Magna Housing Limited (202327003)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202327003

Magna Housing Limited

30 June 2025


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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the driveway.
  2. We have also considered the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident and his wife are assured tenants of the landlord who is a housing association. The property is a 2-bedroom bungalow within a sheltered housing complex and has a concrete driveway. The landlord has a record of mental and physical health issues for both the resident and his wife.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 14 September 2022 as he was unhappy of the quality of the driveway (concreted some time in 2021). On 20 September 2022 the resident reported to the landlord a worker had intimidated him in May 2022. The landlord’s file shows an email on 21 September 2022 where it discussed internally there was no intimidation at any visit.
  3. The landlord attended on 14 October 2022 and advised the resident no work was required to the driveway. The resident complained on 17 November 2022 that the landlord had told him no repairs were required to the driveway, but he disagreed. Internal emails on 21 and 22 November 2022 shows the landlord’s complaints team investigating the complaint. However, there is no evidence of a response being sent at the time.
  4. On 14 August 2023 the resident reported that his driveway was deteriorating causing damage to his car tyres. The landlord attended 8 days later and identified “slight deterioration” of the concrete. It advised the concrete was not of the best standard however there was no trip hazard, health and safety concerns or risk of any damage.
  5. The Ombudsman asked the landlord on 17 November 2023 to provide a response to the resident about his complaint. The landlord’s stage 1 response on 24 November 2023 acknowledged the resident raised a service request about his driveway in September 2022, and then in August 2023. It told the resident it had inspected the driveway in 2022, identifying no work required. It acknowledged it had attended again on 22 August 2023, where no further deterioration was found, but issues with the concrete standard were raised. The landlord advised it did not uphold the complaint but it would make an appointment for 6 months’ time to reinspect the concrete and ensure this did not pose a health and safety risk.
  6. On 14 February 2024 the landlord inspected the driveway and noted no further deterioration. The resident escalated his complaint that day and stated he had fell on the driveway and had gone to the doctors. He highlighted he felt due to his mental and physical conditions the workers who had installed the drive (in 2021) sabotaged the repair. He raised concerns about the surveyor’s conduct and asked the landlord not to send it again. He wanted the driveway fixed immediately as a resolution.
  7. This Service contacted the landlord on 29 February 2024 following the resident’s reports to us of no response from the landlord. We further chased a stage 2 response on 13 May 2024.
  8. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 17 May 2024 upholding the stage 1 decision. It advised it had the inspection reports reviewed and relied on that for its decision. The landlord stated it only had 1 surveyor but could arrange a video inspection next time in relation to the resident’s request not to have the same surveyor attend again. The landlord advised further complaints raised to the Ombudsman about staff members and falling on the driveway would be treated as a separate complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident stated within his complaint to us and the landlord he had fallen on the driveway. Whilst the Ombudsman is an alternative to the courts, we are unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can we calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.
  2. In his submissions to the Ombudsman and as seen in his escalation request, the resident referred to a number of new issues which do not relate to the complaint under investigation, such as an incident with a fall and staff conduct. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised in the resident’s original formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. The landlord acknowledged these issues were reported and raised during the resident’s escalation and advised in its stage 2 response that it would look at the resident’s new issues separately but would need more information. If the resident wants to pursue those concerns with us, he should initially exhaust the landlord’s complaint process.

Legal and policy framework

  1. The landlord’s repair policy states it will attend to a routine repair within 28 days and will respond within 5 days to the service request.
  2. The Tenancy agreement states it is the landlord’s responsibility to “keep good” the entrances to the property, including pathways.

Driveway repairs

  1. The landlord’s file shows the resident made a service request on 14 September 2022 as he was unhappy his driveway was deteriorating. Although we do not know when the landlord telephoned the resident, we have seen an email of 20 September 2022 confirming a phone call, which shows the landlord was responsive and spoke to the resident within 5 working days of his reports.
  2. In the email the landlord stated it had arranged an inspection of the driveway. The landlord also explored the resident’s reports that its staff had intimidated him in May. No year was given and the landlord explained it had no record of it attending in May 2022.
  3. The landlord’s internal correspondence on 21 September 2022 shows that it had investigated the resident’s concerns and had spoken to its staff to ensure there had been no intimidation. It is noted that its staff had stated there was a neighbours dispute and the resident was unhappy the staff were doing work for his neighbour. The landlord appropriately investigated the resident’s concerns about staff comments and further took steps to inspect the driveway on 14 October 2022. This inspection found no issues with the driveway and as such it was appropriate for the landlord to not take any action in response.
  4. On 14 August 2023 the resident made another service request about the driveway deteriorating and the landlord attended 8 days later (22 August 2023). The landlord appropriately responded to both service requests and within its own repair policy of 28 days. Furthermore it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the findings of specialist inspections. It was also appropriate for the landlord to advise the resident of the findings and that the concrete was not of the best standard (identified during the second inspection). It was also appropriate for the landlord to assess the risk and advise the resident there was no trip hazard, health and safety concerns and the issue would not damage car tyres.
  5. Furthermore, the landlord conducted another inspection as agreed in its stage 1 response on 23 November 2023. On 14 February 2024 the landlord inspected the resident’s driveway again. This was within 6 months as promised at stage 1. It was reasonable to ensure that there was no further deterioration or potential hazards to the vulnerable household. This demonstrated that the landlord considered potential risk and took appropriate steps to mitigate it by monitoring the situation.
  6. It was further appropriate for the landlord in its stage 2 response to review the inspection reports and rely on them when making a decision. It also explained why it was unable to replace the surveyor and suggested an appropriate way forward by video inspection. From the evidence provided the landlord acted appropriately to the resident’s reports of a defective driveway, it kept the resident informed of its decision and was transparent and clear in managing his expectations. Therefore we have found no failure in its response to the resident’s concerns about the driveway.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s file shows the resident made his complaint on 17 November 2022. We have seen internal emails from the landlord’s complaints manager requesting information from staff on 21 and 22 November 2022. However, there is no evidence it communicated with the resident again that year any outcome or that it continued its investigation. This was inappropriate and not in line with the landlord’s own policy and the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code (the Code) of acknowledging the complaint within 5 days and providing a response within 10 days at stage 1.
  2. The landlord’s file shows an internal email trail on 6 March 2023 asking a colleague to contact the resident about the driveway complaint. There is however nothing in the file to say what prompted this 4 month after the complaint was made. The email trail noted the landlord considered there had been no previous complaints so it was to be marked as a stage 1 complaint. This was inappropriate that the landlord did not identify the resident had raised the complaint in 2022.
  3. The landlord’s lack of response caused the resident to contact the Service where we requested the landlord provide the resident with its complaint response by 28 November 2023.
  4. The landlord’s stage 1 response of 24 November 2023 highlighted the resident had first raised the issue with the driveway in October 2022. It did not however acknowledge the resident’s complaint of 17 November 2022 which was inappropriate. As such the landlord missed an opportunity to take learning and put things right during its complaint’s process. The considerable delay of over a year and the lack of explanation or apology was unreasonable and not in line with the Code. Given his vulnerabilities, these failures understandably caused additional frustration to the resident.
  5. The landlord’s file shows the resident escalated the complaint by email on 14 February 2024 advising further to the initial complaint he had now fallen on the driveway. There is no record of any timely response which again was inappropriate.
  6. The landlord’s failure to act in line with its complaint policy resulted in the resident having to approach the Service for assistance to escalate his complaint. This was inappropriate and caused delays in the landlord providing its stage 2 response and the resident’s ability to bring the complaint to the Service in a timely manner.
  7. The landlord failed to provide a stage 2 response to the resident on the Ombudsman’s first request of 29 February 2024 which resulted in a second request on 13 May 2024. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 17 May 2024 which was 65 working days from the initial escalation and 45 days over the landlord’s policy of 20 days. In its responses it failed to acknowledge its delays, provide any explanation or put things right.
  8. The landlord’s delays of over 13 months for the complaint process to complete were excessive. Additionally, it failed to acknowledge its failures and take learning or put things right. As such, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident £250 for his time and trouble. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for maladministration where the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and has made no attempt to put things right.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of repairs to the driveway.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1.   Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. Provide the resident with a written apology for its complaint handling failures.
    2. Pay the resident a total of £250 compensation for the time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
  2.    Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. Review its complaint handling failures to identify what went wrong and what it will do differently in future.
    2. Arrange for relevant staff members to complete the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code e-learning module on the learning hub in the Ombudsman’s Centre for learning.

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to confirm compliance with the above orders within their respective timeframes.