Lincoln City Council (202222063)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222063

Lincoln City Council

21 October 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 the resident’s:
1. Reports of a missed appointment to uncap gas at a neighbouring property.
2. Query relating to pets on the homefinder service.
3. Reports of inappropriate responses from staff members.
4. Query regarding the rent arrears procedure.
5. Reports of dog related nuisance in communal areas.
6. Reports of a communal door slamming causing a disturbance.
7. Enquiry about the maintenance of leaves and gutters.
8. Reports of repairs to the kitchen and communication about the kitchen refit.
9. Reports of outstanding repairs to the bathroom including damp and mould.
10. Associated formal complaint.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42.i. of the Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. Reports of a missed appointment to uncap gas at a neighbouring property.
Paragraph 42.i. of the Scheme says we may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters raised by a complainant on behalf of another without their authority.
The resident told the landlord that he was the carer for his neighbour. He said that its contractor did not attend an appointment to uncap his neighbour’s gas, following the signing of the tenancy agreement in 2021. He said that it had left his neighbour without heating and hot water for 3 days and had failed to provide compensation. There was no evidence provided to this Service, to confirm that the resident had consent to raise the complaint on his neighbour’s behalf. We are, therefore, unable to investigate this matter.

Background

The resident is the secure tenant of a 1-bedroom ground floor flat, owned by the landlord.
The resident contacted this Service in December 2022, saying that he had raised multiple complaints to the landlord, as outlined above, in 2021 and 2022. He said that the landlord had failed to appropriately respond to his complaints.
Following contact from this Service, the landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response, dated 5 January 2023. It responded to each individual complaint and provided explanations.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought his complaint to this Service. He wanted it to complete all of the repairs and compensate him for his time.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances.

Scope of investigation

The resident raised a query with the landlord about a statement on its lettings bidding system, homefinder. We are unable to assess the landlord’s allocation process as it does not fall within the remit of this Service and would be a matter to be considered by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). However, we can consider how the landlord responded to the resident’s query.
The resident also raised a question in relation to his neighbour’s rent. We are unable to investigate matters relating to his neighbour’s rent liability, however, we can consider whether the landlord’s response, and general information provided, was reasonable in the circumstances.
The role of the Housing Ombudsman is to assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint through to its final response. This is to ensure that it takes reasonable steps to resolve complaints in its 2-stage process. Therefore, this investigation has focused on the events leading up to its final response on 5 January 2023. Any events following its stage 2 response, are mentioned in this report for context purposes only.
The evidence, provided to this Service, was limited and has affected our ability to accurately assess some of the individual complaint points. We have, therefore, made decisions based on the evidence provided and available at the time of the investigation.

Query relating to pets on the homefinder service

The resident raised a query on 21 November 2022 about a statement on the landlord’s homefinder allocation system. He said that he had noticed, when bidding for a property, that it made a statement about pets. The statement said that the person should obtain written permission when signing for a property, via an application form, prior to obtaining a pet. It would be a breach of tenancy to have a pet without written permission. He asked it whether it would make sense to say which pets it allowed, as someone who already had a pet would need to make an application before signing a tenancy agreement.
The resident’s email appeared to be an enquiry rather than a complaint, and it is not known whether the resident asked the landlord to raise the matter as a formal complaint. However, it provided a response at stage 2 of its complaints process, stating that it would take his suggestion into account and would review its process moving forward.
In the landlord’s explanation to this Service, it said that it had no other information available as the staff member, who responded at the time, had left its employment several months prior. This suggests that it had previously provided a response, however, it also demonstrates a record keeping failure as the landlord should be able to access all communication between its staff and residents.
That said, the landlord’s response was appropriate and acknowledged that it would review its process following the resident’s suggestion. We, therefore, find no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s query relating to pets and the homefinder service.

Reports of inappropriate responses from staff members

The resident raised a complaint on 27 August 2022, saying that he had raised 5 complaints but received no response. He said that the landlord had refused to provide information about a job booked at his property, which he had not requested. It had also failed to provide information of a job relating to fire hazards. He said it had been 3 weeks since he responded to the staff member’s email and wanted to raise a complaint about the member of staff.
The resident chased the landlord for a response on 16 September 2022. He said that he had not heard about the complaint he raised against its staff member, and he had not received a complaint reference number.
In its stage 2 response the landlord said it appreciated that the resident felt aggrieved by the response. However, having reviewed the response, it felt that the staff member had responded appropriately with the information provided.
This Service has not seen a copy of the staff member’s response and there was no further evidence provided in relation to this matter. The landlord’s response was brief and failed to explain why it had found the response to be appropriate. It would have been reasonable for it to clarify the reasons for the resident’s dissatisfaction and provide a more detailed explanation to confirm its reasoning and position.
While we can not comment on the appropriateness of the staff member’s response, the landlord failed to demonstrate that it had reasonably investigated the resident’s concerns. We, therefore, find service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of inappropriate responses from staff members.

Query regarding the rent arrears procedure

The resident raised a complaint on 13 August 2022. He said that he had asked about the process for disputing rent arrears and received 3 inappropriate responses. He chased the landlord on 27 August 2022 for a response.
The landlord responded on 30 September 2022, saying that it had provided advice in January and responded to his query in May 2022. It confirmed that residents were responsible for rent from the date of signing the tenancy agreement. It said that there was no appeal procedure to dispute the charge of rent from the start of the tenancy. However, where a resident was liable for rent on 2 properties, he could make an application for dual benefit.
The resident responded on 10 October 2022, saying that its response had not answered his question, which was about the procedure for a resident formally disputing rent arrears. He raised a further complaint on 7 November 2022 repeating his question and stating that he had not received the information.
In its stage 2 response the landlord said that residents had the option to submit a complaint about rent arrears. However, it explained the weekly rent charge was in line with the tenancy agreement. It said that it was the responsibility of the resident to pay the rent in line with the tenancy conditions and claim the appropriate welfare benefit, such as universal credit or housing benefit. It explained an overlap of rent for 2 properties required an application for a discretionary housing payment (DHP). However, the local authority would only consider a DHP in extenuating circumstances.
In the landlord’s explanation to this Service, it said it had provided general information, which the resident had not accepted. It did not waive rent because a resident accepted to have liability on 2 addresses.
It is not uncommon, where residents are moving between 2 social housing properties, to have liability for rent on both properties for a short period of time. The landlord’s responses and explanations were comprehensive and appropriate. We, therefore, find no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s query regarding the rent arrears procedure.

Reports of dog related nuisance in communal areas

The tenancy agreement says that where pets are kept, on or near the premises, they should not cause, through number or behaviour, any noise, frighten, or cause annoyance to other people.
The landlord’s pets policy states that anyone wishing to keep a pet may obtain written permission and sign a declaration and undertaking. The declaration and undertaking include not allowing pets to wander unaccompanied in communal areas and the residents must clean up after their pets.
The resident raised concerns on 15 June 2022 about dogs being off lead in communal areas. There was evidence that the resident had written further, on an unknown date, saying that the landlord’s earlier response was an excuse to do nothing. He said that the legislation for communal areas would be different to that of a public area. It had failed to do anything about his complaint and reported dog attack.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 5 August 2022, saying that the tenancy agreement provided information about dogs in communal areas. The public protection team would only become involved if there was evidence that a dog was causing a nuisance or danger to other tenants and/or their pets. Where someone alleged an attack, they should contact the police at the time of the incident. The police were the lead authority to deal with dangerous dogs.
The resident raised further concerns on 8 August 2022 about dog fouling and dogs being off lead in the communal area. He suggested that the cheapest option would be to install signs or not allow people to keep dogs in flats.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 14 November 2022 about dogs running loose in the communal garden. He said he had the right to feel secure when using the garden and to not have to endure the smell of “faecal matter” left outside his bedroom window.
In its stage 2 response the landlord repeated its reply from 5 August 2022. It said that it had emailed asking for the identity of the dog owners and their addresses. This was still outstanding, and it asked again for the information so it could contact the resident concerned and discuss the issues he had experienced to prevent future incidents.
The resident responded on 6 January 2023 and said that the landlord had sent him the same response and failed to read the information he had supplied. He did not know the address of the dog owners, and to find out, he would have to follow them home. He said that it should know which residents had dogs as they had to request permission to have them. He said that all residents had the right to feel safe and it should be common policy not to allow dogs to run loose.
The landlord’s response appropriately set out its position in relation to dangerous dogs and the need to report incidents to the police. However, it failed to show any empathy for the resident’s reports, in particular the alleged attack, and its response was dismissive. There was no evidence provided to demonstrate whether it had taken any action or clarified if the resident had made a complaint to the police.
It was appropriate for the landlord to ask the resident whether he knew the identity of the dog owners, however, where this was not known it would have been challenging for it to take action against an individual. However, it should have considered what measures it could have taken. It could have sent letters to the block or estate reminding residents of their obligations under the terms of the tenancy agreement and pets policy. It could also have considered providing dog refuse bins, signage, and increased estate inspections to reassure the resident that it took his reports seriously.
For the reasons set out above we find service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of dog related nuisance in communal areas.

Reports of a communal door slamming causing a disturbance

The resident raised a complaint on 12 August 2021 about the communal front door which was opposite his bedroom wall. He said that it was closing “violently” and was loud enough to wake him up. He raised further reports on 5 May 2022 and sent reminders on 7 other occasions.
On 9 June 2022 the resident wrote again stating that he had reported the door on numerous occasions. It closed loudly and often woke him up. It not only made a loud noise, but the sudden closure caused his own doors to vibrate. He said that it had failed to fix the door, and if it did not do so, he would completely remove the door from its hinges. The lack of sleep was “torturous” to him, and he would seek legal advice.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 5 August 2022, stating that a joiner had attended on 29 June 2022 to install a new closer. The joiner had advised that there would still be a click as the door lock mechanism engaged with the lock keep. It advised him not to remove the door from its hinges. It said if the door were still causing an issue, to notify it and it would arrange an inspection to listen to the sound of the closure mechanism to establish the next course of action.
The landlord’s internal records of 13 December 2022 show that an operative attended to take noise readings from the communal door. The operative’s findings show that the door was closing at 94.8 decibels which was high. The fault with the door meant that it would not close properly, leading to having to pull it shut, which caused a bang. It was possible to close it quietly, but this required effort, which people would not normally make.
In its stage 2 response the landlord explained the details narrated above in relation to the decibel readings. It said that it would be carrying out further repairs in due course.
The resident responded the following day and said that he had informed it previously that the damp weather caused the door to expand, which prevented it from closing. Having fitted a new closer, and the problem persisting, this should indicate that the closer was not the issue.
The landlord’s records of 2 February 2023 referred to an engineer attending the block to adjust all 6 communal doors to shut quietly and fully. It said that some were slamming quite badly, and it was not a surprise that there were complaints.
The landlord’s response demonstrated that it had attended in June 2022 to the resident’s reports, some 10 months following the resident’s initial report. There was no evidence to suggest the completion of any repairs prior to this date. It was evident that the matter persisted following the replacement of the door closer and decibel readings were high.
The landlord said that it would complete further repairs, however, there is no evidence to demonstrate that further repairs have taken place. We appreciate that some attempts have been made to resolve the issue, however, there were delays experienced by the resident. It failed to consider any detriment to the resident or demonstrate any learning from the complaint. We, therefore, find service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the communal door slamming causing a disturbance.

Enquiry about the maintenance of leaves and gutters

The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states that it is responsible for the structure, exterior, services, the fixtures and fittings to the property, and any communal areas in the building (excluding communal gardens). This includes drains, gutters and outside pipes.
The evidence shows that the resident raised a complaint in January 2021 about the guttering. He reported that the gutters were overflowing “again” and dripping onto the gas meter box outside his window. This was keeping him awake. The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process in February 2021. It apologised that the gutter cleaning of 17 January 2021 had failed to resolve the matter. It said it would arrange a drone survey to identify any further repairs.
The resident made further reports in November and December 2021 about the guttering starting to drip. He said that it had only cleared a small part of the gutters previously, which was an area directly above the meter box. Since then, the dirt and leaves had found their way back to the once cleared area. He said that there were many plants, some up to 3 feet tall, growing out of the gutter and that this was poor maintenance.
The resident raised 2 complaints in November 2022 as follows:
1. On 17 November 2022 he made reports about the accumulation of leaves at the rear door of his block. He said that piles of leaves were a slip hazard when wet, and a fire hazard when dry. He asked about the frequency, and responsibility, to clear the leaves.
2. On 23 November 2022, he asked about the frequency and maintenance of the gutters. He said that he had asked the question on 7 and 16 November 2022 but received no response.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord said that its caretakers had recently attended the block and cleared the leaves from the communal area. Its caretakers attended every 6 weeks, however, this was not always possible due to unforeseen circumstances. It attended the property following maintenance and repair requests from residents in relation to the guttering. It would plan requests, depending on level of priority, and allocate to its housing repairs service to carry out inspections and associated repairs.
The resident responded to the landlord the following day, saying that it did not clear leaves every 6 weeks. After months, he often had to remind the landlord to do something about it. He had seen someone walk along the path and blow leaves onto the grass, ignoring the problem at the rear door. Moving leaves was not the same as removing them. He said that he had asked how frequently it carried out maintenance to the gutters. Its response implied that it did not maintain them and only undertook repairs when residents made reports.
The landlord’s response was appropriate in advising the resident of the frequency of its caretaker visits. However, it also stated that this was not always possible due to unforeseen circumstances. It would have been helpful to have explained what these circumstances may have been and whether it would visit at a later date. While we appreciate that the accumulation of leaves would be frustrating, the landlord would have no control over the accumulation of leaves in between its scheduled visits.
In accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, a landlord is responsible for clearing blocked or broken gutters. The evidence demonstrates that the landlord has attended to repair and clear blocked gutters and attends on receipt of reports from residents.
It is good practice for landlords to have a schedule of maintenance to clean and clear gutters, once or twice a year, to reduce the need for repairs. However, while it is good practice, it is not obliged to do so. Its obligation is to attend to unblock or repair gutters. Its response was, therefore, reasonable and we find no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s enquiry about the maintenance of leaves and gutters.

Reports of repairs to the kitchen and communication about the kitchen refit

The landlord’s repairs policy says that it undertakes emergency repairs within 24 hours. It will complete urgent repairs within 3 days and plans to complete all other repairs within 100 days.
The evidence provided shows that the resident raised a complaint on 4 February 2022 in relation to his kitchen cupboard. He said that he had waited 17 months for it to come and complete the repair. He said that its customer service was poor, and he wanted compensation.
The landlord’s records of 8 February 2022 referred to an insurance claim in relation to the kitchen cupboard. It suggests settling the claim as the initial repair, reported in 2020, was cancelled in error. It was aware of the issues but had still not repaired it. It asks whether the kitchen was due for replacement, and whether this could be done sooner.
Further records of 5 April 2022 referred to the landlord attending to remove a built-in cupboard and needing to isolate electrics on 12 May 2022. Records of the same date refer to its contractor attending on 13 May 2022 to install a new heating system.
On 12 May 2022 the resident raised a complaint that the landlord had failed to attend the same day. It was supposed to knock down a wall in his kitchen so that its contractors could fit a new heating system the next day, followed by a new kitchen the following week. He had spent days rearranging his flat and schedule in order to do this and had to rearrange other things for the following week too. Cancelling last minute was unacceptable and he wanted compensation. The resident repeated his complaint on 9 June 2022.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 10 June 2022 asking about the limitations of his potential new boiler. After sending a reminder on 25th May, he received some information. He wrote again on 26 May requesting more information but was still waiting for an answer.
The landlord responded on 5 August 2022. It said that it understood that the boiler was due for replacement and that he had postponed the work as he wanted further information about the boiler temperature. It said that the ideal temperature for domestic hot water was 49 degrees celsius to avoid scalding. The temperature was pre-set as a safety mechanism. It was aware that it had written on 12 July 2022 to inform him of dates to carry out the work as follows:
1. The removal of the pantry wall would take place on 3 August 2022.
2. The boiler removal would take place on 4 August 2022 and boiler install on 5 August 2022.
3. The kitchen install was booked for 8 to 11 August 2022.
4. It said that the resident had cancelled the work until he was happy with the information about the boiler temperature. It asked him to advise if he was happy to continue with the work and would arrange convenient dates. It said that this did not warrant compensation.
The resident raised 4 complaints to the landlord as follows:
1. On 13 August 2022 he said that the kitchen refit, which was scheduled for 27 June 2022, had been postponed due to him being unavailable.
2. On 7 November 2022 he said that a quick fix had been done to his kitchen cupboard, which had taken 18 months to repair, and it still did not close properly.
3. On 11 November 2022 he reported that the landlord had fitted a new radiator in his kitchen. He reported an issue on 8 September 2022 and sent reminders on 16 and 23 September 2022. Since the installation, it had become apparent that the pipes to the old radiator did not route to the new radiator in the same way. Pipes passed behind the door jamb of a cupboard door in the kitchen and overtime they had forced the jamb away from the wall, making the cupboard door awkward to close.
4. He repeated his concerns, on 16 November 2022, about the door jamb. He said that he had received no acknowledgement and had not been contacted about repairs.
In its stage 2 response the landlord repeated the information provided on 5 August 2022, stating that it had written in July 2022 to schedule the work. The work included removal of the pantry wall, installation of a new boiler and kitchen. It repeated that the work had been cancelled by the resident due to requiring more information about the boiler temperature. It had also been postponed on 2 previous occasions. It had offered dates in September 2022 and October 2022 which he had declined. It understood that the work was outstanding and needed to be booked. It offered further dates in February and March 2023 and asked him to confirm his availability. It set out its tenancy conditions relating to providing access to the property to enable it to complete the required work.
Following the landlord’s stage 2 response it wrote to the resident, in June 2023. It referred to an email, sent by the resident on 16 March 2023, stating the boiler and kitchen work has been suspended as per his email request. It said that if he wanted to explore this again in the future, it would be happy to arrange a joint visit with its maintenance team leader and member of its investment team to discuss and agree a planned timetable of work.
It is evident that there were delays regarding the repair of the kitchen cupboard. While the landlord attended and completed a “quick fix” this took some considerable time as acknowledged in its internal records. However, from the evidence provided it appears that an insurance claim was made in relation to this matter.
The resident’s further reports, about the cupboard still not closing properly, pipework and door jamb would likely have been resolved by the proposed work to install a new heating system and kitchen. While we appreciate that the outstanding repairs would be distressing for the resident, the landlord has appropriately offered multiple dates to complete the work, both during the complaint process and subsequently. We, therefore, find no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the kitchen and communication about the kitchen refit.

Reports of outstanding repairs to the bathroom including damp and mould

The landlord advised this Service that it did not have a damp and mould policy at the time of the resident’s complaint.
The landlord has a responsibility under the housing health and safety rating system (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard that may require remedy. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS, and they are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.
This Service’s spotlight report on damp and mould, published October 2021, provides recommendations for landlords which set out 26 recommendations which included:
1. Adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions. Landlords should review their current strategy and consider whether their approach will achieve this.
2. Ensure they can identify complex cases at an early stage and have a strategy for keeping residents informed and effective resolution.
3. Ensure they clearly and regularly communicate with their residents regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould.
4. Identify where an independent, mutually agreed and suitable qualified surveyor should be used, share the outcomes of all surveys and inspections with residents to help them understand the findings and be clear on next steps. Landlords should act on accepted survey recommendations in a timely manner.
On 14 November 2022 the resident contacted the landlord, advising that 13 months prior he had reported damp and mould in his bathroom. On 20 November 2022 he reported that the large cupboard, adjacent to his bathroom, had damp and mould which had affected his stored items.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response it referred to works to the kitchen and heating system. It said that it understood that these needed rebooking, along with inspecting any repairs for damp and mould.
The landlord’s response failed to acknowledge when the resident had initially reported damp and mould in his home. While it referred to other works required to the property, its response in relation to the bathroom was limited. It failed to demonstrate that it had fully investigated his reports.
On 27 February 2023 the resident wrote to the landlord explaining that in October 2021 he had reported the problem with mould in his bathroom. It inspected and repairs were actioned for the rotten stud wall. He had been promised that his bathroom would be retiled and decorated. The wall was repaired, but the plaster was left bare for a long time until it provided a temporary coat of paint to prevent the smell when it got damp. He was advised that the work would be done on 26 January 2023.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 19 June 2023 stating that it could see that he had a number of repairs issues to his bathroom following a previous leak. It confirmed that it had scheduled the retiling for 19 July 2023 and would undertake redecoration on 20 and 21 July 2023. If the dates were not convenient to let it know and it would arrange an alternative appointment.
The resident responded to the landlord on the same day asking for an explanation as to why it had taken over 20 months from first reporting the leak, to the date of actually arranging the tiling and repainting. He said he had been chasing and wanted a justifiable reason for such a long wait.
The landlord responded the same day stating that it could see that after his initial report in 2021 for damp in the bathroom, a number of repairs were raised. This included the replastering to the cupboard where the leak came through. However, it could find no record of the tiling work being scheduled at the time. It apologised and said that it wanted to rectify the situation and had provided dates for the work to take place. It apologised further for the delays of the repairs and said there was no reasonable excuse which could be given for the delays encountered.
The landlord’s stage 2 response failed to reasonably investigate the resident’s reports. There was no evidence provided that damp and mould was present in the resident’s home following the previous leak, however, its response stated that it needed to inspect for damp and mould. It failed to consider its obligations under HHSRS, inspect the resident’s home for damp and mould, or consider any detriment to the resident.
While repairs were undertaken at the time of the leak, it failed to schedule or complete required follow up work. Its later responses acknowledged this and apologised, however, no recompense was offered in relation to this. It also failed to demonstrate any learning from the complaint. We, therefore, find service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs and damp and mould in the bathroom.

Associated formal complaint

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process where complaints are acknowledged within 5 working days. Stage 1 complaints are acknowledged within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The landlord advised this Service, that it does not currently have a compensation policy and is in the process of developing one.
The evidence, provided to this Service, was limited in relation to its complaint handling. It provided a single stage 1 response which related to a complaint on 10 February 2021. There was evidence that it had acknowledged the resident’s complaints via email, but it is not known whether it provided stage 1 or 2 responses to each of the individual complaints raised at the time.
The landlord’s stage 2 response covered multiple complaints ranging from 17 December 2021 to the more recent complaints from August to December 2022. Its response included as follows:
1. It stated that it appreciated that it had been a lengthy process for the resident. It had tried to respond to his emails and complaints as and when they were received. However, the number of individual emails and complaints that had been received by its officers, who worked in different services, had proven difficult to manage and investigate which may have contributed to the delay.
2. In order to avoid a repeat of this, it respectfully asked that any new complaints and correspondence were sent to 1 email address only and it would only respond to the first piece of correspondence sent each day. It provided the relevant email address.
We appreciate that the landlord has attempted to provide a response to all of the resident’s queries and complaints at stage 2 of its complaints process. However, the evidence shows that some of the issues, raised by the resident, were enquiries rather than complaints. He had advised that he was not making a complaint in some instances. It should ensure that it is considering where a resident’s correspondence is providing suggestions, making an enquiry, or raising dissatisfaction. The complaint handling code states the following:
1. Paragraph 1.1, effective complaint handling enables residents to be heard and understood. The starting point for this is a shared understanding of what constitutes a complaint.
2. Paragraph 1.2, a complaint must be defined as an expression or dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the landlord, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting a resident or group of residents.
We appreciate that it would be challenging for the landlord to manage multiple complaints and emails and therefore its response and request to email a single address was appropriate. Nonetheless, it failed to provide a comprehensive response to some of the individual complaints, such as the bathroom. While it acknowledged that it had been a lengthy process for the resident, it failed to apologise for the delays or demonstrate any learning from the complaints. We, therefore, find service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated formal complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.i. of the Scheme the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a missed appointment to uncap gas at a neighbouring property is outside this Service’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Query relating to pets on the homefinder service.
2. Query regarding the rent arrears procedure.
3. Enquiry about the maintenance of leaves and gutters.
4. Reports of repairs to the kitchen and communication about the kitchen refit.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of inappropriate responses from staff members.
2. Reports of dog related nuisance in communal areas.
3. Reports about the communal door slamming causing a disturbance.
4. Reports of outstanding repairs to the bathroom, damp, and mould.
5. Associated formal complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to pay to the resident, and not offset against any arrears, the sum of £400 broken down as follows:
1. £50 for time and trouble in relation to the failures identified in its response about staff responses.
2. £50 for distress and inconvenience, for failing to fully investigate the resident’s reports of dog related nuisance in communal areas.
3. £100 for time and trouble, distress and inconvenience in relation to the delays in completing repairs to the communal door.
4. £100 for time and trouble for delays in completing repairs to the bathroom.
5. £100 for time and trouble, distress and inconvenience in relation to the failures identified in its complaint handling.
The landlord is ordered to send a written apology to the resident, from a senior member of staff, for the failings identified in this report.
The landlord is ordered to:
1. Confirm to the resident its proposal to resolve the slamming of the communal door, if not already resolved.
2. Offer a further date to the resident for the completion of the kitchen installation and other outstanding works.
Within 4 weeks of this determination, the landlord must provide evidence of its compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

The landlord should ensure that it concludes the implementation of its compensation and damp and mould policies. It should also consider its requirements and obligations in relation to damp and mould.
The landlord should consider how it records and retains information relating to communication with its residents.