London Borough of Croydon (202409223)

Background

1. The resident lives in the property, a house with a shed in the garden. She is unhappy with delays to repairs which caused a bedroom in the property to be damp and cold and the time taken by the landlord to replace external doors in the house and shed.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of:
   1. Repairs to the external structure of the property.
   2. Replacement of external doors.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that there was:
   1. maladministration in the handling of repairs to the external structure of the property
   2. reasonable redress in the handling of replacement of external doors
   3. reasonable redress in the handling of the complaint

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Repairs to the external structure

5. The landlord did not carry out inspections and repairs in line with its repairs policy. Jobs were left unresolved when it changed sub-contractors, leading to long delays. While it did eventually recognise its failings, it did not fully consider the impact on the resident.

Replacement of external doors

6. While there were avoidable delays by the landlord in replacing the external doors, it recognised this in its response. It offered an apology and appropriate compensation to put matters right.

Complaint handling

7. While there were failings by the landlord in its complaint handling, it recognised this in its response and offered appropriate compensation and an apology.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

8. The landlord carried out an inspection on 4 December 2023 found that there was damp in the front bedrooms, possibly due to a roof leak. The landlord’s repairs records show it raised a job on 5 December 2023 for it to inspect the roof but it has no evidence it completed this. It noted that as it no longer works with the sub-contractor this job was allocated to, it was unable to obtain further records. This failure to keep records appears to have contributed to delays in the landlord completing work.
9. The landlord raised a further job on 8 April 2024 for a roofer to attend and again allocated this to a sub-contractor, but no action was taken. The landlord’s repairs policy says it should have carried out an inspection within 10 working days, which it did not do, which was not appropriate. It acknowledged these failings in its stage 1 response of 13 June 2024. It apologised for the 7-month delay and offered £200 compensation. The landlord acknowledged the resident had said that her energy costs had increased due to difficulties in keeping the affected bedroom warm. However, it did not offer any redress in relation to this at that time, which was not appropriate.
10. The landlord raised a new job on 17 June 2024 and a contractor attended on 24 June 2024. The inspection found that there were no faults with the roof, however there was brickwork that needed repointing. On 2 July 2024 the landlord told the resident it had incorrectly assessed her compensation and increased its offer to £425 – £225 for time and trouble and £200 for distress. On 15 July 2024 the resident asked the landlord to reconsider its offer as she said she had been using additional electricity for at least 5 months to run electric heaters in the bedroom. She provided a detailed breakdown of what she believed was a reasonable calculation of the additional usage.
11. The landlord subsequently carried out a damp and mould inspection on 31 July 2024, which confirmed the required repointing and said a passive vent needed to be installed in a bedroom. The landlord’s repair records show that it raised a job for the works on 16 August 2024, which it completed on 25 September 2024, more than 9 months after the resident first raised the issue. It did not complete this work within its policy timescale of 28 working days for routine repairs. The landlord’s actions were therefore not reasonable.
12. In its stage 2 response of 9 September 2024 the landlord increased its compensation offer to £450 and offered £144 reimbursement for what it said was ‘quantified heating expenditure’. Its internal records show it calculated this based on the number of days she was without heating and hot water due to a boiler issue. However, the resident had not raised a complaint about a boiler issue. She had made it clear that the additional expense related to electric heaters in the bedroom affected by the damp and mould. The landlord’s calculation is therefore not appropriate. It failed to consider or respond to her suggested calculation, or consider her circumstances and the impact on her, missing the opportunity to put things right.
13. The landlord’s offer of compensation in relation to the delay to repairs was broadly reasonable. However, its failure to accurately consider the financial detriment to the resident has caused her further distress and inconvenience. We have made an order for the landlord to contact the resident to obtain evidence, such as energy bills, for it to calculate her additional electricity expenditure and reimburse her for this. We have made a further order for the landlord to pay additional compensation of £150 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to reasonably address her concerns about the electricity expenditure. This brings the total compensation for this issue to £600.

14. The landlord’s inspection on 4 December 2023 identified that the front door was draughty and letting water in, and the 3 shed doors needed replacing. There was no mention in this inspection of the back door to the property. The landlord raised a job on 18 January 2024 for the overhaul of the doors, and a contractor attended to measure on 19 February 2024. This was not in line with the landlord’s repairs policy timescale of 28 working days.
15. In her complaint of 25 April 2024, the resident also only referred to 4 doors needing replacing, with no mention of the back door.
16. The landlord did not approve the order of the doors until 17 June 2024, and it replaced the doors on 20 July 2024. We appreciate that there is a lead time to order new doors, but the 4-month delay in the landlord approving the order significantly delayed the installation, which was not appropriate. However, on 2 July 2024, the landlord offered the resident £250 compensation for the delay, which was reasonable and proportionate.
17. In her escalation request of 15 July 2024, the resident said that the issue was with 5 doors, not just the 4 that the landlord had replaced. This is the first mention we have seen of the additional door having an issue, so we cannot say there was a failure by the landlord in it not replacing this door earlier.
18. The landlord raised a job to renew the back door on 19 August 2024. It is not clear from its records when it installed this. However the resident raised an issue with the new door on 7 October 2024, which the landlord resolved on 22 October 2024. Given the need to order a new door, this timeline suggests the landlord did install the new door within a reasonable timeframe.
19. In its stage 2 response of 9 September 2024, the landlord increased its compensation offer to £450 and apologised for its failings. Our view is that the redress offered by the landlord was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused and in line with our remedies guidance and was therefore reasonable.

20. As can be seen from above:
    1. the landlord responded to the roof complaint at stage 1 within 33 working days (25 April 2024 to 13 June 2024) – which was not in line with its policy
    2. it is not known when the landlord responded to the door complaint at stage 1 – which does not demonstrate good record keeping
    3. the landlord responded to both complaints at stage 2 within 57 working days (20 June 2024 to 9 September 2024) – which was not in line with its policy
21. The landlord’s responses were significantly delayed at both stages, and it did not acknowledge the resident’s complaints, despite her chasing for acknowledgement several times. However, the landlord did recognise its complaint handling failures in its stage 2 response and offered £150 compensation. This offer of compensation was proportionate to its failings and in line with our remedies guidance.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

22. The landlord did not keep good repairs records, particularly in relation to sub-contractors, leading to it raising jobs but not following them through to completion. The landlord should consider how it manages repairs that have been sub-contracted, to ensure it maintains oversight of these.

Communication

23. The landlord’s records do not show that its overall communication was good. It did not keep the resident regularly updated throughout the repairs process, relying instead on the resident to chase it for updates. It should be more proactive in keeping its residents updated while investigations and repairs are ongoing.