London Borough of Ealing (202127572)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202127572

London Borough of Ealing

11 June 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:
1. Repairs in the resident’s home following a leak.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy of a flat. The resident’s landlord is a local authority. The resident has several medical conditions requiring ongoing treatment, including a critical illness. These have a significant impact on her activities of daily living. She considers herself to be vulnerable.
The resident told the Ombudsman that the landlord intended to do work in her home in 2019-20, so she packed a large number of her belongings in storage boxes in her bedroom. The work did not go ahead due to Covid-19 restrictions, and was not rearranged, but many of the resident’s belongings are still in storage containers. She said that as a result she was not able to fully use her bedroom, so she was sleeping in her living room.
Between 17 and 19 February 2022 there was a large storm that affected the UK. The storm caused several tiles to fall from the roof of the resident’s building. This resulted in a heavy water leak into the living room of her property. The resident said that she called the landlord on 3 occasions on 20 February 2022 to report the leak. She emailed the landlord the following day, explaining that she was worried about the ceiling of her home collapsing, or the electrics being affected.
The resident contacted the landlord, and her local councillor about the leak daily between 24 and 28 February 2022. She explained that due to the ongoing water leak, she had bought a tarpaulin to cover her belongings. The resident said that the landlord inspected the property on 28 February 2022. She said it told her it did not believe that the ceiling in her property would collapse, and it would arrange an urgent repair of the roof.
The resident continued to contact her councillor and the landlord about the leak between 1 and 17 March 2022. She explained that whenever it rained, the heavy leak in her flat continued. Water was pooling on the tarpaulin covering her belongings and she had purchased a large bucket to collect water, but this was too heavy for her to lift and empty. She asked the landlord to visit her home, or to consider a temporary solution to repairing the leak, as further bad weather was forecast.
As the landlord had not updated her, the resident contacted the Ombudsman for support. On 17 March 2022, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord and asked it to respond to the resident’s concerns at stage 1 of its complaints process. It responded on 19 April 2022, upholding her complaint and saying:
1. It apologised for the delay in responding to her complaint.
2. There were nationwide shortages in labour and building materials which had led to delays in repairs.
3. The resident had reported further repairs in her bathroom, toilet, kitchen, and hallway. It had inspected the repairs and after the leak to the roof was fixed, it would:
  1. Repair 2, one-meter-long cracks in the resident’s living room ceiling.
  2. Fill holes in the walls of the property.
  3. Change the taps in the kitchen and bathroom.
  4. Treat damp around the hallway window.
4. Its survey report did not say the resident needed to be decanted (moved temporarily) from the property so these repairs could be carried out.
The landlord repaired the resident’s toilet on 19 April 2022. Following a phone conversation, it emailed the resident on 22 April 2022 to tell her that it would begin the repair for the roof leak on 26 April 2022. It said:
1. As scaffolding was required it would probably need to return on another date to complete the repair. It would update her after the 27 April 2022.
2. It had offered to try to carry out a temporary repair in her home in the meantime, but she had declined this, saying she would prefer for it to complete a permanent repair to the building.
3. It had repaired her toilet.
4. It would carry out pest control treatment to the resident’s home and the building.
5. After the roof was repaired, the landlord would do the internal repairs. It summarised the repairs agreed following its survey on 28 March 2022, and in addition said it would repair:
  1. The resident’s bath panel.
  2. A crack in her bedroom.
  3. It would replace her kitchen extractor fan.
6. It had discussed rehousing with the resident, but she told it that she would prefer to stay in her home if it completed the repairs promptly.
The resident responded to the landlord’s email on 24 April 2022, saying in addition:
1. Her kitchen cabinets were worn out and the hinges were rusty.
2. There were holes in the property, some of which the landlord had caused, which were contributing to the rodent problem. She had tried to fill the holes.
3. She requested a surveyor visit her property to assess the ongoing roofing issues.
On 5 October 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to ask for an update on the repairs to her home. She asked if the landlord could temporarily store her belongings so the repair could be done. She explained that she had discomfort on her left side due to her health problems and was unable to move her belongings herself. On 26 October 2022, she sent a further email as the landlord had not responded. She said she had been in hospital and was receiving specialist nursing care.
The resident was admitted to hospital on 12 December 2022. She was in hospital for around 50 days and was discharged on 6 February 2023. Initially she stayed with friends and then paid privately for a B&B. In its capacity as a local authority and in line with its homelessness obligations, the landlord gave the resident emergency accommodation in a hostel on 13 February 2023.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman for support in escalating her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process. Following correspondence from the Ombudsman, the landlord responded to the resident at stage 2 of its complaints process on 20 March 2023. It upheld her complaint, saying:
1. The repairs it logged after its survey of the property had been cancelled.
2. It arranged further repairs for the 23 February 2023 but the resident did not provide access for the appointment.
3. It had rearranged the appointment for 27 March 2023.
The resident asked a friend to support her for the appointment on 23 March 2023, but the landlord did not attend. The landlord inspected the property on 18 April 2024. It said that due to the mouse infestation, it could not do repairs in the resident’s home until and environmental clean had been done.
The landlord called the resident on 16 October 2023 and asked the resident to provide a key to her home so it could clean it.
On 4 December 2023 the landlord contacted the resident. It said that, as it had not heard from her, it assumed that she had not arranged for her home to be cleaned. It said she was required to provide access for works, and if she did not do so, it would take legal action as it considered that her home posed a risk to other residents in her building. It asked her to give a date for access within 2 weeks, and said if she did not, it would end her stay in the hostel, and arrange to do the works with her in occupation of her home.
In March 2024, the resident made a further complaint to the landlord. She said:
1. The landlord was not taking reasonable steps to protect her belongings when she was in temporary accommodation due to the risk of a further leak, the mouse infestation, and through the chemical clean the landlord was proposing to do in her home.
2. She asked the landlord to store her belongings until the repairs were done at her flat.
The landlord responded to the resident at stage 1 of its complaints process on 23 April 2024. It said:
1. The resident was offered temporary accommodation due to the condition of her home and the infestation. This had since worsened. It needed to do a deep clean in her home due to the infestation.
2. It could repair the resident’s property with her in occupation. As such, it was not required to store her belongings. The items she wanted stored also needed to be deep cleaned so it would be more practical for them to remain in the property.
3. It had contacted her to arrange access to her home for the works, but she had not responded. It asked her to email it to arrange access to her home.
As of the date of this report, no repairs have been done in the resident’s home and she is still living in hostel accommodation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

According to paragraph 42.a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in our opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member landlord’s complaints procedure. The resident told the Ombudsman that the landlord intended to do repairs in her home in 2019-20, but these were not completed due to Covid-19 restrictions and were not rearranged. As this is not part of the resident’s formal complaint to the landlord, it is outside the scope of our investigation, but has been considered for contextual purposes only.
Paragraph 41 d. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme says that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which concern matters in respect of local housing authorities in England which do not relate to their provision or management of social housing. The resident has concerns about her landlord’s handling of her council tax account and feels that the temporary accommodation she was offered was not suitable for her. These issues do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Housing Ombudsman and instead fall under the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. If the resident wants to pursue these issues further, she may wish to contact the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman for advice.
The resident has disclosed serious health conditions to the Ombudsman. She feels that the landlord’s handling of her concerns has negatively affected her health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s testimony and we were sorry to hear of the health issues she is experiencing. However, it is outside our remit to establish if there was a direct link between the action or inaction of the landlord and the specific health conditions of the resident. We will consider any distress and inconvenience the resident may have experienced because of errors by the landlord as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her health.

The landlord’s record keeping

The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management, available on our website, says that records should tell the “full story” of what happened, when and why. In this case, the landlord’s records did not do this. For example:
1. Some of the correspondence and calls that the resident told us about are not reflected in the landlord’s records. These range from reports of repairs to conversations between the resident and her housing officer, and the resident and senior members of staff.
2. Emails between the landlord and the resident show it met with her on 2 November 2022 but there are no records of what was discussed in the meeting.
3. The landlord told the Ombudsman that it last attempted to arrange to clean the property on 10 January 2024, but it did not provide any evidence of this in its repair logs. This suggests its records are incomplete.
There are discrepancies in the landlord’s repairs information. For example, the landlord has recorded several repairs as “completed” that it has not carried out, including the environmental deep clean and the internal repairs to the resident’s home. Additionally, some of the landlord’s repair records are unclear. One repair record says that the landlord completed ‘various repairs’. This is not specific and does not provide the full story of what has happened.
The landlord should carry out a self-assessment against the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management to ensure that its record keeping practices are robust and fit for purpose.

The initial leak

The landlord’s responsive repairs operational procedure says it will complete emergency repairs on the next working day, routine and urgent repairs on the next available date within 15 working days, and planned repairs within 60 working days. It also says that in certain circumstances it will carry out additional repairs at its discretion for elderly or vulnerable residents.
The storm that damaged the roof of the resident’s home caused significant damage nationwide. While landlords should account for peaks and troughs in demand when considering their resourcing, it is reasonable to expect some repairs to take longer when there are storms of this scale which cannot be anticipated.
In this case, the landlord needed scaffolding to repair the roof of the building. The roof repair was therefore a planned rather a routine repair, in line with the repairs operational procedure. The landlord repaired the property 3 months after the storm which was within its responsive repairs operational procedure timescale for planned repairs.
However, the landlord’s response to the initial leak did not show consideration of the individual circumstances of the resident’s case, and its communication with the resident was inadequate. For example, the resident reported the leak as an emergency several times before the landlord responded. On 21 February 2024 she said that she was worried her ceiling would collapse and that her electrics could have been affected. As these situations would be emergencies, the landlord should have gone to the property within 24 hours to assess the issue. It did not do so. The evidence seen as part of this investigation indicates that the resident called the landlord at least 6 times and contacted her local councillor before the landlord assessed the property on 28 February 2022. The resident told her local councillor that as she was “in a panic” her neighbour supported her and “monitored her progress in making the emergency calls”. It is inappropriate for residents to have to make multiple calls to report an emergency before a landlord responds. The landlord’s inaction caused the resident distress, as she was worried that her property was unsafe.
After it inspected the property, the landlord said that the ceiling would not collapse and the electrics were safe. The resident said the operative who attended told her they would make an urgent request for the roof repair. This was appropriate. However, there is no evidence the landlord took any further action to assess the repairs needed within the resident’s property until it inspected on 28 March 2022. This did not show that the landlord was treating the repair as urgent.
Although the landlord repaired the roof in a reasonable timescale, as the leak in the resident’s property was serious, it should have immediately assessed whether it could carry out any temporary repairs to reduce the impact of the leak on the resident. The landlord spoke to the resident on 22 April 2022 and offered to attempt a temporary repair before it began the permanent repair. While this offer was appropriate, by this date the leak had been ongoing for 2 months, so the offer should have been made much sooner.
The leak in the property continued whenever it rained. The resident said that when she reported the leak to the landlord in the daytime, it was not raining, so the landlord did not treat the leak as an emergency. It rained at night, but when she called, she was told that there were no roofers available and asked to call back the following day. This indicates that the landlord did not take a holistic view of the situation and will have increased the resident’s distress.
The landlord has a “flag” on the resident’s account indicating that she is vulnerable. However, it told the Ombudsman that the flag does not specify the nature of the resident’s vulnerability, although it holds information elsewhere of some of the resident’s health conditions. This is not appropriate, as the purpose of recording vulnerability is to enable the landlord to respond to the resident’s specific needs and make reasonable adjustments where required in its service delivery. It is not able to do this unless information about the resident’s circumstances is accessible to staff who need it. The landlord is ordered to contact the resident in a way that is convenient to her to discuss updating its records to reflect her personal circumstances. The landlord should specifically explain how much information it will record and which departments/teams will have access to this information. For example, it should say if it will record a specific medical diagnosis, or only the impact of the diagnosis on the resident’s day-to-day activities, such as reduced mobility. It should also tell the resident how recording the information could affect its service offer. This may reassure the resident about how her personal information will be used.
Landlords should show professional curiosity and take a person-centred approach to service provision. This enables them to offer the best service to residents. In this case, the landlord did not do this. For example, as the resident has medical conditions that affect her mobility, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to ask the resident if she was able to manage the leak before it was repaired, but there is no evidence it did so. It should also have considered carrying out a welfare visit at the resident’s home. This would have given it a good idea of how she was coping and may have helped to build rapport. The resident asked for a home visit on 3 March 2022, but there is no evidence that the landlord visited. This may have led the resident to feel the landlord did not care about her wellbeing.
The landlord’s actions did not reflect the significant impact of the leak on the resident’s wellbeing. For example:
1. The resident bought a large, commercial sized bucket and other water containers to attempt to contain the leak, but due to her reduced mobility, she was unable to lift them to empty them. This will have been worrying for her.
2. As many of her personal belongings were stored in her bedroom, the resident was sleeping in her living room, the room affected by the leak. She said that when it rained, she was woken by the sound of the leak at night, and she could not sleep.
3. She bought a tarpaulin to cover her personal belongings. This would have further reduced the usable space in her home and meant that she could not access some items.
4. Although the Ombudsman cannot determine if the resident’s living conditions during this period had a detrimental impact on her health, the resident said she was worried about this and she reported these concerns to the landlord.
The landlord should have contacted the resident regularly to update her on when the roof would be repaired. This may have reassured her that her concerns were being taken seriously and would be resolved. However, the evidence seen as part of this investigation indicates that the landlord did not always respond to the resident, and it did not tell her when the roof would be fixed for 2 months after she reported the repair. This will have increased her distress and resulted in her spending additional time and effort in pursuing the repair. For example, she contacted multiple services for support, including 2 local councillors, her MP, and adult social care, as well as contacting the landlord. On one occasion, she told her local councillor that she “had not coped very well”.
In the circumstances of the case, if a temporary repair was not possible, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider decanting (temporarily moving) the resident. The landlord’s decant procedure says that its surveyors usually identify whether a decant is needed following a property inspection. In its complaint response, the landlord said that there was “no information” about a decant in the surveyor report from its survey on 28 March 2022. This suggests it did not consider a decant. Going forward, the landlord should consider including comments on whether a decant is appropriate in the circumstances of each case when it carries out repairs surveys. It should also ensure its surveyors are adequately trained to consider vulnerability as part of their assessment of whether a decant would be needed.
The landlord’s inaction and failure to consider the resident’s personal circumstances in its handling of the initial leak caused her distress and led her to spend considerable time and effort pursuing the issues. The landlord is ordered to pay £500 for the avoidable distress and inconvenience caused to the resident between February and May 2022. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, available on our website, says that awards in this range are appropriate where maladministration by the landlord has adversely affected a resident.
When it inspected the resident’s property on 28 March 2022, the landlord identified several repairs that needed to be completed in the resident’s home. It completed the repair to the resident’s toilet on 19 April 2022, which was a reasonable timeframe. The landlord said that it would do the remaining repairs after the roof was fixed. However, although the roof was fixed in May 2022, there is no evidence that it attempted to complete the other repairs for a further 8 months, and they are still outstanding. This was not appropriate and will have undermined the resident’s trust in the landlord. In future the landlord should ensure it actively monitors repairs so that they are progressed in a timely manner.

Repairs and proposed environmental clean in the resident’s home after she was discharged from hospital

After the resident was discharged from hospital, the landlord offered her accommodation in a hostel. She signed a license agreement for the hostel on 13 February 2023. Initially the landlord arranged to meet with her at the property on 22 February 2023, for a further inspection. This was a reasonable timescale. The resident cancelled the appointment as she had another appointment at the same time. This delay was unavoidable and was outside of the landlord’s control.
The resident did not feel another inspection was needed as the landlord had already inspected the property. As almost a year had passed since its last inspections and there were concerns about the suitability of the property as a hospital discharge location, it was reasonable of the landlord to suggest another inspection, but it should have explained its reasoning to the resident.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord sent the resident a repairs appointment. While it is sometimes necessary to arrange a repairs appointment without speaking to the resident, it would have shown greater customer focus if the landlord had contacted the resident to check that she was available.
The resident arranged for an advocate to attend the inspection with her, but the landlord did not come. The resident’s advocate said that they waited in the property for 5 hours, and that although they called the landlord they could not get through. The advocate said that long appointment slots were not appropriate for the resident as she was recovering from surgery and needed to arrange for an advocate to attend with her for support. The advocate asked the landlord to consider offering a shorter time slot for its next appointment.
The landlord explained that it did not come to the appointment as there had been a system error. While errors do happen, given the impact this had on the resident, the landlord should have tried to put things right. It would have been reasonable for it to offer the resident compensation for the missed appointment, in line with its complaints protocol, and to have rearranged the appointment for a shorter timeslot at a convenient time, as suggested by the resident’s advocate. The landlord should have considered the fact that it would be more difficult for the resident to attend appointments with a long timeframe as she was not staying at the property at the time and needed to arrange for someone to come with her in view of her vulnerabilities. The landlord failed to do this, arranging another long appointment slot without asking the resident if she was available. This may have caused the resident to feel that the landlord did not care about the impact of its error. It also cost her time and effort to reschedule the appointment while she was recuperating from surgery. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 in compensation for the inconvenience caused by this missed appointment.
The resident asked that the survey appointment was rescheduled to a date after Easter, so the landlord carried out the survey on 19 April 2023. After the survey, the landlord recorded that there were mouse droppings throughout the resident’s home, so it would not be able to do work in the property without first doing an environmental clean. Without evidence of the level of infestation in the property, it is not possible for us to determine whether this was a reasonable assessment. In some circumstances it would be reasonable for a landlord to carry out an environmental clean before doing repairs in a property, as it has a responsibility to ensure a safe working environment for its staff. However, where this is the case, the landlord should act quickly to arrange preparatory works to ensure that it does not unreasonably delay repairs.
From the 19 April 2023 there are significant gaps in the landlord’s handling of the case. For example:
1. There is no evidence the landlord took further action to progress the repairs or the environmental clean until 17 July 2023. On 17 July 2023, the landlord emailed the resident saying it needed to temporarily move her so that it could do repairs in her home. This was not appropriate, as she had already been living in temporary accommodation for 5 months. This error by the landlord undermined the resident’s trust.
2. From July, there is no evidence the landlord took further action to progress the repairs until October 2023, when it asked the resident to give it a key to her home so it could do the repairs.
The landlord has not explained the reason for the gaps in its contact with the resident, so the Ombudsman considers that they were unacceptable, avoidable delays, which extended the resident’s stay in hostel accommodation by 6 months.
During this period, there was a lack of cohesion in the landlord’s response to the resident’s temporary move. For example:
1. Although it was aware that the resident had 2 concurrent tenancies (one in her home, and one at the hostel), there is no evidence it told her to apply for dual housing benefit. It would have been reasonable for it to do this as soon as she moved into the hostel unit. Given her personal circumstances at the time, it could then have offered her support in making the application. It did not offer this until October 2023, when she had been living in the hostel for 8 months. As a result, she accrued rent arrears, and the landlord served a notice of seeking possession (a legal notice served by a landlord before it takes a legal case to court) on the resident. This was distressing for the resident and may have been avoided if the landlord had taken a holistic view of the case and offered her appropriate support.
2. Additionally, although the landlord knew the resident was not staying at the property, it addressed the notice of seeking possession to her home address. There is no evidence it sent a copy to the hostel she was staying at. This was not reasonable and may have caused a delay in her taking action to resolve the issues.
The landlord met with the resident and her advocate on 2 November 2023. It was appropriate for the landlord to meet with the resident and her advocate in person, given the sensitivity of the issues it was discussing. As the landlord has not provided full records of the meeting, it is not possible to say what was discussed. This was a further record keeping failure. The landlord should ensure it makes contemporaneous records of meetings with residents in future, in line with best practice. The landlord later said that it had agreed with the resident that some of the items in her home may be contaminated with mouse droppings, so they would need to be cleaned before they could be stored. It said the resident had agreed to ask members of her church to assist with cleaning them, then moving them to 1 room of her home.
Following the meeting, the landlord emailed the resident on 6 November 2023, and said that it would like to do the environmental clean on 9 November 2023. It said that she did not need to be present for the deep clean to be carried out. This was not a reasonable suggestion. The resident had asked for time to arrange for people from her church to assist her in the property before the landlord did an environmental clean, and it would not be possible for her to arrange this with 3 days’ notice. The resident had understandable concerns about the impact an environmental clean may have on her belongings, so the landlord should have anticipated that she may not be comfortable with giving it keys to her home to do works without agreeing exactly what it would do. The resident refused the landlord’s proposed date and said she would inform it when she had arranged a date for people from the church to help her with cleaning.
The landlord emailed the resident on 4 December 2023 and said that it “assumed” that she had not arranged for the property to be cleaned as it had not heard from her. It said that she was required by her occupancy agreement to give access for works. It said it would take legal action if she did not do this, as it felt the property was a risk to the block. It also said it would end her hostel stay and do the work with her in occupation if she did not give it dates for access in the next 2 weeks. This was inappropriately heavy-handed, particularly given the resident’s vulnerability, and the long gaps in its own correspondence with the resident. These actions may have been perceived by the resident as threatening and will have undermined the landlord-tenant relationship further.
Legal action should only be taken as a last resort. The resident’s concerns about her personal belongings were understandable, and she ultimately wants to return to her home and for the works to be carried out. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to meet with the resident and her advocate in person again to discuss a solution that worked for both parties. For example, if the resident was having difficulty arranging for the clean to be carried out, the landlord could have arranged a joint inspection to assess with the resident which items needed to be disposed of because they were unsalvageable, and which could reasonably be stored. It could then arrange storage of her salvageable items so that the repairs could be carried out. This would have been a more reasonable response, in line with the resident’s requests that it store her belongings, and a more efficient use of the landlord’s resources. If this was attempted and was unsuccessful, then it may have been appropriate to consider legal action, but only at that stage.
The landlord has said that a decant is not needed, but this is not consistent with the local authority’s decision to house the resident in temporary accommodation due to the condition of her home. The landlord has said that since the resident has been living in temporary accommodation, the condition of her home had worsened. This is to be expected in an unoccupied property with a rodent infestation. As a result, the landlord feels the condition of the property is too poor for it to carry out repairs in. These descriptions indicate that the property condition is not suitable for a vulnerable resident to live in. As such, the landlord’s suggestion that it would terminate her stay in the hostel was inappropriate.
The landlord’s internal records also show that when it logged the environmental clean it noted that “lots of furniture needs to be thrown away”. There is no evidence it has agreed with the resident that it will dispose of any of her personal belongings, so this was not reasonable.
The landlord has not provided this investigation with evidence that it has made any further attempt to resolve the issue since December 2023. This is a further delay of 4 months. As the landlord has not explained the delay, the Ombudsman considers that this was unacceptable.
Cumulatively, the delays in the landlord acting to repair the resident’s home, and its heavy-handed approach have extended the time the resident has stayed in hostel accommodation by approximately 1 year as of the date of this report. This is particularly unacceptable as the landlord estimates that once the environmental clean is done, the repairs required in the property will take 1 week to complete.
The resident does not feel that hostel accommodation is suitable for her, due to her medical conditions. As explained above, it is outside of the Ombudsman’s remit to determine if hostel accommodation is suitable for the resident. However, hostel accommodation is not generally recommended for long periods of time and it is clear that living in hostel accommodation has had a significant detrimental impact on the resident’s wellbeing. If she was in her own property, she would not be experiencing these issues. For example:
1. She said the doors in the hostel hurt her fingers as they are too heavy.
2. She has shared bathroom facilities which is difficult for her due to her medical conditions.
3. She is unable to watch television or access the internet.
4. She cannot freely use the majority of her belongings, as there is no room to store them in the hostel room.
5. She cannot prepare food in the way she would at home. She prepares specific foods for her medical condition.
6. She has continued to pay bills for services she cannot use, including her utility, landline telephone, and internet bills.
7. She also told this Service she needs further medical treatment but is unwilling to have the treatment she needs while staying in hostel accommodation.
Cumulatively, the failures discussed in this report amount to severe maladministration by the landlord. To put things right for the resident, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Send the resident a formal apology for failures in its handling of the case, signed by its CEO.
2. Arrange to inspect the property with the resident, an advocate if she chooses, and a pest control professional, then:
  1. Mutually identify with the resident any of her personal belongings that are not salvageable.
  2. Ask the resident to sign a disclaimer, allowing it to dispose of any items that are not salvageable.
  3. Clean or store any items that are salvageable.
  4. Once the items have been stored, it should complete the repairs in the property within its published timescales.
3. The resident may wish to pursue a claim with the landlord’s liability insurer for items that have been damaged while she has not been living in her property. The landlord should give the resident the details of its liability insurer if it has one. If it does not have a liability insurer, the landlord should consider a claim internally and confirm its position to the resident in writing, including the reasons for its decision. It is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to investigate insurance matters and therefore we will not comment on this further.
4. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord’s actions in this case have prevented the resident from having use of her home from 24 April 2023 to the date of this report. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £7189.02 in compensation. This is calculated at 100% of the resident’s rent from 24 April 2023 to the date of this report. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance says that compensation in this range is appropriate where there have been serious failings by the landlord that have had a severe long-term impact on the resident.

The associated complaint

The landlord’s corporate complaints policy says that the landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. It says it will respond to residents at within 20 working days at both stages of its complaints process. This is not appropriate, as it does not align with the timescales in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which says that landlord should respond within 10 working days at stage 1 of their complaints process and 20 working days at stage 2 of their complaints process. The landlord should review its complaint handling timescales to ensure these align with the Code.
The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process 26 working days after receiving the resident’s complaint. It appropriately acknowledged and apologised for the delay in its response. It explained that it was working through a complaints backlog. While the landlord should have responded within its policy timescale, the delay was not excessive.
Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case the landlord’s complaint process lacked customer focus and did not answer all of the resident’s complaint.
For example, the resident complained about the length of time the landlord had taken to repair her roof. She said the outcome she wanted was for the landlord to repair the roof. The landlord appropriately explained that there was a delay in its roofing repairs and it was looking at a recovery action plan to address the backlog and prioritise repairs. However, it did not give the resident any information her specific roof repair. It did not say when it would repair the roof, or if her repair would be prioritised. This did not fully address the resident’s complaint and will have caused her further uncertainty.
The resident also complained that she had made several attempts to report the repair, and had spoken to various teams, but the landlord had not responded or visited her. To fully address the resident’s complaint, the landlord should have responded to this, but it did not do so.
Given that she had complained about a lack of contact from the landlord, and as her complaint came through a 3rd party, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to try to speak to the resident about her complaint, but there was no evidence it did so. If it had spoken to her, it could have given a more customer focussed response, noting some of the specific impact that the delays had on her. Its apology for “any inconvenience” the delay may have caused her may have felt impersonal to the resident and would not have reassured her that the landlord had learnt from its errors and would take steps to reduce the likelihood of similar issues reoccurring in future.
Cumulatively, these errors amount to maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £150 in recognition of the inconvenience and worry they will have caused her. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance says that awards in this range are appropriate where failures by the landlord have adversely affected the resident, but there has been no permanent impact. The complaint handling errors would not have caused a permanent impact as the landlord ultimately responded to the complaint and the resident was able to refer it to the Ombudsman for independent investigation.

Review of policies and practice

The Ombudsman has found maladministration (including severe maladministration) following several investigations into complaints raised with the landlord involving leaks. As a result of these, the Ombudsman issued a wider order to the landlord under paragraph 54.f of the Scheme. This is for the landlord to review its policy or practice in relation to the service failures identified, which may give rise to further complaints about the matter.
The Ombudsman ordered the landlord to carry out a review of its policy or practice in relation to responding to requests for repairs due to leaks. Some of the issues identified in this case are similar to the previous cases and so we have ordered the landlord to incorporate the learning from this complaint into the wider review, ordered as part of case 202226447. In addition to this, we have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case, which would duplicate those already made to landlord as part of the wider order.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s repairs following a leak.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Send the resident a formal apology for its handling of the case from its CEO, including apologies for:
  1. Delays to repairs in her home.
  2. Its failure to consider her individual circumstances.
  3. Its inadequate communication with the resident.
2. Pay the resident £7939.02 in compensation, comprising:
  1. £500 for the avoidable distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the delayed repairs and poor communication between February and May 2022
  2. £100 for the missed appointment on 27 March 2023.
  3. £150 for distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
  4. £7189.02 in reimbursement of the resident’s rent from 24 April 2023 to the date of this report.
3. Contact the resident in a way that is convenient to her to discuss updating its records to reflect her personal circumstances. The landlord should specifically explain how much information it will record. For example, it should say if it will record a specific medical diagnosis, or only the impact of the diagnosis on the resident’s day-to-day activities, such as reduced mobility. It should also tell the resident how recording the information could affect its service offer.
4. The landlord should give the resident the details of its liability insurer if it has one. If it does not have one, it should consider a liability claim for damage to the resident’s possessions internally and respond to her in writing confirming its decision on this claim and the reasons for this decision.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should arrange to inspect the property with the resident, an advocate if she chooses, and a pest control professional, then:
1. Mutually identify with the resident any items that are not salvageable.
2. Ask the resident to sign a disclaimer, allowing it to dispose of any items that are not salvageable.
3. Clean or store any items that are salvageable.
4. Once the items have been stored, it should complete the repairs in the property within its published timescales and assist the resident with returning her stored items to the property.
The landlord is ordered to consider the learning identified in this case part of the wider review ordered in case 202226447, which was recently determined by the Ombudsman.
The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with the orders made in this report.

Recommendations

The landlord should carry out a self-assessment against the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management, available on our webpage, to ensure that its record keeping practices are robust.
The landlord should consider its response to complex cases and how it can ensure this gives due consideration to the individual circumstances of each case. In particular:

a) How it can respond in a holistic, person centred way to complex cases.

b) How it shares information internally when residents are offered temporary accommodation.

c) Whether its surveyors are adequately trained to consider resident vulnerability as part of their assessment of whether a decant is needed.

d) It should consider including comments on whether a decant is appropriate in the circumstances of each residents case when it carries out repairs surveys.