Leeds City Council (202232275)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202232275
Leeds City Council
27 March 2024
Our approach
The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.
Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.
The complaint
- The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property.
- The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s:
- Record keeping.
- Complaint handling.
Background and summary of events
Background
- The resident is an assured tenant of a 3 bedroom house following a mutual exchange in July 2017. The landlord has stated it is aware of no vulnerabilities within the household, however the resident has identified that she lives with vulnerabilities and so do 2 of her children.
- The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. It aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. It states if it is unable to respond within the timescales, it will provide regular updates at least every two weeks. This will detail the reason for the delay and when a response is expected.
- The landlord’s repairs handbook categorises repairs into 2 types, emergency, and responsive repairs. It states that it will complete emergency repairs within 24 hours and splits responsive repairs into 2 categories with a 3 to 20 working day timeframe depending on the type of work required. It will aim to complete repairs right the first time. It will complete all repairs within target date timescales and the quality of repairs are to a high standard. It states it will inform residents if it will be late for an appointment.
- The resident provided contemporaneous records to the Ombudsman detailing her attempts to contact the landlord between 2022 and 2023 about the repairs. The records also provided information around repair appointments during this period.
Summary of events
- The landlord’s repair records show that the resident had raised several repairs with it between 2020 and 2023. The records show that there was 1 repair raised around the kitchen in 2020 in relation to a kitchen socket, and a leak from the hot water tap in 2021. There were also several jobs raised around the bathroom between 2021-2023 and some of these were connected to the complaint.
- The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 9 February 2023. She said that she had been asking for repairs to her kitchen for approximately 3 years and her bathroom since September 2022. The works were still outstanding, and the kitchen was not fit for purpose for her child’s vulnerability. It was unsafe to work within and she also advised the bathroom was causing damage to the kitchen ceiling through water damage.
- The landlord contacted the resident following her complaint on 28 February 2023. It informed her that it had a surveyor available to assess the kitchen on 6 March 2023. She responded and accepted the appointment. She also queried if the surveyor would be looking at the bathroom leak and water entering from the kitchen ceiling. It confirmed they would.
- Following the resident’s complaint, between February 2023 and March 2023, the landlord discussed the matter internally and arranged for the required works following its surveyors visit to the property.
- Following the surveyor’s visit, on 7 March 2023, the landlord informed the resident that 3 base units, a worktop and pipe boxing were needed in the kitchen. It also told her the bathroom floor already had a repair raised and the surveyor was going to chase the contractor to escalate the matter so it could be sorted as soon as possible. It told her it would close her complaint and issue a formal response to her. It advised it would check on 10 March 2023 to ensure the repair was raised. If it had been raised, it would look to get appointments booked in as soon as possible for her. It said it would also ensure all works were followed up and completed following the closure of the complaint.
- The resident responded on the same day and explained that the problem she had, was actually getting the work done. As such she did not feel comfortable with the complaint being closed without the work being either booked in or completed as it could end up being ignored as it had been previously. The landlord then attempted to reassure the resident and told her that it would book the works in for her with its contractor as soon as the surveyor raised the repairs. It said it could ask its contractor to keep her updated and it could ensure that the works went ahead. Following the complaint, if the works did not go ahead within the timescale or she was not kept updated, she could escalate to stage 2.
- The landlord provided the resident with its stage 1 response on the same day. It explained what the complaint was about and apologised she had to make a complaint. It said following a visit to her property, it had confirmed that relevant repairs had been raised for 3 base units and a work top in the kitchen. A pipe boxing was also to be completed and it would chase its contractor regarding her bathroom floor as a repair had already been raised for this and it would be escalated. It said it would ensure all follow-on work was to be appointed as soon as possible and it would keep her updated with the repair work. It told her it trusted it had addressed all her concerns in the complaint and would close it down. It also explained the process for escalation of her complaint.
- On 10 March 2023, the resident told the landlord she was unhappy with the response and did not feel she had been listened to about the bathroom. She reiterated the problem was not with the work being raised, but that she had raised it many times and it had never been booked in or completed due to operatives attending for incorrect jobs. She said her house smelt of damp due to the MDG boards (these are a type of wooden board) underneath the bathroom floor, and the kitchen was also suffering from damage too. She said her next door neighbour had noticed water on the party wall on their side also. It had not contacted her to book the repairs, and she went away in 2 weeks. This should not have been an issue as she raised the works in September 2022. She asked to escalate to stage 2 due to the bathroom works and explained the matter was affecting her mental and physical health. She could not keep up with the extra cleaning of both the damaged areas.
- The landlord provided the resident with appointments for the works to her kitchen on 14 March 2023. It said someone had attended her property that day for the bathroom flooring. It had a joiner due to attend her property on 17 March 2023 to check the measurements were correct and order the stock. The works would then be completed on 3 April 2023, with the joiner and plumber attending.
- On the same day, the resident provided the landlord with her availability for the proposed appointment. She also informed it that she was away from 29 March 2023 to 12 April 2023, so would be unable to have an appointment on 3 April 2023. She asked if the appointments could take place during the week commencing 17 April 2023. She asked it to confirm if the sink would be replaced in the kitchen and it told her it would look for any appointments for her regarding the work. It told her it could only confirm the units and worktops had been put on the work order, and nothing had been requested around a sink.
- The resident then reported to the landlord that part of her kitchen ceiling had fallen on 14 March 2023. It responded 2 hours later, apologised for the delay, and explained why. It told her it had arranged an emergency appointment for an operative to attend within 3 to 24 hours to make the kitchen ceiling safe. It had also asked its planner to contact her in case she did not get its emails.
- The Ombudsman reviewed both the landlord and resident’s records of the reports. Both records show that the following day the resident told the landlord that its operative could not repair the ceiling following the emergency visit. She expressed disappointment at not hearing from it that morning about the matter and provided it with an update. She told it that it was unsafe to use the shower, but her family needed to get washed. This was the only facility available for her family of 6, as such they had to make the choice to use it and that the situation was not ideal for her family. She advised it that if anyone was harmed because of the matter, she would pursue legal action against it and she was also going to contact the Ombudsman. She said she raised her concerns in August 2022, and the works were not raised until September 2022. She said things should not have got to the point they had, and she should not be told she may be waiting until May 2023 for the matter to be rectified. She also reminded it that she lived with a child with a vulnerability which made them unpredictable, and it was a struggle to manage in the current circumstances.
- The landlord spoke internally on the same day and stated the ceiling could not be repaired on 14 March 2023. Nothing had been put in place to cover the leak until the bathroom could be repaired. It is unclear what the landlord meant by cover the leak. The wet floor room had been sent over to its contractor. It said it would chase them and ask if someone could attend as soon as possible. The landlord raised an emergency order and asked for the works to be assigned that afternoon so that the ceiling could be made safe. It highlighted there were children in the property with vulnerabilities. The ceiling was made safe on the same day.
- The landlord confirmed on 28 March 2023 internally that it was working on the resident’s bathroom that day. It said it had another job for the kitchen and would measure up and order the materials. The works would then be completed some weeks later.
- The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 10 May 2023. It thanked her for speaking with it over the previous weeks and explained what her complaint was about. It apologised that she had to raise a complaint following her outstanding query and for the delay in the repairs. It acknowledged they should have been completed sooner, it fell short of expectations and apologised. It:
- Said works to address the bathroom flooring leak affecting the kitchen ceiling were completed on week commencing 10 April 2023.
- Advised it had spoken with its operatives around the required works to her kitchen and they confirmed that the kitchen had been installed. The only outstanding repair was for the pantry ceiling and the tiling. It confirmed that it had arranged for this to be attended to on 10 May 2023.
- Apologised again for the experience she had and the lack of contact from its planner to arrange appointments. It had addressed this with the relevant team, and it would be included in training to prevent the issue reoccurring in the future.
Post complaint
- Between June 2023 and October 2023, the landlord arranged for the required repairs to the resident’s property and the works began.
- The Ombudsman contacted the resident on 7 March 2024 for further information around the complaint. The resident provided details around the challenges she faced with the landlord’s handling of the repairs between 2020 and 2023.
Assessment and findings
Scope of investigation
- Although it is recognised that the resident raised issues going back to 2020, the length of time which has passed would make it difficult to obtain accurate records to carry out an investigation about issues going back this far. As such this investigation has primarily focused on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from 2021 onwards, that were considered during the landlord’s recent complaint responses. Further neither of the parties have been able to provide evidence around any repairs raised in relation to the complaint as early as 2020.
- The resident has identified that she initially raised issues around her kitchen in 2020 and the bathroom in 2021. The landlord has explained that although there were repairs raised during these times, they do not relate to the resident’s complaint. After speaking with the resident, and from reviewing the records, a number of the issues raised within her complaint relate to similar or identical issues raised by her in previous repair requests. As such the Ombudsman has considered it reasonable to consider her previous repair requests between 2021- 2023, prior to her complaint.
- The resident has raised issues about the impact of the property and the repairs on hers and her family’s health. The Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, any impact on health. Personal injury claims, must, be decided by the court as they can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. However, the Ombudsman will consider the general distress and inconvenience the situation may have caused the resident as well as the landlord’s response to any reported impact on hers and her family’s health.
The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property.
- The landlord explained to the Ombudsman that it was unaware of any vulnerabilities in the resident’s household. It provided evidence of tenancy checks completed in 2022 and 2023 which stated there were no additional needs or vulnerabilities. Whilst positive that the landlord completed annual tenancy checks, this was a missed opportunity to understand the household’s vulnerabilities. The form demonstrates that the only questions relating to vulnerability are for a fire safety visit, and on both forms this was not completed. As such the landlord’s checks do not evidence that it checked for vulnerabilities within the household, but rather around the need for a fire safety visit.
- The failure to realise that there were vulnerabilities within the household was unreasonable and inaccurate, as the resident explained to the Ombudsman that the landlord had installed a wet room through its disability support scheme. This should have identified to the landlord that there were potential vulnerabilities within the family, and it should have taken this as an opportunity to reevaluate the needs of the entire household. The failure to do so was inappropriate and shows a lack of customer focus. This also raises concerns about the landlord’s record keeping and internal communication as it suggests a lack of coordination within its departments/ integrated records.
- The resident made the landlord aware of her children’s vulnerabilities in her correspondence with it when she raised her complaint and about the repairs. This is demonstrated through her emails of 9 February 2023, when she raised her complaint and her email 15 March 2023. Following these emails, if it was unaware of the vulnerabilities, it should have been inquisitive to ensure it was properly aware and ensure it offered the household the correct support. It failed to demonstrate that it did this and this was unreasonable. The failure to do so led to further distress for the resident when she explained her concerns about the dangerous situation with the leak into the electrics and her child who lived with a vulnerability which made their behaviour unpredictable.
- The landlord’s internal email of 16 August 2023 states it looked to offer a goodwill gesture by painting the resident’s kitchen. However, this was also as a way to reduce the outcome of the Ombudsman’s determination. This was stated within the email as part of the reason for offering the gesture and this was unreasonable. The landlord should have effected the goodwill gesture as a genuine attempt to remedy the frustration caused to the resident.
- The landlord appropriately informed the resident of the actions it would take when she notified it of its failure to attend an appointment in August 2023. This shows that it took a customer focused approach in this situation, and looked to ensure she was correctly kept informed. It also went further by providing her with a telephone number for its member of staff she could contact if she remained dissatisfied with its response/ if it did not contact her.
- The Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on repairs explains that it is vital that landlord’s keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. The report further explains that landlords should keep comprehensive records of residents’ reports of disrepair and its responses, including details of appointments, inspections, surveyors’ reports, works carried out and completion dates. The landlord has failed to provide detailed records around several repairs, and this was unreasonable.
- The landlord has explained that conversations around the leaks were discussed verbally. Despite this however, the Ombudsman would have expected that written records of any conversation concerning repairs were also made. This would have allowed for an audit trail of any requests made by the resident. This would have also ensured that important details were also not forgotten or missed. The failure to show that conversations were appropriately recorded raises questions about the landlord’s record keeping practices.
- Both the landlord and resident have provided contemporaneous records around the repairs, and these have been cross referenced against one another, in reaching the determination. The evidence demonstrates that between June 2022 and July 2023, the resident raised over 10 repair requests for issues related to leaks in the bathroom and wet room floor. Although in most instances, the landlord appropriately attended to the issues, it failed to be proactive in seeking a more permanent solution. The failure to do so led to further damage to the property and this caused her frustration and distress.
- Following the repair request in September 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to report issues with the bathroom around damp and mould in October 2022. She spoke to its contact centre and explained the issue. She evidenced within her records that she emailed the landlord expressing concern about raising the matter as a repair request due to concerns about it being overlooked as she had raised issues with the flooring. It is unclear if she was concerned because the flooring issues had not been addressed despite her raising the repairs and as such the damp and mould concerns would also not be addressed. The landlord has not demonstrated that it responded to the resident’s concerns. This was unreasonable, caused her frustration, and shows a lack of customer focus. It failed to show that it appropriately reassured her that the matter would be addressed and raises questions with its communication with the resident. The landlord should have explained the steps it would take to address the matter to the resident.
- The landlord completed an inspection of the resident’s bathroom following her reports around the damp and mould, within 20 working days after her report. A job was raised on 19 November 2022 to address the matter following the surveyors visit, however, its records demonstrate that the works were cancelled. The evidence does not show that a reason was provided for the cancellation. This was inappropriate and raises questions with its record keeping and communication with the resident. An expectation had been created that the works would be complete and the failure to explain the reason it had not done so added to her frustration and distress. This also showed a lack a customer focus.
- The landlord’s records also fail to explain what works were completed to address the reported leak by the resident, following her request of 26 September 2022. The works were completed on 19 October 2022. It is acknowledged that there were several repairs listed within this request, and the records do show the works it planned to do. It also shows that a plumber was required. However, it omits mention of any work around the leak its records state she reported. The failure to appropriately record details of the works completed, or what may have been outstanding was unreasonable.
- The landlord has further not demonstrated that it appropriately communicated with the resident and kept her updated and this led to frustration for her. The landlord is responsible for providing timely updates to its residents around such issues to manage their expectations. The failure to do so in this instance was inappropriate. This added to her lack of confidence in the landlord.
- The Ombudsman acknowledges that repairs around leaks/defects can be challenging, however, a landlord is expected to take appropriate prompt action to rectify such issues to avoid inconvenience to residents. In this instance, there was a delay of 1 year between its first notification of the issue, and it taking steps to identify the root cause through its survey in June 2023 and this was unacceptable. It then appropriately put a permanent solution in place following the survey in July 2023 and completed the required works. The delay in putting the solution in place however, led to frustration, distress, and inconvenience for the resident as she had to make lifestyle changes due to fears around using the wet room to shower. She explained to the Ombudsman that she also had to use other people’s facilities, and this caused her some inconvenience. It is however unclear whether this was explained to the landlord.
- The resident raised works around damage to her kitchen work surfaces in August 2021. These works were cancelled, rebooked a few days after and completed a month later on 19 September 2021. The records however fail to provide any details on why the works were cancelled and then what works were then completed around the issues raised, and this was inappropriate. This raised further questions around the landlord’s record keeping around the repairs to the resident’s property.
- The resident contacted the landlord on 6 January 2023 chasing previous work to the kitchen “from a past complaint”. It is unclear what previous works she was chasing as the last works reported around the kitchen according to the records were in August 2021 and these were completed in August 2022. As such the Ombudsman is unable to comment on this.
- As mentioned, the landlord raised works to the resident’s kitchen in August 2021, and its records report that works were completed in August 2022. This represents a delay of 1 year and this was unreasonable. The landlord’s records also do not explain the reason for the delay or detail what works were completed. This raises further questions about its record keeping.
- The resident’s records also show that on 8 February 2023, she told the landlord about the water from the leak running down the kitchen wall into the main fuse box and other electrical cables in her kitchen. She also provided a call centre reference number to support her report. The landlord’s records do not detail this, and it failed to act promptly to rectify the issue. The evidence from both parties demonstrates that it was not until her reported second request around the electrical issues on 21 February 2023 that the landlord acted to make the situation safe, and this was unacceptable. The landlord was aware that the resident’s household consisted of young children and the situation was potentially hazardous. The delay of 13 days to make the situation safe was unacceptable. This caused the resident distress due to concerns for her family’s safety. The delay also caused the resident to believe the landlord was not taking the matter seriously and led to her taking the time to report the issue again before any action was taken.
- The resident also explained to the Ombudsman that the landlord’s operatives attended the property to rectify the issue. She was informed by an electrician who attended that he was unable to address the issue around the leak onto the electrics until a plumber had repaired the leak. The landlord should have coordinated the repair in a more efficient way. If it was an active leak, then sending a plumber and an electrician could have been a better option. However, if the repair was an emergency, then it may have been appropriate to send an electrician to isolate the electrics, then a plumber to resolve the leaks and then ask the electrician to return. This should have been done in a relatively quick time frame, and an explanation provided to the resident to keep her fully informed. The handling of this issue caused the resident frustration and added to her loss of confidence in the landlord. This added to the delays in rectifying the issue and left her living in a state of disrepair for longer than was necessary. Whilst this was ongoing, it could have evaluated if it needed to take any action to ensure the resident’s safety and wellbeing. It failed to show that it considered this, and this was unreasonable.
- Following the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, the resident’s records demonstrate that she contacted it to escalate her complaint and explained the impact of the issue on her health. She also contacted it to evidence what occurred when her family showered. She provided it with a video, and images which showed water dripping on to shelves above where a meter and electrical fuse box were housed. Although it responded confirming receipt of her escalation request, it failed to address the further issues she had raised with it, and this was inappropriate and raises further concerns with its communication with her. This was a missed opportunity to potentially try to reassure her that it was doing everything it could to rectify the situation. It could also have taken the opportunity to signpost her to services or complete a risk assessment (around the leak into the electrics) to inform its approach. The failure to appropriately communicate with her and acknowledge her concerns added to the resident’s lack of confidence in the landlord.
- Following this on 14 March 2023, the resident then informed the landlord that her kitchen ceiling had fallen through and there was more water going into the electrical systems and fuse box. This was another opportunity for the landlord to reevaluate its position around the repairs. It could have completed a health and safety assessment considering any potential risks to the family around the issues and required repairs. It could then have decided if other measures were warranted, due to the potential loss of use of the bathroom and if it could make any other provisions, whilst it completed the works. It failed to do so, and this was inappropriate. This would have shown that it took a customer focused approach to the matter.
- The landlord appropriately attempted to make the ceiling safe on the same day, however it told the Ombudsman that there were no adults within the property so it could not enter to complete the works. The resident has explained that she was told on that day that no works could be completed until the main repairs were completed. As such the matter remained unsafe. It is unclear what the reason for the delay in the repair was, due to the conflict in information, however, it did make the ceiling safe the following day. This was still within the timeframes for an emergency repair in line with its policy.
- However, despite this, the resident and landlord’s logs show that there was another leak onto the electrical cables in the kitchen on 17 March 2023. This was another opportunity for the landlord to reconsider its position and consider the options available to it. The issue had occurred previously and due to the leak onto electrical cables, there was a potential hazard associated. The failure to do so was unacceptable and caused the resident further distress. This also saw her taking the time to approach her MP again around the issue and seek their assistance. Following the works raised on 17 March 2023, the works were then not completed until 21 April 2023. This represents a delay of 35 days, and this was unreasonable, especially given the dangerous nature of the situation. The landlord’s records failed to explain what works were completed around the issue. The expectation would have been that it attended to make the situation safe, however, there is no evidence that it did this. Its records demonstrate instead that the resident was left living with a potential category 1 hazard for over a month before a solution was effected, and this was unacceptable.
- When works were completed, in some instances they were completed incorrectly. For example, the wet room flooring being fit in an hour and having to be ripped up and reinstalled later. The resident provided other examples such as the shower tray being installed incorrectly, and sharp edges being left in the kitchen which led to injury. She also explained that there was another leak into the electrics, in June 2023, and this led to the family questioning if it was safe for them taking a shower. This was rectified after 30 days. No evidence has been provided that this was also made safe by the landlord within a reasonable time period. This was unacceptable and caused the resident frustration and distress. She explained they had to make lifestyle changes such as showering at other people’s homes. The landlord has not demonstrated that it considered the impact of the situation on the resident or her family.
- Following the reported completion of works by the landlord in August 2022, the landlord then did not appear to raise any works around the kitchen until January 2023. This represents a delay of over 7 months before the works were completed. The Ombudsman acknowledged that the repair issues were complex, there was an agreement that the kitchen would be completed after the bathroom was fixed, and there was a need for a replacement for the kitchen. However, had it acted more promptly to identify the issues with the wet room the works could have been completed sooner, as such the delay of 1 year to complete the works was unreasonable. This led to frustration, distress, and inconvenience for the resident.
- The landlord offered an apology across its complaint responses for the issues faced by the resident. However, this does not go far enough to address the delays in the repairs, the lack of consideration of the family’s circumstances and vulnerabilities and the distress and inconvenience caused to the household. The Ombudsman has ordered that the landlord pay the resident compensation to address these issues.
- In summary, the landlord failed to consider the resident and her family’s vulnerabilities. It provided her with a wet room through its disability assistance scheme and then stated it had no awareness of any vulnerabilities. There were issues with the landlord’s communication with her, as on several occasions it failed to show that it had appropriately explained missed appointments or show that it responded to her communications about the ongoing issues. There were significant delays in the required works to the bathroom and kitchen. The Ombudsman understands that such works can be complicated, however, it failed to act promptly to investigate the root cause of the issues. It further failed to reconsider its position, and this might have led to it identifying the root cause early. It failed to show that it had taken consideration of the household’s health and safety, left them in potentially hazardous conditions and delayed in dealing with the issues of damp and mould identified. Based on this the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration.
Complaint handling
- The landlord provided its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint 8 working days later than the timescales within its policy. The landlord has not detailed that it provided her with any updates or explanations about the delay. It also failed to demonstrate that it requested any extension for the provision of the response late and this was unreasonable. This also raises further questions around its record keeping.
- The landlord told the resident it would close her complaint in its complaint response, despite their conversation earlier that day. She had told the landlord she was uncomfortable with it doing this unless the works were booked in or completed. As such it was inappropriate for it to then tell her it would close the complaint when it had not booked in all the works or completed the repairs as she requested. This shows a lack of customer focus by the landlord and a lack of consideration for her requests.
- During her stage 1 request, the resident raised storage concerns with the kitchen. It is unclear if this was the first time she raised the issue with the landlord, however, it failed to demonstrate that it made its approach on the issue clear to her. It should have told her if it would be dealing with the matter as part of her complaint, or as a service request. It failed to demonstrate that it did so, and this was inappropriate. An expectation was created that it would provide her with an appropriate response around the issue, and its failure to do so added to her frustration. It failed to take a customer focused approach and manage the resident’s expectations, and this was unreasonable.
- Following the resident’s escalation to stage 2 on 10 March 2023, the landlord then provided its final response on the matter on 10 May 2023. This represents a 20 working day delay, and this was unreasonable. The landlord failed to demonstrate that it explained to her why its response was delayed in line with its policy, or that it requested an extension from her to provide its response late. This was inappropriate and added to her frustrations. Its failure to provide a timely response and follow its policy about updating her about any delays every 2 weeks, saw her taking the time to contact it requesting an update about her stage 2 response.
- Despite the lateness of both of its complaint responses, it failed to acknowledge and apologise for this, and this was inappropriate. An apology would have gone a way, in showing the resident that it recognised its failings with its complaint handling.
- In summary, the landlord provided its stage 1 and 2 responses outside of the timeframes within its policy. It failed to properly update her on both occasions about the delays. It further failed to appropriately address all her concerns in either of its responses and make its position clear on how it was dealing with her concerns around storage in the kitchen. Based on this, the Ombudsman finds that there was service failure.
Record keeping
- Within the other sections of the report, concerns with the landlord’s record keeping have been identified. The issues with its record keeping negatively impacted on the resident’s complaint and the landlord’s service provision to her as it contributed to the delays for example the length of time taken in completing the repairs to the resident’s kitchen. The landlord’s records show that these were raised in August 2021, do not demonstrate anything was done around the issue until August 2022, and provides no information on why there was such a delay in completing the works, and this was unreasonable.
- Based on the identified record keeping failings throughout the report, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration with the landlord’s record keeping. An order has been made for the landlord to review the Ombudsman’s knowledge and information management spotlight report.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was:
- Maladministration with the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property.
- Service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling.
- Maladministration with the landlord’s record keeping.
Reasons
- There were delays in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the resident’s kitchen and bathroom. It left the resident living in a potentially hazardous state on multiple occasions due to electrical safety concerns around the leak. It failed to carefully consider the household’s vulnerabilities and failed to demonstrate that it appropriately communicated with the resident around the repairs. It failed to take consideration of the fact she reported an impact on hers and her family’s health and did not demonstrate that it completed relevant health and safety/ risk assessments. It also failed to ensure that appropriately skilled operatives/ contractors attended the resident’s property for repairs, and this contributed to delays.
- The landlord failed to abide by the timeframes within its complaints policy. It also failed to provide the resident with reasons for the delay and updates about the progress of her complaint. She explained to it that she was uncomfortable with it closing her complaint unless the works were raised or completed prior to it issuing its stage 1 response, and it still told her it would close her complaint. This was despite the fact it had not raised all of the necessary repairs and was awaiting further information before doing so around the bathroom. She had to take the time to chase it at stage 2 of the process as it was delayed in its response. It also failed to address her concerns around storage in the kitchen and manage her expectations on how it would deal with the issue.
- There were several issues with the landlord’s record keeping. It failed to keep accurate records on how it handled the works to the resident’s property. It stated several repair conversations took place verbally and failed to demonstrate that it had recorded them to ensure important information/ repair requests were accurately and properly recorded. The concerns identified also led to issues with its service provision to her and contributed to the delays in its complaints handling and handling of the repairs.
Orders and recommendations
Orders
- Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must:
- Provide the resident with an apology around the identified failings within this report. The landlord is to ensure its apology is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies.
- Pay the resident compensation of £600 for its failings around the repairs to the resident’s property.
- Pay the resident compensation of £100 for its complaint handling failings.
- Contact the resident and ensure it has a full understanding of the vulnerabilities within the household. Ensure these are accurately recorded within its systems.
- Review the Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management.
- Provide evidence of compliance with these orders.
Recommendations
- Discuss with the resident and identify if she would like to raise a further complaint about the storage issues within the kitchen.
- Review the Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Damp and Mould.
- Review the Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Repairs.
- Confirm its intentions around the Ombudsman’s recommendations.