Longhurst Group Limited (202124154)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202124154

Longhurst Group Limited

6 December 2023

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. outstanding repairs to the property.
2. a telephone call on 26 and 28 April 2022 regarding the rent account.
The landlord’s complaint handling has also been investigated.
The landlord’s knowledge and information management has also been investigated.

Background

The resident holds a tenancy with the landlord, which is a housing association, which began on 23 November 1987. The property is a 2 bedroom house.
The resident had been in contact with the Ombudsman regarding complaints she had outstanding with the landlord and requested our assistance. We contacted the landlord on 2 February 2023 and asked it to provide the resident with a complaint response regarding the outstanding issues, which included:
1. Roof disrepair.
2. Unstable back step.
3. Leaking radiators in her living room.
4. Floorboards not laid correctly.
5. Carpet not laid properly.
6. Bathroom renovation.
7. Window replacement.
8. Front door issues.
9. Landlord staff not wearing personal protective equipment (PPE).
10. Unpaid compensation from complaint regarding soil stack.
On 3 February 2022 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and informed the resident that it will be arranging for a property inspection to be carried out in order to identify any outstanding repairs. The inspection was completed on 11 February 2022.
On 11 March 2022 the landlord sent the resident its stage 1 response. Later that day the resident contacted the landlord and said that she wanted to escalate her complaint. The resident said that the landlord was aware of her outstanding issues as she had previously informed staff and filled out forms. The landlord sent the resident an acknowledgement on 17 March 2022 and confirmed that a supervisor would be in touch next week.
On 5 April 2022 the resident chased the landlord as she had not heard anything. The resident said that she wanted an update on repairs and wanted to discuss her concerns from before lockdown.
On 8 April 2022 the landlord contacted the resident and apologised for the delay in responding to her stage 2 complaint. The landlord explained that it would like to arrange a suitable time to discuss the outstanding issues. On 21 April 2022 the resident responded to the landlord’s email and said that she was dissatisfied with the way the landlord was handling her complaint.
On 28 April 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to express her dissatisfaction with the way in which the landlord had spoken to her on 26 April 2022 regarding her rent account and a subsequent arrears letter she had received. The resident said ‘’I find this a cheek and outright disgusting that you are hounding and harassing me’’ and explained that she had multiple outstanding repairs, which included:
1. A leaking roof and radiator
2. Water stains on the bedroom and downstairs ceiling
3. Draughty windows and front door
4. A condemned fire which needed to be removed
5. A back step which was a trip hazard.
On 9 May 2022 the landlord provided the resident with a stage 1 response regarding the phone calls on 26 and 28 April 2022. The landlord said that it had listened to the phone calls and that it had not upheld the complaint.
On 26 May 2022 the landlord provided a stage 2 response which said:
1. Regarding the outstanding repairs, it had:
  1. Carried out an inspection on 11 February 2022.
  2. It had identified an issue with the back step, loose floorboards, an obsolete flue pipe, roof leak, front door, windows and ill fitting carpet.
  3. All repairs, except for the back step, had been completed.
  4. And that the additional repairs identified by the inspection had not been previously reported to the landlord, and therefore no compensation was due.
2. Regarding the condemned fire:
  1. An order had been previously raised in December 2022, but had not been completed.
  2. It apologised for the delay and confirmed an appointment had been booked for 21 June 2022 to complete the works.
3. Regarding the phone call on 28 April 2022:
  1. The response provided within its stage 1 letter was satisfactory.
  2. The call was listened to and the relevant process had been followed.
On 30 May 2022 the resident confirmed that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. The resident explained that numerous repairs remain outstanding, which included a roof leak, draughty windows and front door. She also said that she does not accept the explanation that it was not aware of the repairs, nor does she accept the landlord response to the way the phone call was handled in April 2022. In order to resolve her complaint the resident said she wants the landlord to complete all outstanding repairs and to be awarded compensation.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s role is to determine complaints by reference to what is fair in all the circumstances and decide if the landlord is responsible for maladministration or service failure. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its dispute resolution principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes
2. put things right, and
3. learn from outcomes.

Scope of investigation

The resident has made a number of complaints to the landlord over a period of time, which has resulted in some issues becoming linked during the course of the resident’s contact with the landlord and the Ombudsman. Aspects of the resident’s complaint to the landlord are the subject of other Ombudsman cases, namely the issue surrounding PPE and the handling of the a central heating upgrade and subsequent workmanship.
Therefore, this investigation has focused on the remaining issues which were taken to the landlord in February 2022, which were addressed within the stage 2 response dated 26 May 2022.
The Ombudsman is also aware that the resident raised a further complaint in April 2023 regarding the landlord’s handling of a roof leak, however this does not form part of this investigation.

Policies and procedures

The landlord has provided the Ombudsman with a copy of the resident’s signed tenancy agreement; however, it does not detail the landlord or resident’s obligations.
Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 creates an implied term in tenancy agreements that a landlord must carry out certain repairs. An implied term is treated as though it is part of the contract between the landlord and tenant. The landlord must keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling house. It also puts a responsibility on a resident to report repair issues promptly so that landlord’s can take appropriate action.
The landlord’s website also confirms that the landlord is responsible for a number of components, which include:
1. The roof.
2. Outside walls, doors, window frames, sills and sash cords.
3. Inside walls, floors, major cracks to ceilings and back/front doors.
4. Pathways and steps.
The repairs policy, dated April 2019, confirms that the landlord categorises repairs as either a:
1. Responsive repair, which will be attended to within 21 days.
2. Cyclical repair.
3. Planned maintenance.
The landlord’s complaint policy states that it operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. Stage 1 complaints will be acknowledged within 2 working days and responded to within 10 working days. If a resident remains dissatisfied with the stage 1 response, they can escalate to stage 2 and responses will be provided within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will compensate for service failures at different levels, including awards of £50 to £250 which may be used for instances of service failure resulting in some impact on the complainant.

The landlord’s handling of a telephone call on 26 and 28 April 2022.

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42(o) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states:

“The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: (o) concern matters which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, do not cause significant adverse affect to the complainant”

After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(o) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the above aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
The evidence shows that the resident has been in contact with the landlord regarding her rent account on multiple occasions, and while she may have been dissatisfied with the content of the phone calls, there is no evidence to suggest that it caused any significant adverse affect to the resident in respect of her occupation of her property. Therefore, we will not investigate the handling of the calls.

The landlord’s handling of outstanding repairs to the property.

Following the resident’s contact with the Ombudsman, the landlord was informed on 2 February 2022 about a number of repairs that the resident said were outstanding.
As part of the landlord’s approach to resolve the complaint at the earliest opportunity, it appropriately arranged for a full property inspection to be carried out. The landlord reported that it had identified that the floorboards on the first floor needed securing, an obsolete pipe in the loft hatch needed to be removed and to investigate the leaking radiators and appropriately raised repairs for these jobs. However, there is no indication that there was an issue with the front door, a roof leak or the bathroom.
Within the stage 2 response, the landlord stated that there had been no service failure as the repairs which were identified in February 2022, had not previously been reported to the landlord, and therefore no compensation was due.
While the landlord states the repairs were not reported, the records indicate that following a previous complaint, the landlord provided a complaint response, dated 25 January 2021, which said ‘We discussed your door and window repair, you have asked for this to be put on hold until after lockdown. We agreed that you will let us know when you are ready for this work to be arranged with you’’. There is no evidence which shows that the resident contacted the landlord to arrange the works, and therefore they remained outstanding.
Based on the repairs log that the landlord has provided, while there are records which show that the resident reported a roof leak in October 2020, there is no indication that the resident contacted the landlord and reported any further issues with the roof, or the windows since the complaint response in 2021. There is also no evidence to show that other repairs identified by the landlord in February 2022, had been reported prior to this date, therefore it was not unreasonable for the landlord to make this assessment.
When the landlord was informed that the resident had outstanding repairs, it appropriately arranged for a full property survey and produced a detailed report regarding the resident’s property and repairs it had identified. It arranged for the works identified to be completed on 22 March 2022 and the Ombudsman is satisfied that these actions show that the landlord was acting quickly and was trying to put things right for the resident.
There are discrepancies about whether the repairs were completed, as the resident told the Ombudsman in May and June 2022 that the repairs remain outstanding, and that her roof was still leaking. However, there is evidence that shows that the landlord spoke to the resident on 21 April 2022, where she confirmed that all repairs were completed, except for the external step.
There is indication that the landlord explained its repair obligations to the resident and this suggests that the resident wanted the landlord to repair or replace a component within her home, which the landlord was not obligated to complete. This would not be unreasonable, but there is no evidence to show how or what it communicated to the resident and what this related too.
Within the stage 2 response the landlord did acknowledge that it failed to complete a repair, raised in December 2020, to take out the condemned fire and brick up the area. It apologised and said that it had booked an appointment for 21 June 2022, however it did not provide any information as to why it was not completed. The landlord’s decision to not offer compensation in relation to this aspect could be reasonable, given that it would not have impacted the resident’s enjoyment of her home.
As detailed, it was not unreasonable for the landlord to determine that it was not aware of the repairs which had been identified, given that there is no evidence that this had been reported. Although a roof leak was reported in October 2020, had the resident been experiencing an issues, the Ombudsman would have expected to see records to reflect that the resident informed the landlord. The resident had been in regular contact with the landlord, and there is no evidence to show that the resident raised this, or the other repairs. Furthermore, the inspection did not identify any evidence of water penetration within the front bedroom.
In conclusion, when the Ombudsman contacted the landlord and informed it about outstanding repairs, it appropriately arranged for a full property inspection to be carried out. There is evidence which shows that the landlord appropriately raised repairs, and followed this up to check on the progress of the works in April 2022.
It is recommended at the end of this report that the landlord write to the resident and clearly explain any repairs which do not fall under the landlord’s obligations and the reasons why.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

Based on the information provided, the landlord was first informed about the resident’s complaint regarding outstanding repairs when the Ombudsman contacted it on 2 February 2022. The Ombudsman’s letter gave the landlord clear indication about what the resident was dissatisfied with.
The landlord appropriately tried to contact the resident to acknowledge her complaint, on numerous occasions on 3 and 4 February 2022. As it was unable to contact the resident by phone, it sent the resident an email informing her of the steps it would be taking in order to try and resolve her complaint.
It also followed up with an acknowledgement letter which confirmed the complaint issues and said it would respond within 20 working days. It is not clear why the acknowledgment quoted this timescale, as it was not in line with its own complaints policy.
Records show that the landlord provided the resident with a stage 1 response on 11 March 2022, which was outside of the 20 working day timescale, it had quoted. However, the Ombudsman has seen evidence which shows that the complaint handler was actively seeking information from the relevant internal department and was keeping the resident informed of the delay. The Ombudsman is therefore satisfied that the delay was reasonable.
The landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with a copy of the stage 1 response, which implies an issue with record keeping and therefore a recommendation has been made at the end of the report.
The resident escalated her complaint later that day and confirmed that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. However, as the landlord did not acknowledge the email, the resident chased a response on 16 March 2022. The landlord acknowledged this on 17 March 2022 and said it would be in touch in the next week.
There is no evidence to show that the landlord contacted the resident to acknowledge her stage 2 escalation, and on 5 and 8 April 2022 she chased the landlord again for a response to her complaint and the outstanding repairs.
The landlord emailed the resident on 8 April 2022 and apologised for the delay, it also asked the resident if it could book a suitable time to discuss the complaint further. It was not until 21 April 2022 that the resident responded and informed the landlord that she was unhappy as no-one ever contacted her when they said they would.
While the resident raised a further complaint on 28 April regarding the phone call on 26 April 2022, which the landlord provided a further stage 1 response on 9 May 2022. There is no indication to show that it contacted the resident, about the outstanding repairs, until it provided a stage 2 response on 26 May 2022.
Although the landlord’s decision to combine the 2 previous stage 1 responses into 1 stage 2 response, there is no evidence to show that it informed the resident of this, nor did it acknowledge the delay the resident experienced in receiving the final response.
Furthermore, based on the stage 2 response, there is no indication that the landlord addressed the resident’s full complaint. The resident said that a number of repairs remained outstanding, which based on the resident’s initial complaint to the landlord, included issues with a roof leak, draughty windows and issues with her front door. The landlord’s final response does not address these issues, nor does it provide a full investigation into to the resident’s claims that she had previously reported these issues.
The landlord’s failure to try to establish the reasons for the resident’s escalation request meant that the landlord missed a vital opportunity to try and rebuild the landlord-tenant relationship. The resident had already expressed her distress regarding the length of time the landlord had taken to respond to the stage 2 escalation, and its failure to fully address the resident’s complaint in line with timescales set within its policy, further exacerbated this. This amounts to maladministration and will attract a level of compensation.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that where there are instances of service failure, which has resulted in some impact on the complainant, awards of £50 to £250 are recommended. The Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies also states that where the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and/or has made no attempt to put things right, then amounts above £100 are recommended.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord had to respond to multiple strands of the resident’s complaint but would expect it to have a robust system in place to effectively deal with all dissatisfaction raised by a resident in line with its own timescales, as set in its policy. Furthermore, the Ombudsman would also expect the landlord to ensure it communicates effectively with the resident about all aspects of the resident’s complaint and provide her with a detailed response which addresses all aspects. This did not happen and therefore an order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident £200 compensation.
In summary, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the residents complaint as it failed to provide a stage 2 response within the timeframe set in its policy. It also failed to address the resident’s complaint in full and provide a comprehensive investigation.

The landlord’s knowledge and information management.

As outlined above, it is concerning that although the landlord has provided the Ombudsman with some repair records and copies of internal emails, it has been unable to provide this Service with a copy of its stage 1 response or full details of what repairs were completed and when.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management states that “good knowledge and information management is crucial to any organisation’s ability to perform and achieve its mission…If information is not created correctly, it has less integrity and cannot be relied on. This can be either a complete absence of information, or inaccurate and partial information… The failings to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress. Incorrect information can also cause real detriment…[and] contribute to an increased risk to a resident’s health and safety…[Vulnerabilities] may also mean that reasonable adjustments are appropriate to actively prevent harm or distress.”
The spotlight report therefore recommends that landlords take steps to improve their knowledge and information management, including by implementing a strategy for this, benchmarking against other organisations’ good practice, reviewing internal guidance around recording vulnerabilities, and conducting appropriate staff training. However, it is of concern that there is no indication that the landlord has taken such steps to do so in light of its poor record keeping in the resident’s case, as outlined above.
The landlord has provided a number of basic records but has not been able to provide full details of when how it was notified of repairs, or what happened when the repair was attended to. It is therefore unable to evidence what steps it has taken when dealing with the resident’s repairs, nor is it able to evidence its final position. This results in maladministration and the landlord has also been recommended below to take steps to learn from the outcome of the resident’s case by reviewing its record keeping practices in relation to inspections, and repairs including in light of the findings of this report and the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of outstanding repairs at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 42(o) of the Scheme, there was no significant adverse effect caused to the resident in the landlord’s handling of a telephone call on 26 and 28 April 2022.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in regard to the landlord’s knowledge and information management.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £200 within 4 weeks of the date of this report for the failures associated with the complaint handling.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Review its record keeping practices in relation to inspections, repairs and residents’ vulnerabilities, including in light of the findings of this report and the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management.
2. Review its staff’s training needs with regard to record keeping, complaint handling and remedies, including in light of the findings of this report, the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, and our remedies guidance.
3. Share the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code with its staff members who deal with complaints in order to ensure that complaints are responded to in line with best practice.
It is also recommended that the landlord write to the resident and detail its position on any repair or remedial works that the resident has requested. The letter should clearly explain any repairs which do not fall under the landlord’s obligations and the reasons why.