London Borough of Newham (202226552)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202226552

London Borough of Newham

29 November 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 reports regarding:
1. Repairs to the loft hatch and insulation.
2. Plastering in the main bedroom.
3. Fencing in the garden.
4. The neighbour’s overhanging tree.
5. A leak in the bathroom and the subsequent damage caused in the property.
6. The complaint and level of compensation offered.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the property which is a 3-bedroom house. The landlord owns the property. However, it is managed by a managing agent, who responds to the resident’s reports on behalf of the landlord. For ease of reference, this report will refer to the landlord to mean both the landlord and its managing agent.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 6 February 2023. She said the complaint was regarding outstanding repairs and improvements in the property which she felt were in dispute. These were:
1. Loft hatch and insulation. The resident said the loft did not have a close fitting into the frame which was causing a draught in the property. The resident also said the property never had any loft or cavity wall insulation. She said that since she reported it again in January 2022, the house had become increasingly colder, not able to retain heat, and was costing more to heat. She said the landlord inspected the loft and walls in January 2023 and she did not receive an update. The resident said the landlord had since told her that she had until 15 February 2023 to clear her loft otherwise it would not fit the insulation. The resident raised health and safety concerns with clearing the loft.
2. Plastering. The main bedroom wall needed to be plastered. The resident said following a house fire in 2007 the plaster had blown and was falling off the walls. She said the landlord had not previously replastered the ceiling to a decent standard and it was now crumbling. She said the landlord inspected it on 21 December 2022 and 3 February 2023 and she had not received any update on the work required, despite chasing the landlord.
3. Fencing. The resident said on the left side of her property there was barely any fencing and the fence was collapsing. She referred to the neighbour as having an aggressive dog which barked every time it was in the garden. The resident said her fence on the right of her property was destroyed in 2022 and the fence at the back was dilapidated. She said there was no privacy on all 3 sides, which was preventing her from using and enjoying the garden. She said as the fences were all broken down, this allowed animals to enter her garden causing noise.
4. Trees. The resident said she had been asking the landlord to assist with the neighbour’s trees for years. She said the neighbour did not maintain their property which was affecting her property and the enjoyment of it. She said the trees had not been cut back and were too high, blocking the natural light. She said due to not having a fence, the branches and roots had grown into her garden and were causing a nuisance.
5. Bathroom leak. The resident said she had a leak in her bathroom in October 2022 which went through to her kitchen ceiling. She complained about the time the landlord had taken to respond to her report and she said the leak was stopped after a week. The resident said no follow up repairs had been completed, she said the bath panel was still off, and the kitchen ceiling was bowing, with a hole in it.
6. The resident said she had been reporting issues for years. She said there had been numerous inspections since June 2022 yet everything remained unresolved. She said she did not receive updates or inspection reports and had to continuously chase the landlord. The resident said the household had continuous coughs, colds, sneezing, and loss of circulation. She reiterated that the house was cold, and the indoor temperature was below 18 degrees.
7. She requested compensation for suffering with excess cold, stress, and wanted reimbursement for her energy bills. She said the issues had added to her anxiety and depression. The resident also requested copies of the reports from inspections, and information regarding her rent and council tax.
The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 9 February 2023. It said that its contractor had reached out to the resident with the aim of inspecting the loft and booking in the works. It acknowledged it was liaising with the resident regarding removing items from the loft to enable the work to go ahead. The landlord referred to a previous contractor who had stopped trading and of which it had no records, so it said it could not comment further. It said it had agreed the works and its contractor would contact her regarding undertaking all the outstanding repairs.
In relation to the fences, the landlord said the fence on the left-hand side was not its responsibility but that it had asked for a cost to replace it and would liaise with the neighbour. It confirmed the fences on the right and rear were its responsibility. It said it had agreed those works and its contractor would be in touch.
The landlord confirmed the trees were the responsibility of the neighbour but due to a lack of response from them, it would liaise with colleagues to determine next steps. It confirmed it had agreed the follow-on works from the bathroom leak and said its contractor would be in touch. The landlord apologised and acknowledged that sometimes it did not move as quickly as residents would like.
The resident contacted the landlord on 13 April 2023. She raised concerns regarding the work which had been undertaken so far to the bedrooms, kitchen, and fences. The resident said she was stressed about having to fix what had not been done properly. She said she felt it was intentional by the landlord because she had the nerve to request repairs. She said the neighbour’s vegetation continued to grow through to her side and she had not received any update from the landlord.
The resident said she had waited 15 months and now the repairs had gone ahead, they were completed to a poor standard. She said she should be offered a rent reduction for having to live in the conditions for many years and for the amount of stress and ill health caused to the household. She said her previous emails had gone unanswered and she wanted to submit a new complaint.
The resident’s mayor’s office contacted the landlord on 17 May 2023 to say they had been approached by the resident who raised concerns about the standard of the repairs carried out in her property. They said she was no longer agreeing for works to be done and that they believe she should be compensated for the stress, ill-health, time, and money incurred.
The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 9 June 2023. The landlord confirmed that in a post inspection on 5 May 2023, it identified that the works were not completed to the expected standards. It said there were several defects in the kitchen, bedroom, and new fencing.
It said remedial works were booked for 9 May 2023, however, the resident stated that she no longer wanted works to be completed by the landlord. It said it followed up again on 24 May 2023 and 30 May 2023 in which she confirmed her position. The landlord said it was unclear how long the repair issues had been going on for, however, it wanted to offer compensation of £250 for the time, trouble, delay, and distress caused. It also apologised and said it hoped they could find a way forward to complete the repairs.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. She complained about the landlord’s approach to dealing with her complaint and the actions of the landlord following a fire in the property prior to the managing agent’s involvement. The resident disputed the landlord’s account in its stage 2 response and said she was not contacted following the inspection on 5 May 2023, nor did she receive an inspection report. She felt the compensation was an insult and wanted to be offered compensation which reflected all the issues and the impact on herself and her family.

Post internal complaints procedure

The landlord contacted the resident on 14 September 2023. It confirmed it had met with the resident on 7 September 2023 to agree a plan to complete the outstanding works. It said arrangements had been made for the neighbour’s tree to be cut back. It advised there was a 6-8 week wait and once it received a date it would advise the resident. It said a fence would be erected on the left and the neighbour’s existing fence would remain in situ. The landlord acknowledged that the resident did not want her bedroom ceiling to be renewed, and it said it would send an allowance of £53 to redecorate her kitchen ceiling. It acknowledged the time taken to get to that position and offered a further £250 in compensation.
The resident has confirmed that she remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the issues. She said she would like a full investigation into the landlord’s handling of the repairs since the fire in her property in 2007. The resident also raised concerns about the relationship between the managing agent and the landlord and how this had impacted her experience.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident has referred to the landlord’s handling of repairs since a fire in the property in 2007. Paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. As such, this investigation will focus on events raised in the resident’s formal complaint from January 2022 up to the landlord’s stage 2 response in June 2023. Separate issues, and events that pre and post-date the complaints procedure have not been investigated and are referenced for contextual purposes only.
The resident has referred to her household’s health and how the landlord’s handling of the repairs could have had an impact on this. It is beyond the remit of the Ombudsman to determine whether there would have been a direct link between the actions or lack of action by the landlord and any subsequent impact on the resident’s health. Although we cannot assess the impact of the landlord’s actions on the resident’s health, consideration has been given to any likely distress and inconvenience which the resident may have experienced as a result of the situation.

Repairs to the loft hatch and insulation.

As part of this investigation, the Ombudsman was not provided with the repairs policy. Therefore, it was difficult to determine whether the landlord’s actions were always in line with its policies. However, in the absence of that information, the Ombudsman has considered whether the landlord’s actions were fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to make repairs to the structure and exterior of the property. Landlords also have a responsibility to keep properties free from category one hazards, as per the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), which includes excess cold.
The resident reported the issues with insulation on 25 January 2022. The landlord initially signposted the resident to its energy company obligation scheme. The resident highlighted that she was not eligible due to having an energy efficiency rating of C. She said there was no loft or cavity wall insulation, and it was costing her too much to heat the home. The landlord responded the next day to say it would request a heat survey to be carried out at her property and any recommendations would be reviewed by a manager.
Given the resident’s concerns and the landlord’s responsibilities under the HHSRS, the landlord’s response to the resident’s initial report was appropriate. By carrying out a survey, it would satisfy itself that the property met the required standards, or it could follow up on any recommendation to improve the property’s energy efficiency.
The landlord’s records do not indicate when the survey took place, and the survey report has not been provided. However, in an email to the resident dated 6 June 2022, the landlord confirmed that the inspection found the resident’s home was adequately heated but there was a need for insulation. It referred to other properties which needed additional insulation and that it intended to complete the improvements during 2022 – 2023. It acknowledged the resident’s frustration and said it was working to get the properties insulated before winter began. While the Ombudsman does not know the date of the survey, the landlord’s findings were provided 4 months after it committed to carrying out a survey, which was not appropriate.
It is important to note that social landlords have limited resources and are expected to manage those resources responsibly, to the benefit of all their residents. Therefore, it can be reasonable for landlords to replace items such as insulation, as part of a planned programme of works rather than on an ad-hoc basis. However, the landlord’s response did not manage the resident’s expectations as it initially stated that improvements could be in 2022 or 2023 and then ended stating that it was aiming to insulate properties before winter 2022.
The resident and her local councillor contacted the landlord again on 16 December 2022 to say she had been enquiring about loft insulation since January 2022. She said she was living in excess cold and because of this there were knock on effects to her family’s health and her energy bills. The resident said the loft hatch was also causing a draught, and it had still not been repaired. The landlord confirmed on 23 December 2022 that the loft hatch works had been booked in for 3 January 2023. It said its contractor had contacted the resident with the aim of inspecting the loft and booking in the works after.
It is unclear from the records when the loft hatch was first reported, however, the resident stated that the loft hatch works were completed on 7 February 2023, not 3 January 2023. It is unclear why there was a delay from the initial confirmation of 3 January 2023. In the absence of this information, it is difficult for the Ombudsman to determine whether the landlord’s response to the repairs to the loft hatch were reasonable, in all the circumstances.
Following the inspection, the contractor confirmed that cavity and loft insulation would be required. It said a large number of items in the loft would need to be cleared beforehand. The evidence shows that there were delays due to arranging for the loft to be cleared and risk assessing the impact of any weight in the loft on the bowed ceiling in the main bedroom. Given the resident’s reports of excess cold and the delays, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider any temporary measures it could take to ensure the property was warm enough in the interim. The records do not state when the insulation works were completed. As such, the Ombudsman is again unable to determine whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable.
The landlord contacted the resident on 13 March 2023 to state that during a recent inspection, the resident’s property was cold, but the radiators were not turned on. It said the resident explained this was due to the cost of heating and lack of insulation. The landlord said that the insulation works would assist with this, but the property also needed to be warmed. The resident has stated that the landlord should have reimbursed her for her energy bills.
Due to the lack of insulation in the property, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered any reported increase in bills. Due to the time which has passed it may now be difficult for the resident to evidence this. However, an order will be made for the landlord to contact the resident to outline what suitable evidence she could provide for its consideration.
Overall, the landlord initially acted reasonably in arranging a heat survey following the resident’s reports. Nevertheless, in the absence of the survey and sufficient repair records, the Ombudsman cannot conclude that the landlord’s follow-on actions were appropriate, in all the circumstances. The records do not state when the insulation was completed but it is evident that there were prolonged gaps in the landlord’s communication which likely impacted the resident. The stage 2 response was an opportunity for the landlord to address any delays in its handling of the issues and to consider the resident’s request for compensation, and it did not do so, which was a failing.
The Ombudsman has therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the loft hatch and insulation.

Plastering in the main bedroom

In her email dated 16 December 2022, the resident stated that the plaster in her bedroom was blown, cracked, and was falling off the wall. She said due to this her blinds were about to fall off the wall too. She said this was confirmed by the landlord in July 2022, October 2022, and November 2022. She said a further visit had been booked for 21 December 2022. The resident said she felt the visit would just be to look at the walls again. She said a previous contractor spoke about cutting out the defective parts and re-doing them but in her opinion, the whole room needed to be replastered.
In its email dated 28 December 2022, the landlord stated that it could not comment on the quality of the works or cause of any cracking as the previous works took place before the managing agent was in place. It said a visit had been booked for 21 December 2022 and it would chase the works following the visit.
The landlord’s response was confusing as the visit it referred to would have already taken place at the time of providing the response. Also, the managing agent was in place at the time of the visits mentioned by the resident so there was no reason that it could not have provided its position and findings from those visits. It was unclear why the landlord would have needed to attend the property 4 times prior to determining whether it had any repair responsibilities. Unfortunately, the landlord’s records do not reference all the visits referred to by the resident nor do they outline what the landlord’s findings were.
In its stage 1 response the landlord referred to the visit in December 2022. It said it had agreed the works, and its contractor would be in touch to arrange them. The resident continued to raise the issue with the landlord and said an operative was sent on 7 February 2023 to “polyfill” the cracks, but she felt the bedroom needed to be replastered.
On 13 March 2023, the landlord confirmed that the bedroom ceiling still had a slight bow and needed to be renewed. It identified further defects with the plaster in other areas of the bedroom and said they needed to be “made good”. When escalating her complaint, the resident said the ceiling in her bedroom and another bedroom were more than slightly bowed. She said the contractors had been instructed to cut out small sections of plaster and they did not replace all the ceiling boards. She said this had made the matters worse.
The landlord’s stage 2 response dated 9 June 2023 acknowledged that the works to the bedroom ceiling did not remedy the bowing, it also stated that the plaster which had blown needed to be rectified and redecorated. It noted that the resident was no longer allowing access for the works to be completed and apologised for its failures. It offered compensation in recognition of the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused to the resident.
While the Ombudsman finds the landlord went some way to put right its failures, the landlord failed to consider the mistakes it made since the visit in July 2022 and what it could have done differently. It remains unclear why so many visits were required to inspect the bedroom and why it took so long to remedy the issue. Its responses at times, such as referring to not having records, were not appropriate and lacked accountability for the time period when it should have had access to the records. It is concerning that the works were not carried out sufficiently on more than one occasion and the landlord did not provide any reassurance to the resident that it would not happen again.
The Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the plastering to the main bedroom.

Fencing in the garden.

On 8 December 2022, the local councillor forwarded on an email from the resident to the landlord. The email referred to the damaged garden fencing and the impact this has had on the resident’s property and privacy. The resident said her daughters would not go into the garden due to the risks of the neighbour’s dog getting into her garden. She said that a contractor visited a few months prior but she had not heard anything, despite an initial visit in June 2022. In the landlord’s response to the councillor dated 23 December 2022, it said the fencing it was responsible for should have been replaced and it would request an update from its contractor. It said it had requested quotes for the fence belonging to the neighbour, but it was not its responsibility and it would see if it could replace it, but it was budget restricted.
While the landlord confirmed that it should have replaced the fence it was responsible for, it did not provide the reasons why it had not already done so. This suggests that the landlord did not have oversight of the repairs. While the landlord said it would request an update from its contractor, the repairs were not initially completed until end March/early April 2023. The delay in carrying out the repairs to the fence and the lack of communication from the landlord in handling the issue was not appropriate.
The landlord’s response in relation to the fencing which the neighbour was responsible for was reasonable. It appropriately managed the resident’s expectations in outlining that it was not responsible for the fence but that it would consider the costs to replace it. The landlord confirmed on 13 March 2023 that it would add further fencing on the neighbour’s side while leaving the neighbour’s original fence in situ. While there were delays in reaching that decision, it is important to note that the landlord did not have any requirement to add, repair, or replace the fence and its decision to consider doing so was discretionary. It appears there was further delay in constructing the fence which may have been due to requiring the neighbour to clear the vegetation beforehand.
The resident reported concerns regarding the neighbour’s dog. While the Ombudsman acknowledges the likely distress caused to the resident regarding the stability of the neighbour’s fence, no evidence has been provided to suggest the dog could or did enter her property. There were also no other reports of it being a nuisance. It was reasonable therefore that the landlord did not take any further action in relation to the neighbour’s dog. However, it could have acknowledged the resident’s report and advised the resident of its responsibilities and the steps it could take should the situation escalate.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that the new fencing it had replaced on the side of the property it was responsible for was resting on loose timbers and needed fixing with a bracket. It is disappointing that the initial works were not carried out to a satisfactory standard and a recommendation will be made for the landlord to review this case with its contractors to consider lessons learnt, if it has not already done so.
The resident has informed the Ombudsman that the repairs to the fence which the landlord was responsible for have still not been completed to a satisfactory standard. She said the fence was falling apart. As this was reported following the stage 2 response and the landlord has not had the opportunity to respond to the resident’s reports, this will not be considered as part of the investigation. However, the Ombudsman recommends that the landlord inspects the fence.
While the impact of the delays and the repeated repairs likely impacted the resident in her time and effort expended in having to raise the issues again. The landlord did acknowledge this in its stage 2 response, it apologised for its failures and offered compensation. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where a landlord has offered suitable redress to resolve a complaint. This assessment considers whether the landlord offered reasonable redress for its acknowledged failings in accordance with our Dispute Resolution Principles, to be fair; put things right; and learn from outcomes.
At the time of the stage 2 response, the landlord’s offer of redress was fair and aimed to put things right for the resident. Further learning regarding the repeated reports would have been beneficial but overall, the Ombudsman has found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the reports regarding fencing in the garden.

The neighbour’s overhanging trees.

Under common law, branches may be pruned from trees and hedges without the owner’s consent if they overhang a neighbouring property. However, this must be done without trespassing on the neighbouring property. The Government’s website provides further guidance on this.
On 16 December 2022 and via her councillor the resident reported that the neighbour’s tree was so large that it blocked most of the natural light. She said the tree and its roots were encroaching on her garden and causing damage. In its response to the councillor on 28 December 2022 the landlord said the tree fell under the responsibility of the neighbour. It said its housing team had requested that the tree was looked at, but it did not receive a response from the neighbour. It said further enquiries would be made for assistance with the matter.
In her formal complaint dated 2 February 2023, the resident said she had been asking the landlord for help regarding the tree for years. She reiterated that her neighbours were not maintaining their property and branches and roots from the tree had grown into her garden and was becoming a nuisance.
The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence which disputes that the land the tree was on was owned by a private owner. As the land was not owned by the landlord, it was reasonable for the landlord to contact the landowner to notify them of any nuisance and consider any further action it could take, which it stated that it did.
The resident continued to report the issue to the landlord. The landlord confirmed in its stage 1 response that due to the lack of response from the neighbour it would consult internally regarding what it could do in relation to the tree. As the landlord had previously stated it would make further enquiries for assistance with the matter, its response was not appropriate and suggests that the landlord was not proactive in its handling of the issue. By not making the further enquiries it initially stated it would do, this unreasonably delayed the issue and caused the resident to have to complain about the issue again.
It is disappointing that in her complaint escalation, the resident continued to report the issue and said she had not had any updates. It is also disappointing that the landlord did not provide a response or update in relation to the tree in its stage 2 response. The Ombudsman understands that the tree was cut back by the landlord in November 2023. This was almost a year after the resident first reported the issue within the scope of this investigation. The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord was not the legal owner of the land and the tree, and this may have contributed to the delays. However, there were prolonged periods in which the landlord failed to communicate with and update the resident regarding its decision making, which was not appropriate.
Overall, the landlord’s lack of communication to the resident and lack of response in its stage 2 response was not appropriate. It is also the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord should have made and executed the decision to cut back the tree sooner. Given the delays, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have apologised for its failings and considered redress in line with its compensation policy. The Ombudsman has therefore found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the neighbour’s overhanging tree.

A leak in the bathroom and the subsequent damage caused in the property.

In her formal complaint the resident complained about the time taken for the landlord to respond to a leak which occurred in her bathroom. She also complained about the lack of remedial work required from the subsequent damage. She said the bath panel was still off, and the kitchen ceiling was bowed with a hole in it.
The Ombudsman would assume that an uncontainable leak would have been recorded as an emergency by the landlord and should have been responded to within 24 hours. The resident stated that it was not stopped until after a week which would not have been appropriate. The landlord’s records do show an immediate repair was raised on 7 November 2022. The notes stated that “water is dripping/leaking through the ceiling” and the repair was marked as completed. In the absence of the date of the initial report and the date of completion, the Ombudsman cannot conclude that the landlord’s actions were reasonable. The landlord had an opportunity to clarify its position and dispute any information which it deemed to be incorrect in its stage 1 response and it did not.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord stated that follow on works were not raised following the repair to the leak. The landlord confirmed it would review the kitchen ceiling on 21 December 2022 and it had raised a repair for the bath panel on 3 January 2023. It then said the works had been agreed and its contractor would be in touch to arrange the works. Similar to the plastering, the landlord’s response was confusing as the dates provided had already passed. If it had already reviewed the ceiling, it would have been appropriate for it to have shared the findings and the reasons why the repairs remained incomplete. The resident stated in her formal complaint that the bath panel was still off, therefore it is unclear what action was taken on 3 January 2023, if any.
In an email to the landlord dated 17 February 2023, the resident confirmed that the bath panel was fixed. She said the kitchen ceiling was reboarded and replastered on 7 February 2023, but it was unfinished. In an email dated 13 March 2023, the landlord acknowledged that the works to the kitchen ceiling had not been fully completed, it said it would chase this. It was disappointing that the work was outstanding, and the landlord could not offer an explanation for why the works had not been completed.
In the stage 2 response dated 9 June 2023, the landlord acknowledged again that the kitchen ceiling works had not been completed to a satisfactory standard. It said works were booked in for 9 May 2023, however, the resident stated that she no longer wished for the works to be done by the landlord or its contractor.
While the Ombudsman recognises the resident’s decision made it difficult for the landlord to make good the repair, almost 7 months had passed since the resident first reported the leak. In that time, the resident had to repeatedly chase the landlord and re-raise the issue following sub-standard repairs, which was not appropriate. It is clear that this had impacted the landlord-tenant relationship. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided assurances to the resident on how it would not repeat the same mistakes again.
Overall, there were unnecessary delays in the landlord’s handling of the repairs following the leak which caused subsequent damage in the property. It is unclear whether the landlord’s initial response to the leak was appropriate, however, the landlord had an opportunity to provide its position on this and it is a failing that it did not do so. It is evident that there was a lack of oversight with the repairs which likely caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. The landlord accepted some responsibility for its failures in the stage 2 response and offered compensation. However, it did not outline what action it would take to ensure similar failings would not happen again which may have helped provide some reassurance to the resident.
The Ombudsman has therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the leak and the subsequent damage caused in the property.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint and level of compensation offered.

The landlord’s complaints policy provided for a 2 stage complaints procedure in which it responds to a complaint at stage 1 within 10 working days. It states that if the complainant does not agree with the outcome of the investigation, a stage 2 review may be requested. The policy says a stage 2 response will be provided within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that compensation can be considered for time, trouble, delay, and distress. It suggests payments in the range of £50 to £150 for time and trouble depending on the impact. It suggests payments in the range of £50 to £150 for delay and distress.
The landlord’s stage 1 response was provided 3 working days after the formal complaint. As already highlighted in the report, some aspects of the landlord’s response were confusing and did not sufficiently outline the reasons for the delays.
Following the landlord’s stage 1 response, the resident outlined how she disagreed with the findings and how several of the repairs were not completed. She did this on more than one occasion and in line with its complaints policy. The complaint should have been escalated to stage 2 of its process. It is disappointing that the resident had to approach the Ombudsman, her local mayor, and her local councillor before the landlord offered a stage 2 response. By not providing the response sooner, this delayed the opportunity for it to investigate the issues fully and put things right.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it was sorry to hear the resident was not satisfied with the original responses to her complaint on 9 February 2023 and 13 March 2023. The Ombudsman finds that the correspondence on 13 March 2023 was the findings of a recent inspection and there was no indication that it was a stage 1 response. It is also unclear why the landlord would provide 2 stage 1 responses, rather than escalate the complaint to stage 2.
As previously stated, the landlord’s stage 2 response failed to address the request for compensation regarding the impact of the delays with the insulation works. It also did not provide information regarding its position on the neighbour’s tree. While its apology and offer of compensation went some way to put things right, it did not put right those aspects of the complaint. The stage 2 response was an opportunity to put right all its failures, and it is a failing that it did not do so.
The landlord’s apology was a positive step, although the landlord followed it with “However, you appear to have hampered attempts to remedy these by refusing further access to your property.” This was not appropriate as the landlord had already been delayed in its handling of the repairs prior to the resident refusing access.
It would have been more appropriate for the landlord to have acknowledged that, apologised, and outlined what it would do differently, to regain trust from the resident. In not doing so, its response lacked empathy to the resident’s situation and the impact of its failings which led her to no longer want the landlord to conduct repairs within her property.
The landlord offered £100 for time and trouble and £150 for delay and distress. It said some of the repairs went back to December 2023. This was not correct as the resident was reporting almost all of the repairs earlier than that. Taking into account the landlord’s compensation policy and the multiple repairs which were delayed or completed poorly, the compensation offered was not sufficient.
The landlord revised its offer on 14 September 2023 following further delays and in responding to issues with the tree and missing bricks in the roof space, it added a further £250. It also offered a decoration allowance of £53. It is unclear how the landlord determined that amount was reasonable. However, the total compensation offered to the resident was £553. The Ombudsman finds this was still not sufficient for all the failures identified in this case.
Overall, the Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint and the level of compensation offered. Its responses were lacking in detail and did not fully consider the impact on the resident. The landlord must pay a total of £1,153 in compensation which takes into account the following:
1. The £553 it previously offered. This sufficiently reflects the time and effort the resident spent in chasing the landlord to complete all the repairs and respond to the complaint. This also includes the £53 it offered for decoration.
2. £600 for the likely distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the landlord’s handling of all the matters. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for findings of maladministration where the landlord has made some attempt to put things right, but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by this investigation.

The landlord’s record keeping

It is clear from the communication provided that the managing agent for the landlord did not have access to records prior to its involvement. While it is unclear whether the information was lost or made inaccessible when the stock was transferred to the managing agent, it is concerning that there was no full record of the repairs in the property.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management highlights how mergers or other structural change should be an opportunity to carry out due diligence on systems. It was not appropriate for the managing agent to keep stating that some of the original works took place prior to its involvement and therefore it could not comment. It should have shown consideration to how it could access that information to fully understand the issues.
From the records which were provided, it is difficult to determine when the repairs were first reported, what action was taken in relation to them, when they were completed, and whether any follow-on works were required. Without this information it appeared that the landlord did not have oversight of the repairs in the property and multiple visits took place for the same issue. This likely caused frustration for the resident in repeatedly having to chase the landlord and be available for repeat visits.
The landlord acknowledged that many of the repairs were below standard and required further remedial work. As stated in this determination, it would have been reasonable to see the landlord show how it addressed these issues with its contractors and what steps had been taken to ensure the mistakes did not happen again. Without this information it was unclear where the accountability should be placed. Some of the issues may be attributed to poor record keeping, and therefore, the contractors may have had little understanding of the work required upon visiting the resident’s property.
Overall, the landlord’s record keeping was poor. The lack of clear and accurate records would have contributed to the lack of updates to the resident, the failure to meet its obligations, and the protracted delays in its handling of the issues. The Ombudsman has therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping. An order will be made for the landlord to review the record keeping failures identified in this case.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports regarding repairs to the loft hatch and insulation.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports regarding plastering in the main bedroom.
3. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports regarding the neighbour’s overhanging tree.
4. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak in the bathroom and the subsequent damage caused in the property.
5. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint and level of compensation offered.
6. Maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to the investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports regarding the fencing in the garden satisfactorily.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

A senior member of the landlord staff must apologise to the resident for the additional failings identified in this case.
If it has not already done so, the landlord must review the record keeping failures in this case and consider what changes it should make to improve its record keeping systems. The review must consider the lack of reports from surveys and inspections and how information is shared between the landlord, its contractors, and managing agents. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management provides useful guidance which may be of assistance with the review.
The landlord must contact the resident and outline what suitable evidence she can provide for it to review her request for reimbursing her energy bills.
The landlord must pay the resident a total of £1,153 in compensation. This is inclusive of the £553 it previously offered. Therefore, if that amount has already been paid, it must pay a further £600 to the resident. This amount must be paid directly to the resident and must not be used to offset any arrears.
The landlord is to provide evidence of its compliance with the above order within 6 weeks from the date of this report.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord should consider the repeat visits in this case and the repairs which did not meet the expected standard. It should consider whether further investigation is required with its contractors and how this impacted the landlord-tenant relationship.
The landlord should consider the resident’s reports that one of the fences is falling apart and raise any necessary repairs to assist with this.