Longhurst Group Limited (202227002)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202227002

Longhurst Group Limited

6 March 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of a toilet leak and a request for a deep clean.
2. The landlord’s handling of various repairs.
The Ombudsman has also considered:
1. The landlord’s record keeping.
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The landlord states that the resident is known to have a mental health diagnosis but the details were unknown.
The complaint concerns repairs required to an internal toilet. It is understood that the property had a second toilet, but this toilet was unusable at the time of the complaint.
The resident made a complaint on 23 September 2022, about delays resolving issues with a blocked toilet, which required the resident and her family to be decanted temporarily. The resident said that this had caused upset, inconvenience, and loss of earnings. The resident said that she was still waiting for the landlord to deep clean the bathroom.
The landlord tried to resolve the matter informally. It apologised, offered to waive recharges in respect of the blocked toilet, and offered a £25 gift card in recognition of inconvenience caused. As the resident remained dissatisfied with the proposed remedy, the landlord logged the matter as a stage 1 complaint. The landlord committed to reviewing its handling of the deep clean and workmanship of the repairs. In coming to a decision, the resident asked the landlord to bear in mind the cramped conditions that she and her family had endured while staying at the hotel. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 25 September 2022.
The resident attended the landlord’s area office on 3 October 2022, expressing concern about the landlord’s handling of other repairs. This included repairs to broken floorboards, broken guttering, and repairs needed to remedy a “water hammer” noise. The Ombudsman understands that a water hammer, is the sound that pipes emit when moving water suddenly comes to a stop. The resident told the landlord that there had been 2 occasions of non-attendance by its cleaning contractor, the new toilet had been fitted poorly, and the toilet had developed a leak.
The landlord told the resident on 7 October 2022 and 21 October 2022, that it needed more time to investigate the complaint. To remedy the complaint, the resident said she wanted her bathroom upgraded, and compensation in the region of £400 to £500.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 28 October 2022. The landlord said that it had investigated its handling of repairs to a blocked toilet and a deep clean. It:
1. Apologised for not completing repairs to the toilet as an emergency, for having to move the resident into a hotel for 2 nights, and for the deep clean not being completed within expected timescales.
2. Said it inspected the property on 14 October 2022, following which it arranged for guttering to be replaced.
3. While it was aware of a subsequent leak from the new toilet, this had been fixed.
4. To remedy the complaint, the landlord offered an apology and £100 compensation in recognition of upheaval and distress. It said that it would not recharge the resident for the replacement of the toilet or for its call out charges. It did not agree to replace the bathroom.
The resident emailed the landlord on 30 October 2022, asking the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2. The resident said that the landlord had not fully responded to the complaint, as it had not addressed all of her concerns about outstanding repairs. It had also failed to meet with her to agree how the repairs would be resolved. On 31 October 2022, the resident added:
1. That she was frustrated with the standard of its repairs service since its merger. She listed multiple repairs that had not been resolved despite being inspected.
2. She was dissatisfied with the landlord’s call waiting times, that repairs appointments were often not kept, and that operatives would arrive late or poorly equipped. The resident said that she and her partner had lost wages waiting in for contractors and had spent many hours trying to speak to people and writing emails.
3. She blamed its contractor for her and her family having to go into a hotel and for the toilet having to be replaced. The room in the hotel was not large enough for the size of the resident’s family. The hotel charged her £25 for her dog.
4. The deep clean was not completed and its cleaning contractor did not attend in a timely fashion. When its contractor did attend, it only carried out a general clean.
5. The new toilet was not fitted to the wall correctly, but the landlord had taken no remedial action.
6. The resident wanted compensation for stress, anxiety, and mental anguish. She listed multiple repairs that were outstanding, which were not considered as part of the landlord’s stage 1 investigation.
In its stage 2 response on 3 February 2023, the landlord said that it had investigated its handling of repairs required to unblock the toilet and deep clean the bathroom. It had also investigated its handling of repairs raised by the resident prior to issue of its stage 1 complaint. It clarified that it had not investigated the resident’s dissatisfaction about repairs raised after issue of its stage 1 response but it provided updates. The landlord:
1. Apologised for the time taken to investigate the complaint. It said that it was sorry for the upset, distress and inconvenience caused.
2. Recognised that it had failed to take ownership of the repairs and ensure they were carried out in a timely manner and to a high standard. It had failed to keep the resident updated about the progress of her repairs.
3. Accepted that the level of service received was unacceptable, fell below its expectations, and it needed to improve its communications with the resident.
4. Said to remedy the complaint, its complaints team would monitor the repairs to the floorboard and monitor the “modern damp survey”. It offered £700 in compensation. This compensation was broken down as follows:
  1. £100 awarded for services failure identified at stage 1.
  2. £150 for its late response at stage 2
  3. £100 in recognition of the time taken for repairs to be carried out.
  4. £150 for its failure to deep clean and the resident having to do this.
  5. £200 in recognition of inconvenience and stress caused, as well as the impact on mental health and wellbeing.
5. In accordance with its compensation policy, it was unable to award compensation for time off work for the initial blockage, as this was caused by items placed into the system. It had not awarded compensation for guttering repairs, as these were completed within expected timescales. It had not awarded compensation for other repairs that were not considered as part of the complaint. It had already paid costs and expenses related to the decant.
The resident has since told the Ombudsman that repairs to the toilet, guttering, floorboards had been completed, and the water hammer noise had been resolved. However, she remained dissatisfied because the repairs were substandard and further issues had arisen. The resident remained unhappy with the length of time that the landlord had taken to complete repairs. She said that she was caused mental anxiety and financial hardship by repeatedly having to take time off work for failed or missed appointments.
While this report refers to the landlord’s response to dissatisfaction raised by the resident, it should be noted that throughout the complaint, the landlord was also responding to dissatisfaction raised by the resident’s partner. For the purposes of this report, the resident and her partner are interchangeably referred to as “the resident”.

Scope of the Investigation.

This investigation focuses on the landlord’s handling of repairs considered by the landlord at stage 1 and stage 2 of its internal complaint process. The Ombudsman has not considered the landlord’s handling of repairs that were raised by the resident following issue of the landlord’s stage 1 response, or matters that have been raised by the resident in subsequent court proceedings.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s obligations

The landlord had a statutory obligation under section 11 Landlord and Tenant Action 1985, to keep any installations for the supply of power, heating, and water, in working order. This included toilets and water pipes. The landlord was obliged to carry out repairs within a reasonable timeframe, and to a standard that would make the property fit for occupation. The landlord was not obliged to replace any item where it was possible to carry out a repair. It was not required to carry out repairs where a resident had failed to use the property in a tenant like manner. It was not required to improve installations unless required to do so by law.
The landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with a complete copy of its tenancy agreement, showing the tenancy conditions. However, according to court papers submitted to the county court by the resident’s solicitor, the landlord had a contractual responsibility to keep the property in good repair. The Ombudsman notes that this included keeping the floors, toilets, and gutters in working order.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy sets out its expected timescales for completing repairs. The landlord aims to complete emergency repairs within 4 hours to make safe. It will complete urgent repairs within 7 calendar days and routine repairs in 28 calendar days. It will carry out rechargeable repairs in exceptional circumstances, where there is a need to protect the property from further damage or where there may be a compliance risk.
According to the landlord’s decant policy, where a resident is placed into a hotel, it will pay up to a limit of £25 per day, per person, to cover breakfast, lunch, and dinner. The customer will pay “up front” and will claim expenses back with receipts. Any exceptional costs such as travel will be considered on an individual basis.
Although the landlord did not have a compensation policy at the time of the initial complaint, it did have a compensation policy at the time it issued its stage 2 response. The compensation policy states that it will consider awarding compensation where there had been service failure. In determining the level of compensation offered, it will consider whether any statutory payments are due, quantifiable losses, distress and inconvenience caused, and time and trouble. It will not compensate for loss of earnings in the event of missed appointments.

The landlord’s handling of a toilet leak and a request for a deep clean.

Upon the resident raising a report about the blocked toilet, the landlord raised an emergency works order. It has not been possible to determine from the evidence seen if its contractor attended in 4 hours, but the evidence shows that its contractor did attend on the same day.
On investigation, the landlord’s contractor found the blockage was caused by items that should not have been flushed down the toilet. When its contractor was unable to fully unblock the toilet, it said that it would return and investigate the blockage further. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman would have expected any follow-on appointment to have been scheduled expediently. It was unreasonable that the resident was left uncertain as to when she might expect the contractor to return.
The resident reported a further blockage in the toilet 2 days later. The landlord said that it would arrange another emergency call out, which was in line with its repairs policy. The landlord’s records indicate that the resident had to go to work but indicated that she would call back later. When she called back, she said that foul water was now flowing out of the toilet. The resident claims that she made 2 emergency appointments on this day, but no one turned up. The Ombudsman has not been able to verify this from the evidence seen. However, the landlord’s decision to decant the resident was reasonable as it was unlikely to have been able to resolve the blockage that evening and the resident did not have another working toilet.
It was unfortunate that there was some misunderstanding over the booking by the hotel, which resulted in the resident having to pay an additional charge for her dog. The evidence shows that the landlord specifically booked a room for the resident, her family, and their dog. It is noted that the landlord reimbursed the resident and paid her travel expenses, which was in line with the decant policy. However, it has not been possible to determine from the evidence seen, whether the resident’s food expenses were covered by the hotel booking.
It is understandable that a decant was likely to have caused the resident and her family some inconvenience. The Ombudsman is unable to determine whether the size of the hotel room was adequate for the size of the family. However, the evidence shows that the landlord made the booking based on the composition of the family. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the resident raised issue about the size of the room at the time.
It is understood that the resident had time off work to provide access to the landlord’s contractor to complete works to the toilet. The resident’s frustration was understandable when its contractor arrived late afternoon on 22 September 2022, without a toilet, and informed her that works could not be completed until the following day. This resulted in financial hardship for the resident due to loss of earnings, which may have been avoided had repairs been better organised.
However, the landlord did complete works to the toilet within 6 calendar days of the date of the initial blockage, which was 4 calendar days from the date of the second blockage. While it was in everyone’s interest to minimise the amount of time that the resident was required to stay in temporary accommodation, a full repair of the toilet was completed within expected timescales under the landlord’s repairs policy.
It was unreasonable that the landlord did not complete the deep clean in a timelier manner, having committed to this. It was understandable that the resident wanted the toilet repair completed before the bathroom was cleaned. To avoid misunderstanding, the resident should have raised this as a concern with the landlord before she sent its cleaning contractor away. However, equally, if the landlord had adequate oversight over its contractor, it would not have prematurely closed the works order for the deep clean. While the landlord’s repairs contractor indicated that it had left the bathroom clean, the resident remained concerned that the bathroom was not sanitary. This resulted in the resident cleaning the bathroom herself.
After the resident told the landlord on 4 October 2022, that it had still not completed a deep clean of the bathroom, the landlord apologised and raised another works order. While its cleaning contractor cleaned the bathroom on 7 October 2022, the resident claims that this was not a deep clean as had been promised.
After the landlord fitted the new toilet, the resident complained about its contractor’s workmanship. The resident said that the toilet did not fit flush to the wall, it was held on by 2 screws, and there was a new leak on the cistern. The resident asked the landlord to carry out an inspection. It was appropriate that the landlord raised an emergency works order to stop the leak. The landlord’s plumber attended on the same day, replacing the washers, and tightening the screws. However, it is understood that the landlord’s plumber did not attend within 4 hours of the resident’s report, in accordance with its repair’s policy. The landlord’s repair notes indicate that its plumber was delayed at a previous job. The resident should have been informed that its contractor would be late. The resident was caused additional time and trouble seeking updates from the landlord.
The landlord post inspected the toilet on 14 October 2022, which was appropriate in view of the resident’s concerns. The landlord has not provided a copy of its inspection notes and it has not been possible to determine the outcome of the inspection from the evidence seen. However, when the landlord carried out a review of its complaint handling in May 2023, it noted that the toilet was not leaking at the point of its complaint resolution and commented that subsequent issues with the toilet were treated as a new repair. The landlord’s position was reasonable.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord apologised for identified failures in its handling of repairs to the toilet and requests for a deep clean. The landlord recognised the impact on the resident and offered compensation. It did not dispute that it had failed to take ownership of repairs to unblock the toilet and complete the deep clean, which would have ensured that these jobs were completed in a timelier manner. The landlord acted fairly by waiving any recharges associated with repairing the blocked toilet. It recognised that it had not carried out repairs to a high standard. It accepted that it had failed to keep the resident updated about the progress of repairs and that it needed to improve its communication.
The Ombudsman would have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the toilet leak and requests for a deep clean, had it not been for the landlord acknowledging its failings prior to the Ombudsman’s formal investigation and taking steps to put things right. The landlord’s offer of compensation was in line with its own compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. Accordingly, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress.

The landlord’s handling of various repairs.

The resident told the landlord on 3 October 2022, that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of repairs to fix broken floorboards, guttering, and a water hammer noise in the pipes. For ease of reading, the landlord’s handling of each repair is considered under its own subheading.

Floorboards

The resident told the landlord on 3 October 2022, that it needed to carry out repairs to floorboards in the property, broken by its heating engineer. This had left a hole in the floor, which was a health and safety issue.
It is unclear from the landlord’s repair notes when an order was raised to inspect the broken floorboards. However, its contact notes from 4 October 2022 indicate that its contractor had been in touch with the resident about this. On the same day, the landlord told the resident that it would attend to the floorboards on 23 November 2022. The resident expressed concern that the repairs were not being treated as an emergency. The landlord said that it would try to attend sooner if it could. It is noted that the landlord’s expected completion date significantly exceeded the timescales set out under the landlord’s repairs policy. In view of the potential risk of tripping or falling, it was inappropriate that the landlord did not carry out a “make safe” repair as an interim measure.
The resident told the landlord on 31 October 2022, that all of the floorboards in the property were rotten. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord responded. After no attendance by its contractor on 23 November 2022, the resident contacted the landlord again. The resident explained that the floorboards were getting worse. It is unclear from the evidence seen how the landlord responded. The resident later notified the landlord on 3 January 2023, that repairs to the floorboards remained outstanding. The landlord’s communications were poor. During this time, the resident was left uncertain of when the matter would be resolved. This was unreasonable.
On 11 January 2023, the landlord raised a new works order to replace 3 floorboards on the upstairs landing, with a target completion date of 8 February 2023. The Ombudsman does not find fault that the landlord arranged these works for 15 February 2023, since the landlord was endeavouring to minimise further inconvenience to the resident by arranging several repairs for the same date.
It is unclear from the evidence seen why the floorboards were not replaced on 15 February 2023, and were rescheduled for 17 March 2023. Although it is noted that the repairs were not completed until 30 March 2023, it is understood that the appointment for 17 March 2023 was moved at the resident’s request. The resident has told the Ombudsman that despite repairs being carried out to the floorboards, they still creak and move when walked on.
Overall, it took the landlord nearly 6 months to repairs the floorboards, which significantly exceeded expectations under its repairs policy. This caused inconvenience and led to increased time and trouble for the resident progressing the matter to completion. The resident continued to worry that her children would trip and fall over the hole.

Guttering

The resident told the landlord on 3 October 2022, that the guttering on the property was broken when it was carrying out external decorations to the property. The guttering was catching on the neighbouring property, and water was flowing down the house. The landlord raised a works order on the same date, with a target completion of 31 October 2022. This indicates that the landlord classified the repair as routine works, which was in line with its repairs policy.
The landlord’s repairs records show that the landlord completed necessary works by reattaching the guttering on 2 November 2022. Although the job was completed 2 days outside of expected repair timescales under its policy, such delay was unlikely to have caused the resident significant impact.

Water hammer noise

The resident told the landlord on 3 October 2022, that ever since the toilet had been replaced there had been a loud water hammer noise. Although the resident reported this as an issue several times, it is unclear from the evidence seen when the landlord raised an inspection. However, the landlord told the resident on 13 January 2023, that it had booked an appointment for 15 February 2023.
After the landlord attempted to resolve the water hammer on 15 February 2023, the resident reported that the noise had not stopped. The Ombudsman has not seen a copy of the landlord’s contact notes from that time but understands that the landlord’s surveyor told the resident that it was unable to carry out further works to stop the water hammer, without causing further damage to the property. While the landlord was entitled to rely on the expertise of its surveyor, on this occasion the surveyor’s diagnosis was wrong. The resident and her family continued to be disturbed by the noise of the water hammer, until a correct diagnosis was made and additional works were completed.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the water hammer was inadequate. The landlord’s communications with the resident concerning this were poor. The resident was caused continued inconvenience, as well as increased time and trouble progressing the matter to completion.

The Ombudsman’s overall assessment of the landlord’s handling of repairs to the floorboards, guttering and water hammer.

It is not in dispute that the landlord did not complete repairs to floorboards and resolve issues with the water hammer in a timelier manner. The landlord accepted that it had failed to provide updates and that it needed to improve its communications with the resident. However, it was several months after issue of its stage 2 response before works to the floorboards were completed. It did not satisfactorily resolve the issue with the water hammer during its complaint process. The resident was likely to have been caused continued distress, inconvenience, and uncertainty.
The Ombudsman would have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of various repairs, had the landlord not already identified, acknowledged, and tried to put things right, prior to the Ombudsman’s investigation starting. The landlord’s offer of compensation was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. Accordingly, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress.

The landlord’s record keeping

The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contact and evidence of its actions relating to each casefile, which can be provided to the Ombudsman upon request. Landlords who fail to create and record information accurately, risk missing opportunities to identify its actions were wrong or inadequate and contribute to inadequate communication and redress.
While the Ombudsman was able to determine this case based on the evidence provided, there were noticeable gaps and omissions in the landlord’s records, as highlighted throughout this report. The landlord either did not keep a record of its actions, or it did not provide all of the evidence it held to the Ombudsman.
Although some minor failings in the landlord’s record keeping have been identified, it has not possible to determine based on fact, that any issues with the landlord’s record keeping caused detriment to the resident. Therefore, the Ombudsman makes a finding of no maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping. However, the landlord should consider how it handles future requests for information from the Ombudsman and how it satisfies itself that any information that it does provide, adequately evidences the landlord’s actions. A recommendation is made later in this respect.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy states that where possible, and in agreement with the resident, it will encourage informal and early resolution of concerns. Where early resolution is not appropriate or is not agreed by the resident, the landlord has a 2-stage formal complaint policy.
The landlord seeks to acknowledge stage 1 complaints in 5 working days and issue a full response in 10 working days. It aims to respond to stage 2 complaints in 20 working days. In both cases, if an extension is required, this should not exceed a further 10 working days. Any new complaints or issues not raised during the initial complaint will be dealt with separately and are not grounds for review.
It is not in dispute that there were delays investigating the resident’s complaint at stage 1 and stage 2 of the landlord’s internal complaint process. The landlord recognised that this had had a significant impact on the resident, who often attended its area office looking for updates.
The landlord also recognised, that failures in its services led to an unreasonable level of involvement from the resident. It accepted that the resident had repeatedly chased it to obtain updates and correct mistakes. It recognised that there was an inadequate level of oversight over its contractor and the actions of its staff. Since it was unable to put the resident back into the position that she would have been in had there been no service failure, the landlord offered compensation which was in line with its compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. This shows that the landlord was taking responsibility for its mistakes and was trying to put things right.
While the resident may have felt that a bathroom upgrade was a suitable remedy for the distress she had been caused, in accordance with Section 11 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord was under no statutory obligation to replace or upgrade the bathroom. If the resident feels that the landlord did not upgrade the bathroom under its planned maintenance programme and it ought to have done, the resident is entitled to raise a new complaint with the landlord about this.
The landlord was under no obligation under its compensation policy to compensate the resident for her loss of earnings. However, it could have considered offering £10 per appointment, on occasions where it was unable to keep an appointment and advance warnings were not given. Since the resident made reference to several occasions when this could have applied, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have taken this into account when considering making its final offer of compensation. Having said this, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the overall level of compensation offered by the landlord reflected the level of detriment described by the resident.
The Ombudsman makes some final observations concerning the landlord’s complaint handling. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord provided an update concerning issues that were not investigated at stage 1. It would have been clearer for the resident, had the landlord provided a separate update in relation to any matter that was not investigated as part of its stage 1 complaint. It should have told the resident that if she remained dissatisfied following the landlord’s update and proposed next steps, that she could have raised a new stage 1 complaint.
After making a commitment for its complaints team to monitor completion of works to the floorboards and the damp survey, the Ombudsman has seen little evidence that this happened. The outstanding actions should have been tracked and actioned expeditiously, with regular updates provided to the resident.
The evidence shows that the landlord later reflected on its complaint handling and provided additional training to its staff. In doing so it claims to have addressed the issues identified at paragraph 53 and 54 above. This is further evidence of the landlord learning from its mistakes
In summary, the landlord has not disputed that there were failings in it its complaint handling, for which it apologised. The landlord has showed evidence that it was learning from the resident’s complaint and was trying to put things right. The landlord made an offer of compensation, which was proportionate to the failings identified by the Ombudsman.
Overall, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in:
1. the landlord’s handling of a toilet leak and a request for a deep clean.
2. the landlord’s handling of various repairs.
3. the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Recommendations

The landlord should reoffer the £700 compensation it previously offered to the resident if it has not already paid it, in recognition of the failings it itself had identified.
The landlord should consider how it handles requests for information from the Ombudsman and how it satisfies itself that any information it provides adequately evidences the landlord’s actions. The landlord may find it helpful to refer to the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management.
The landlord should endeavour to arrange a further inspection of the floorboards, in view of the resident’s concerns that the floorboards are still creaking. Thereafter, the landlord should act on its own observations as may be necessary.
The landlord should write to the Ombudsman with its intentions in regard to these recommendations within 4 weeks from the date of this report.