Leeds City Council (202112509)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202112509

Leeds City Council

12 June 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

1. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property following a mutual exchange.
   2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident became an assured tenant of the landlord via mutual exchange on 11 March 2021. The landlord is a local authority.
3. The complaint was raised by the resident and her representative. For clarity, this report will refer to both the resident and her representative as “the resident.” The resident has advised this Service that she has disabilities which cause pain, and she requires a carer and use of a wheelchair.
4. Prior to the tenancy beginning, a mutual exchange visit and inspection was completed at the property on 26 January 2021. Several repair issues in the property were identified. These included:
   1. The kitchen extractor fan did not work, and three floor tiles were missing.
   2. Work was needed to repair the shower cover and pull switch in the bathroom which had already been raised, and loose tiles in the bathroom. The bath also needed resealing.
   3. In the three bedrooms, there was a hole in a panel behind a door and hairline cracks to the walls and ceilings.
   4. The external lights of the property contained water and required an electrician.
   5. The concrete sill below the lounge and kitchen windows were damaged and required repair or replacement. There were also small holes in the rear wall, a crack in a panel and a missing gully grate.
   6. The garden brick shed needed repointing, the door needed easing, the glass in the window was broken, the fall pipe was missing, and the gully was blocked.
5. The landlord’s repair records show that works to replace the kitchen fan and floor tiles, replace the bathroom pull switch, repair the external lights, replace the glass of the brick shed window and ease the door, replace the gully grate and unblock the gully and reseal the bath were completed between 28 January 2021 and 18 February 2021. Work required to remove and replace the concrete windows sills below the kitchen and lounge windows, rake out and fill a concrete joint on the first floor and repoint the brickwork to the shed were also reported as completed by contractors on 11 February 2021.
6. The mutual exchange application was approved on 1 March 2021 and the resident accepted the property on 11 March 2021.
7. The landlord’s records show that work to adjust a bedroom door was completed on 13 March 2021 and work to replace the fall pipe to the shed was completed on 25 March 2021. Work to remove and refit the bathroom sink was completed on 27 March 2021.
8. The resident raised a complaint on 7 April 2021. She said that she was informed that all repairs needed to the property would be completed before she moved in. She advised that most of the repairs had been completed but some issues remained outstanding and that the contractors were not aware of jobs required. She said that there were issues with a broken windowsill and cement around the windowsill, that an operative was meant to attend that day to uncap the gas, but the pipe was just extended, the bottom of the kitchen units were saturated with animal urine and the front door had gaps, leading to ants entering the property. She had been told that she would need to pay for her own pest control but felt that had the door repair been completed this would not have happened. She expressed concern that the contractors had backdated the jobs so that these sat within their 60-day timeframe but that repairs were raised two weeks prior to the tenancy beginning. She added that her daughter suffered with allergies and needed the issues resolved.
9. An inspection of the property took place on 15 April 2021 and the following was identified:
   1. In relation to the windowsills, works had been previously raised and reported as completed on 5 March 2021. However, the works had not been fully completed and no one had returned to complete them. The remaining works included removing and replacing or reforming the concrete sill below the lounge window, kitchen window and other lounge window and to repoint the brickwork to the brick shed.
   2. In relation to uncapping the gas supply, the pipe in question related to the gas cooker. Operatives had attended to extend and cap the pipe due to regulations as there was no cooker on site and this could not be left uncapped. They advised the resident that once the cooker was on site, they needed to make contact for it to be installed.
   3. In relation to the kitchen cupboards, they advised that while the plinths and décor panels were old and marked, they were fit for purpose except for the kitchen sink plinth. There had been an ongoing leak which affected the sink base unit, plinth, end panel and wall area behind. They said they would raise a work order to replace the sink unit and repair the affected wall. This would be a 60-day work order.
   4. In relation to the front door and ants, they advised that this was not apparent at the time of the mutual exchange inspection. Daylight could be seen around the edge of the door and there was a gap under the threshold. No ants were present at the time of inspection. A work order for the door had been raised and booked for 4 May 2021. They advised that the operative should request a replacement door if it could not be repaired.
   5. The resident also raised concerns related to:
      1. Staining on the kitchen wall units; this was cosmetic, and the units would not be replaced.
      2. Only two rows of tiles above the worktops; another row of tiling could be installed but that this may not match the existing tiles. The resident declined the offer on this basis.
      3. A damp patch to the bottom of the kitchen wall; this was not apparent at the time of the mutual exchange inspection. The area was slightly wet. There were no apparent leaks or water penetration but could be caused by the previous tenants’ pets. The operative said that they would arrange for this area to be replastered.
      4. A small hole/crumbling to the concrete next to the side door; the operative said they would raise a repair.
      5. A loose internal UPVC window panel in the lounge; this was not apparent at the time of the mutual exchange inspection and a repair would be raised.
      6. Boxing in the bathroom; this was removed and damaged during previous works and operatives had not returned to complete works. A new work order had been raised.
      7. A water mark to the wall in a bedroom; this was not apparent at the time of the mutual exchange inspection. The area was tested and was dry. The resident was advised to stain block and paint over it.
      8. The frame of the shed window was not sealed to the brickwork; the window had been replaced but this had not been completed. A new work order would be raised.
10. Work to remove the asbestos containing panel behind the bedroom door was completed on 16 April 2021. Work to repair the concrete screed flooring in the kitchen was completed on 28 April 2021.
11. The landlords’ records show that its stage one complaint response was issued verbally to the resident on 28 April 2021. The notes show that the resident was advised that it was unclear who advised her that repairs would be completed before she moved in. Any repairs identified in the inspection should have been raised and completed prior to her moving in but due to a backlog of repairs this may not have been possible. It informed the resident that pests were her responsibility to treat and advised her of the local authority’s pest control service. The record notes that a repair order had been raised on 29 March 2021, part of which was to seal the gaps in the two UPVC entrance doors.
12. The landlord’s records show that an appointment was arranged to repair the UPVC panel, but no access was provided for the appointment on 4 May 2021. Work to reseal around the shed window was completed on 5 May 2021. An order was raised on 6 May 2021 as the shed was found to be leaking in several places. The shed was inspected on 27 May 2021. In addition, an appointment to re-fix the window board to the lounge was originally booked for 21 May 2021, however, there was no access to the property. This was rebooked and reported as completed on 10 June 2021.
13. The resident raised a further complaint on 22 June 2021. The resident advised that despite a surveyor attending and raising jobs required, nothing had been done. There had also been no contact with the contractors regarding the works and operatives had left calling cards without any prior planning. She had called the contractors who advised that they could not see any outstanding jobs. She advised that she needed prior notice for the works and that operatives had attended three times to take measurements but not complete the work. She was dissatisfied with the length of time taken to complete repairs and the lack of communication. She advised that work related to the kitchen cupboards, damp in the kitchen, the external doors, two windowsills, pointing to the shed roof and boxing in the bathroom remained outstanding.
14. The landlord’s records show that a repair appointment was attended on 4 August 2021 to complete plastering in the bedroom and plasterboard the area behind the bedroom door where the panel was removed. The job notes state that the appointment was attended but that no labour or materials were booked, and it was unclear as to whether works were complete. The landlord’s records show that it attempted to complete repairs to the front and back external doors and a UPVC panel on 21 August 2021, however, there was no access to the property.
15. The landlord’s records show that the resident pursued the outstanding repairs to her property on 13 September 2021. She advised that work involving incomplete boxing in her bathroom, the kitchen units and sink, the front and back door and work to external brickwork remained outstanding. She also said that contractors kept attending jobs that had already been completed.
16. On 14 September 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident to advise that it had been unable to meet its original target date for response. It apologised for the delay and confirmed that it aimed to respond within ten working days. It sent a further letter on 28 September 2021 containing the same information and confirming that it aimed to respond within a further ten working days.
17. Following contact from the resident, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 1 October 2021. This Service summarised the resident’s concerns regarding the landlord’s handling of the complaint, the level of communication in relation to the outstanding repairs, the length of time the repairs had remained outstanding and the impact this had on the resident.
18. The resident advised this Service on 6 October 2021 that the landlord had advised her that it would be visiting the property to inspect on 8 November 2021.
19. This Service asked the landlord to provide information related to what stage the complaint was at and a copy of the stage one complaint response by 15 October 2021. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord again on 8 November 2021 and asked it to respond to the resident’s complaint within five working days as the resident had not received a response.
20. The resident advised this Service on 10 November 2021 that the landlord had confirmed that it would be replacing her kitchen and works would start on 11 November 2021. She confirmed that works to remove the existing kitchen began on 11 November 2021 and a surveyor attended to inspect the other repair issues within the property. She said that the surveyor had made notes related to the shed roof, bathroom pipework boxing, front and back door, concrete windowsills, a crack to the external front wall which needed repairing and that the door of the shed, which was rotten.
21. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response to the resident on 12 November 2021 and explained the following:
    1. It apologised for its failure to provide a written response at stage one of its complaints process. It said that it had experienced a high volume of complaints that it was attempting to clear.
    2. It confirmed that its subcontractor had been working at the property since 7 November 2021. They were replacing the existing kitchen and completing plastering works to the window wall as well as repairs to the bathroom. The works were scheduled to be completed by 15 November 2021. It had asked that the subcontractors kept it informed on the progress of the works.
    3. It understood that an officer had attended to inspect additional repairs which were not raised as part of the scope of works. Once the orders were raised, it would ensure that they were completed within its prescribed timescales.
    4. It apologised for the stress and inconvenience caused by the delay in completing repairs and offered £100 compensation.
22. The landlord’s records show that works to the kitchen were reported as completed on 17 November 2021. The resident had advised that work to the boxing in the bathroom was also completed around this time.
23. The resident initially referred her complaint to this Service in November 2021 as she was dissatisfied that repair issues had been identified prior to the mutual exchange but were still outstanding. She advised that the repairs to the windowsills remained outstanding, there was a crack down the front of the property, the front and back doors were due to be replaced but were now going to be repaired, a surveyor had attended and confirmed that there was no insulation in the property, the shed roof needed re-pointing, and there was damp and mould in the property.
24. The landlord’s records show that work to re-fix/replace tiles below the bathroom sink was reported as completed on 5 January 2022.
25. The landlord has advised this Service that the resident moved from the property on 23 March 2023 into another property owned by the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

26. In her communication to this Service, the resident also raised concerns about the temperature of the property, a lack of insulation and damp and mould as well as the quality of work undertaken to her kitchen in November 2021. The appointment on 15 April 2021 also identified several repair issues which did not form part of the resident’s formal complaint, these included damp patches on the kitchen wall, a loose window panel and water marks on the wall in the bedroom. As these are separate issues to those raised in the resident’s complaint to the landlord, this is not something that this Service can adjudicate on at this stage, as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to these aspects. It is noted that the resident has since left the property and is no longer experiencing these issues within her former property.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property following a mutual exchange.

27. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property, including external walls, doors, windowsills and frames, and pipework. It is also responsible for plastering work and installations it had provided, including kitchen and bathroom fixtures.
28. The policy states that emergency repairs should be made safe within 24 hours. Priority repairs, including items such as an extractor fan not working, should be completed within seven working days. General repairs should be completed within 20 working days. Batched repairs, including larger repairs that may require additional inspections and materials, should be completed within 60 days. The policy further states that when a repair is raised, the landlord will arrange an appointment where possible. During the repair, it should phone or text the resident to let them know that operatives are on their way. The landlord has advised this Service that a text reminder is sent the day before an appointment.
29. In this case, the resident remains dissatisfied with the length of time taken to complete repairs in her property that were identified prior to her mutual exchange in March 2021, primarily, but not limited to, work to the external parts of the property and external brick shed, which she said remained outstanding when she approached this Service in November 2021. She also raised concerns about repairs to her kitchen, front and back doors and the bathroom. The landlord has somewhat acknowledged the delays in completing repairs and offered £100 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused within its stage two complaint response.
30. The landlord initially acted appropriately by completing an inspection of the property on 26 January 2021 prior to approving the mutual exchange. It then completed several repairs before the resident moved into the property, including work to the kitchen fan and tiles, bathroom pull switch and resealing the bath, external lights, glass of a brick shed window, ease the shed door and unblock the gully drain. These works are not in dispute. Works to replace the fall pipe to the shed and remove and refit the bathroom sink took place between 25 and 27 March 2021, after the resident had moved in.
31. In her complaint on 7 April 2021, the resident raised concern that she had been told that all repairs would be completed before she moved into the property around 11 March 2021 but that this did not happen. She raised additional concerns that her gas had not been uncapped, her kitchen units smelt of animal urine and there were gaps around her front door which were causing ants to enter the property.
32. While the Ombudsman has not seen evidence to confirm that the resident was told that all works would be completed before she moved in, the landlord would be expected to complete repairs within its prescribed timescales or communicate clearly if there was likely to be a delay. The landlord’s stage one complaint response notes acknowledge that repairs identified in the inspection should have been raised and completed prior to her moving in but due to a backlog of repairs this may not have been possible. It is acknowledged that the landlord was likely to have experienced a backlog of repairs because of the Government imposed Covid-19 restrictions. However, there is no evidence to suggest that this had been adequately communicated to the resident at the time – this was likely to have caused inconvenience.
33. Following the resident’s complaint on 7 April 2021, the landlord acted appropriately by completing a further inspection of the property on 15 April 2021. It is noted that various new repairs were identified during the appointment which will not be investigated as part of this report as detailed above. The landlord also explained that it was unable to un-cap the gas supply for the cooker at the time as there was no cooker present, and it was unable to leave the pipe uncapped due to safety reasons. It acted appropriately by explaining that the resident would need to book an appointment once the cooker was in the property. This was a reasonable approach given the potential safety risk had the gas been left uncapped.
34. The landlord’s records show that work to remove a panel behind the resident’s bedroom door was completed on 16 April 2021. This was initially identified during the inspection on 26 January 2021 and completed outside of the landlord’s policy timescales. The records indicate that the panel was thought to have asbestos containing materials and that the landlord received confirmation that the panel did contain asbestos containing materials on 4 February 2021. It then took 50 working days for the landlord to arrange to remove the panel following receipt of this information and there is no evidence to suggest that the resident was adequately updated on the progress of the repair, which was likely to have caused inconvenience.
35. In addition, the landlord’s records show that an appointment to plasterboard the area where the panel had been removed was not arranged until 4 August 2021, 76 working days later. The job notes indicate that the appointment was attended, but that no material or labour was booked, and it was unclear as to whether the works were completed on this date. This indicates poor record keeping by the landlord in that it has not been able to provide evidence to show how it satisfied itself that the issue was resolved.
36. The evidence shows that following work to the bathroom prior to the mutual exchange, the boxing had been damaged by operatives. This was identified within the inspection on 15 April 2021. The records show that this remained outstanding at the time of the resident’s escalation request. The resident has advised that this work was completed in November 2021. This was significantly outside of the landlord’s repair timescales and likely to have caused inconvenience.
37. In relation to the external brick shed, works required to re-point the external brickwork and replace the glass in the window were originally identified during the mutual exchange inspection on 26 January 2021. Work to replace the window was reported as completed on 13 February 2021, prior to the mutual exchange, however, during the inspection on 16 April 2021, it was found that the window was not sealed to the brickwork. The work was then completed on 5 May 2021. There was a missed opportunity to identify and resolve this during the initial works which led to an unnecessary delay in the work being completed.
38. In addition, while works to re-point the brickwork of the shed were reported as completed on 11 February 2021, the operative who attended on 15 April 2021 found that this was not the case, and further work was required. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord apologised for any inconvenience this may have caused. The landlord has provided no further evidence to show that this was completed, and the resident advised that this work, alongside work to the shed roof following an inspection on 27 May 2021, remained outstanding as of November 2021. There is no further evidence or repair logs to show that this work was completed before the resident ended her tenancy in March 2023.
39. In relation to the external windowsills, during the inspection on 15 April 2021, the operative acknowledged that while some work to rake out and fill a concrete joint on the first floor external wall of the property had been completed on 11 February 2021, the other repairs attached to the work order, including repairing or replacing the kitchen and lounge windowsills, had not, and the contractors would need to re-attend. As above, the landlord failed to acknowledge the inconvenience this may have caused or apologise to the resident as part of its stage one complaint notes, which would have been appropriate. The landlord has not provided any further evidence to suggest that this work was re-raised or attempted despite the resident raising this issue within her escalation request and subsequent correspondence. There is no further evidence to confirm whether this was completed before the resident ended her tenancy in March 2023.
40. The resident initially reported that her kitchen cupboards were blown and smelt of animal urine within her complaint on 7 April 2021. The landlord advised on 15 April 2021 that the units were structurally sound and fit for use but that the sink unit needed to be replaced and repairs needed to be carried out to the wall affected by an ongoing leak. It confirmed that this would be a 60-day work order. It was initially reasonable for the landlord to advise that the other kitchen units did not need to be replaced as while stained, they were found to be fit for use. A landlord would be entitled to rely on the conclusions of its appropriately qualified staff and contractors, and accordingly the decision to not replace the other units at the time was reasonable in the circumstances.
41. However, despite the operative advising that this would be a 60-day order, the evidence shows that the resident needed to pursue the repairs with the landlord as part of her escalation request on 22 June 2021 as the kitchen unit replacement and repairs had not been completed within that timeframe. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord satisfactorily communicated with the resident, explaining the reason the works had not progressed or its intentions; therefore, it failed to adequately manage her expectations. On 10 November 2021 it informed the resident that it would be replacing the entire kitchen and works would start the following day. While it was reasonable for the landlord to offer this given the resident’s concerns, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have given the resident adequate time to prepare for the works to avoid causing any additional inconvenience at this stage, especially given the disruption the works would cause.
42. The resident also raised concern about gaps around her front and back doors within her complaint on 7 April 2021. The landlord acted appropriately by inspecting the doors and offering advice in the form of a leaflet regarding the resident’s reports of ants. While it is noted that no ants were present at the time of the visit, the landlord acted reasonably by signposting the resident to the local authority’s pest control service as pests within the property were the resident’s responsibility to resolve in line with the tenancy agreement. The landlord confirmed to the resident that an appointment had been arranged for 4 May 2021 to repair the doors in the first instance, noting that if a repair was not possible, the operative would need to arrange for the doors to be replaced. The evidence shows that the operative reported no access to the property on 4 May 2021, meaning that works did not progress.
43. While it is noted that the resident raised concerns about not being provided with adequate notice of appointments within her complaint, the evidence shows that she was made aware of the appointment on this date, in advance, as part of the landlord’s stage one complaint response call and would have had the opportunity to be available.
44. In its communication to this Service in May 2023, the landlord advised that repairs to the UPVC panel and front and back door were attempted on 21 August 2021, however, contractors had reported no access to the property. It further advised that it had received no additional contact from the resident regarding the repairs following the no access appointment. While the landlord may have received no specific contact from the resident in relation to the repairs, it did not provide its stage two complaint response until 12 November 2021. As such, it would have had the opportunity to review the repairs that were outstanding and confirm its position. The resident’s escalation request, and subsequent correspondence from 22 June 2021 onward, to the landlord specifically advised that the repairs to the two external doors, pointing to the shed, the two external windowsills and boxing in the bathroom remained outstanding. As such, there was a missed opportunity by the landlord to progress or rearrange the repairs which amounts to a failing. The landlord failed to acknowledge or address outstanding repairs within its complaint response, which will be discussed in further detail below.
45. In addition, the resident has advised this Service that the landlord’s operative made a list of the outstanding repairs during the initial works to her kitchen on 11 November 2021. While the Ombudsman has not seen evidence of this, within its complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that multiple repairs had been raised which did not form part of the kitchen works and that once the repair orders were raised, they would be completed within its timescales. The landlord has provided this Service with the repair records up to the end of the tenancy in March 2023. There is no record that any further repairs related to the outstanding issues reported in the property were raised or subsequently completed. As such, the landlord failed to adequately monitor outstanding actions or satisfactorily take steps to put things right for the resident.
46. In summary, there has been maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the repairs in the resident’s property. While the landlord did acknowledge delays in completing repairs and the inconvenience this may have caused the resident within its final response, its offer of £100 is not considered proportionate given the extent of the delays or impact on the resident in this case. The resident experienced significant inconvenience and time and trouble pursuing the repairs to her property which the landlord failed to effectively handle. It is the Ombudsman’s view that additional compensation is warranted. An order has been made below to reflect this.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

47. The landlord’s complaints policy, active at the time of the resident’s complaint, states that the landlord had a two-stage complaints process. At each stage, the landlord should have provided a response within 15 working days. If it could not respond within 15 working days, it was supposed to provide the resident with regular updates, detailing the reason for delay and an expected response timeframe. The policy notes that stage one responses may be provided by letter, face-to-face or by telephone. It would offer to provide written confirmation of the discussion.
48. In this case, the resident initially asked for a formal complaint to be raised on 7 April 2021. The evidence shows that the landlord responded verbally at stage one on 28 April 2021. This was within the landlord’s timescales, however, there is no evidence to suggest that the resident was informed of the landlord’s complaints process or told how she could escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied. In addition, the landlord failed to provide a written response to the resident’s stage one complaint. While it has acknowledged that it failed to provide this, it is the Ombudsman’s view that responses to complaints should be in writing where possible so that there is a clear audit trail of what was investigated and what actions were confirmed.
49. The resident raised a further complaint on 22 June 2021 which the landlord acknowledged at stage two. The landlord did not issue its stage two complaint response until 12 November 2021. This was nearly five months after her request and significantly outside of the landlord’s timescale for responding. While the evidence shows that landlord wrote to the resident on 14 September and 28 September 2021 to apologise that it had been unable to meet its target date for response, it did not provide a clear reason for the delay. In addition, the letters were sent after the expected response timeframe had expired.
50. Furthermore, the landlord failed to respond to the Ombudsman’s request on 1 October 2021 which asked it to address the resident’s complaint and provide an update. The delays were likely to have caused significant inconvenience for the resident who needed to spend additional time and trouble pursuing the complaint with the landlord through the intervention of this Service. While the landlord advised within its stage two complaint response that it had experienced a high volume of contact, it failed to acknowledge the significant delay in responding at stage two or the inconvenience this was likely to have caused the resident.
51. In addition, the landlord’s stage two complaint response was brief and did not address each aspect of the resident’s complaint. While it confirmed that works were in progress to the resident’s kitchen and bathroom, it failed to consider her concern that repairs to the front and back door, windowsills and external shed remained outstanding. This is of concern given that these repairs had been reported as outstanding by the resident in her stage one complaint, subsequent escalation and ongoing communication.
52. The resident raised additional concerns within her complaint about a lack of communication from contractors regarding appointments, leading to “no access” appointments, and that contractors turned up to complete jobs that had already been completed. The landlord failed to consider the resident’s concern related to a lack of communication regarding repair appointments and this was not specifically addressed by the landlord within its complaint responses. This was likely to have caused inconvenience for the resident as her concerns remain unaddressed. While the landlord has confirmed to this Service that it had an automated text notification system for appointments and that the resident would have been made aware of the appointment the day before, it had not provided evidence to confirm that this happened and did not provide evidence that it had adequately investigated the resident’s concerns or confirmed its position.
53. The landlord has not demonstrated that it adequately reviewed the resident’s escalation requests or repair history when investigating the complaint at stage two. It is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord’s failure to fully investigate the resident’s concerns at this stage contributed to it not carrying out repairs to the resident’s doors, windowsills and shed as detailed above. It also failed to demonstrate that it had taken points of learning from the complaint or fully acknowledged its failings in this case. It did not provide the reasons for significant delays or consider the steps it could take to prevent similar circumstances occurring in the future. This amounts to a failing and is in contrast the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
54. In view of the above, there has been maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the complaint. The resident spent significant time and trouble pursuing her complaint. The landlord failed to acknowledge the delay in responding at stage two and failed to address several significant aspects of the resident’s complaint which was likely to have caused significant inconvenience. It is the Ombudsman’s view that financial compensation is warranted for the impact on the resident due to the landlord’s poor complaint handling; an order has been made below.

Determination (decision)

55. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs to the resident’s property following a mutual exchange.
56. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

57. While the landlord somewhat acknowledged repair delays and the inconvenience this caused the resident within its stage two complaint response, its offer of £100 compensation was insufficient. The landlord has failed to provide evidence that the repairs reported as outstanding during the complaint were seen through to completion before the resident ended her tenancy in March 2023 and the resident spent considerable time and trouble pursuing the repairs. There was also a lack of communication or explanation for the delays which was likely to have caused additional inconvenience to the resident.
58. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response verbally within its response timescales, however, there is no evidence to suggest that she was provided with details of how to escalate her complaint. There was a five-month delay by the landlord in providing its stage two complaint response which the landlord failed to acknowledge or apologise for in its response. In addition, the stage two complaint response was insufficient and did not address each aspect of the complaint or demonstrate that the landlord had fully investigated the resident’s concerns.

Orders

59. Within four weeks, the landlord is to pay the resident £900 compensation, comprised of:
    1. £600 in recognition of the inconvenience caused to her due to the length of time taken to complete repairs and its poor communication. This includes the landlord’s previous offer of £100 compensation if this has not yet been paid.
    2. £300 in recognition of the time and trouble and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s poor complaint handling.
60. The landlord is to write to the resident within four weeks to apologise for the service failures identified within the report.
61. The landlord is ordered to carry out a management review of the resident’s case within six weeks of the date of this report. This should consider the evidence that was available (or may have been available), any missed opportunities, and any points of learning that may improve its future response to similar cases. A copy of the review must be provided to this Service.
62. The landlord is to provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders within the specified timescales.

 Recommendations

63. It is recommended that:
    1. The landlord considers carrying out staff training for complaint handlers to ensure that residents are provided with the reasons for any delay to its response timeframes and that each aspect of a resident’s complaint is addressed as part of its complaint responses.
    2. The landlord reviews the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) (May 2023) alongside its current record keeping practices to ensure that it acts on recommendations made and that its processes are in line with best practice. It should ensure that complaint handlers have access to all necessary information to investigate a complaint and that it ensures that records related to residents being informed of appointments are kept for audit purposes.
64. The landlord is to contact the Ombudsman to confirm its intentions in respect to the recommendations made within four weeks of the date of this report.