsman’s expectations for instances where a landlord has given “contradictory, inadequate or incorrect information about a complainant’s rights”. The damaged flooring should be treated separately from the new compensation offer.
Overall, the above identified failure represents maladministration, on the part of the landlord, in respect of this complaint point.

The landlord’s response to resident’s reports of various repairs to the building’s communal areas

The landlord’s repair history makes no reference to the various repairs mentioned in the timeline above. As a result, this section of the assessment is largely based on correspondence between the parties, along with the landlord’s internal correspondence. The resident does not appear to have disputed the landlord’s final response in respect of these repairs. Nor were they raised in her more recent contact with the Ombudsman. This suggests the issues are now broadly resolved.
The evidence suggests the landlord gave reasonable consideration to the resident’s report that the electrical cupboard presented a fire hazard. This is because no information was seen to show a fire hazard was identified by relevant qualified professional. Nevertheless, the landlord seems to have checked the building’s fire risk assessment in response to the resident’s concerns. This was appropriate action given the circumstances. No information was seen to show the landlord was obliged to move the cupboard in line with the resident’s preference.
Similarly, no information was seen to show the broken glass panel, on the front door, presented any risk to the health, safety or security of the building’s occupants. On that basis, the landlord reasonably attempted to source a like-for-like replacement panel. The evidence suggests there were delays due to the scarcity of equivalent panels. However, the landlord’s final response letter suggests it proactively sought to manage the delay by approaching a number of different suppliers. This was also reasonable action on the landlord’s part.
Ultimately, the landlord said it would install clear glass if it was unable to source a replacement panel within a reasonable period. This was an appropriate contingency plan given the circumstances. In relation to the other reported repairs, the evidence suggests they were addressed during the landlord’s cyclical repairs programme. This was appropriate action from the landlord and no information was seen to suggest it should have assigned a greater priority to these repairs. The information suggests the resident declined a repair to the electrical cupboard door.
Overall, based on the information seen, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of this complaint point.

The landlord’s response to resident’s concerns about external appliances connected to the property’s electricity meter

The evidence suggests elements of the building’s communal lighting are still attached to the property’s electricity meter and this issue is therefore ongoing. As a result, the Ombudsman can consider some aspects of the landlord’s response.
Given the above, the landlord correctly awarded the resident a contribution towards her electricity costs to put things right. The wording of the landlord’s final response suggests the ongoing issue relates to a single communal lightbulb. On that basis, this assessment considered whether the landlord’s proposed contribution was fair to the resident given the circumstances. The below assessment is based on various Google searches around the annual cost of lighting.
From the information seen, it currently costs around £8.28 to run an 18W energy saving lightbulb for a year. This calculation is based on a usage time of 4.5 hours every day at a tariff relevant to April 2022. The landlord’s offer reflects the resident’s original tenancy start date. No information was seen to suggest the landlord’s calculation does not apply to the resident’s circumstances. As a result, the evidence suggests the landlord’s offer of £60 is sufficient to reimburse the resident’s communal lighting costs.
Given the above, the landlord offered reasonable redress in respect of this complaint point.

The landlord’s complaint handling

It is recognised this was a complex complaint involving several different issues arising at different stages of the complaint journey. Nevertheless, the timeline confirms there were multiple problems with the landlord’s complaint handling, which were both serious and detrimental to the resident.
For example, no information was seen to show the landlord responded to the resident’s online complaint on 25 October 2020. Her comments suggest it also failed to respond to two other online complaints. Ultimately, it took the Ombudsman’s intervention for the landlord to acknowledge the resident’s complaint on 12 April 2021. The evidence shows the landlord made no progress in relation to her concerns during the interim period. This represents an inappropriate delay of around six months.
Further, the landlord failed to escalate the complaint despite several requests from the resident. While the nature of the request should reasonably have been identified from her previous contact with the landlord, the resident specifically requested an escalation in her email on 14 May 2021. Again, it took the Ombudsman’s intervention before the escalation was eventually confirmed on
15 June 2021. This represents a further inappropriate delay of around one month.
The landlord then missed two confirmed final response deadlines before the Ombudsman eventually issued a CHFO. This was a serious failure since landlords are given ample opportunity to work with the Ombudsman to avoid such orders. The timeline shows the final response was delayed by around 17 working days based on the period between 15 June and 19 August 2021. This is because the landlord should respond to complex complaints within 30 working days at stage two.
As a result, the landlord was responsible for complaint handling delays amounting to around eight months in total. The timeline shows it also required an unreasonable level of engagement from the resident to progress the complaint. It is reasonable to conclude this was inconvenient and that the situation was particularly distressing during periods where her concerns were not acknowledged. The landlord later accepted it overlooked key evidence and complaint points in its stage one response.
It is recognised the landlord acknowledged complaint handling issues at both stages of its complaints process. Further, that it took steps to put things right by awarding compensation. From the wording of the landlord’s correspondence, it is reasonable to conclude it offered a total of £100 compensation in respect of complaint handling failures, based on £50 at each stage. Having carefully considered the circumstances, in conjunction with the Ombudsman’s internal remedies guidance, this offer was not sufficient to redress what went wrong.
Given the above, the Ombudsman will increase level of the compensation in accordance with our expectations for instances where a complainant “repeatedly had to chase responses and seek correction of mistakes, necessitating an unreasonable level of involvement”. Overall, the evidence shows there was Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling. This is because the landlord’s the landlord’s complaint handling was poor, and it awarded insufficient compensation to put things right.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s recent concerns about the condition of the garden.
2. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to resident’s reports of a leaking bath.
3. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.
4. No maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to resident’s reports of various repairs to the building’s communal areas.
In accordance with paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress in respect of its response to resident’s concerns about external appliances connected to the property’s electricity meter.

Reasons

The landlord failed to address identified potential hazards for an extended period. It failed to establish ownership of the fence within a reasonable timeframe, and it gave the resident incorrect information. It also failed to adequately redress inappropriate comments made by a member of staff.
The landlord failed to provide the resident with details of its insurer, which prevented her from raising a claim for damaged flooring.
The evidence suggests the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s reports of repairs to the communal areas.
Despite attempting to put things right, the landlord failed to offer the resident sufficient compensation to redress its complaint handling failures.
From the information seen, the landlord offered the resident reasonable redress in respect of communal lighting attached to the property’s electricity meter.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to write to the resident within four weeks to apologise for the inappropriate comments made by a member of its staff.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £1004.98 compensation within four weeks comprising:
1. £250 to address any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above identified delays and failures in respect of its response to her recent concerns about the condition of the garden.
2. £350 to address any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above identified delays and failures in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of a leaking bath.
3. £300 to address any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above identified delay and failures in respect of its complaint handling.
4. £60 to reimburse the resident for her costs in respect of the communal lighting.
5. £44.98 to reimburse the resident for her damaged barbeque.
6. The landlord should deduct any compensation it has already paid, in relation to this complaint, from the above total.
The landlord to use its damage claim process on the resident’s behalf to facilitate her claim on its own insurance policy for the damaged flooring.
The landlord to write to the resident within four weeks with an update on its progress around the missing fencing.

Recommendations

The landlord to ensure its relevant staff are aware of its damage claim process and can identify when the process should reasonably be used.
The landlord to share this report with its relevant staff with a view to improving its service going forwards.
The landlord to write to the resident within four weeks with an update on the progress of its review into the supply of “landlord electric”.
The landlord to refer to the Ombudsman’s internal remedies guidance for help awarding compensation in complex complaints. The information can be found in the “Fact sheets” section of our website.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders and confirm its intentions regarding the recommendations within four weeks of the date of this report.